Considering system change from Canon to Leica. Need help :)

[CharlesL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The image quality of the new Fuji X-Pro 2 is extraordinary, a big leap forward from the fine IQ of previous Fuji X cameras. You should investigate it and look at sample photos (as always, judge by the best you see, not the average). I use it with a Summarit 35/2.5 (the APS-C crop factor at play), among other lenses.

 

Welcome to the Exhibition (sample)

 

[FeralCoton]

I changed. But still haven't sold my 5d iii. Though I haven't used it in a year, it seems odd to let it go. What if there is a macro shot? I mean, there hasn't been. But what if? It takes time to adjust to rangefinder, but once you get sort of adjusted it is fun. Canon is great, though I have become a fan of Leica"s IQ. Now. To sell that body and the lenses.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bencoyote]

Second, as others have pointed out, there are serious limitations to rangefinder focus. Not a big deal at 28mm or 35mm, but as you hit 50mm and above it becomes more difficult to nail the focus. This isn't just a matter of eyesight or skill, either. There are simply limitations of mechanics when trying to triangulate with suh a short baseline. Each lens will be a little different on your camera and you will need to learn how much (if at all) to adjust focus at various subject distances. Not a big deal at 50mm unless you are shooting at f/2 or below, but that's one of the favorite things for Leica photographers to do--shoot wide open. By the time you hit 75mm your percentage of keepers will be going down. At 90mm it's even harder, unless you are willing to use the EVF, but that's not as elegant a solution (though quite workable). 

 

I would just like to point out that though Jared is kind of right, he makes it sound much worse than it has been in my experience. 50mm at 1.4 is really no problem except in extreme low light when there is little contrast for even my eye to pick up on. I do it all the time. 50mm was my first MF lens. What he describes with 50mm seems to be more like my experience with 90mm. I will admit that 90mm is a bit challenging and if I can get away with it I do stop it down to f/4. I am sure it is a practice thing. There is a cool book called Working Your Leica M with some neat drills which I think would help if I had more of a problem than I have.

 

I've never had the problem with different lenses being a bit different and requiring focus offsets except for one very old used lens which had to be serviced. Elmarit 135 f/2.8 with goggles. It was really off -- $450 later it seems perfect. Reading Jared's comments, I suspect he may need some CLA love from Leica.

 

Telephoto above 135mm can be hard to impossible which is why Leica doesn't make lenses longer than that anymore. You are not going to be doing much sports photography with the M. The two things that save you when using more telephoto lenses is when you want to bust out a telephoto lens, many times you are trying to take a photo of something far away. This means that a lot of the time it is near infinity and your DOF also gets wider farther away

 

Astrophotagraphy, is more difficult. So is macro. Neither are impossible but require technique.

 

The lesson that I have learned using the Leica M for the past year and a half is that both manual focus and autofocus have their challenges. The challenge with manual focus is actually focusing the lens. The challenge with auto focus is more along the lines of salience, accurately communicating to the camera what visual elements you want to focus on. People nearly always ignore the challenge of getting the camera to focus on the right thing.  The time it takes to select the right focus point is never included in the measures of autofocus speed. They also don't often mention how many times they've had to release a half pressed shutter and refocus to get the camera to select the right autofocus points. Needless to say, I have virtually no problem with salience with the Leica M.

[pgk]

I have found that I can now nail even the 75/1.4 wide open with confidence - but NOT quickly. With practice and effort most Leica M lenses can be accurately focussed - that said, my Achillies heel is the 135mm which I've never got on with on digital, although this may be partly due to maladjustment of the older copies that I've tried (probably an excuse as they did sometimes work - most likely the problem is me - the 135mm pushes it on digital IMO ). The point being that the M lenses work as intended with the rangefinder for the most part but are not always the easiest lenses to focus this way. As I only use up to 90mm (2.8) I'm happy with this but not everyone may be. Its a very personal thing I'm afraid.

[colonel]

I can nail 50mm f1.4 no problem. 90mm 2.8 no problem. It's just practice.

[Martin Fagerås]

Picked up the loaner M240 today.

 

I obviously need to practice the rangefinder, even with a summarit i missed quite a few of the shots i tried after i left the dealer, though i nailed a couple of wide-open shots with a summilux 50 @ 1.4 that i tried in the store. 

 

Overall i like the feel though, the heft over the Q is not really an issue. Seems to me the Auto iso / min shutter stuff is a bit different, and its a bit more primitive in the menus, but that's expected since the camera is quite a bit older. But hey, i've shot like 30 frames, i have a long way to go, and much to learn. 

 

Looking forward to spending the easter with it

Edited March 21, 2016 by Forth

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Picked up the loaner M240 today.

 

I obviously need to practice the rangefinder, even with a summarit i missed quite a few of the shots i tried after i left the dealer, though i nailed a couple of wide-open shots with a summilux 50 @ 1.4 that i tried in the store.

 

Overall i like the feel though, the heft over the Q is not really an issue. Seems to me the Auto iso / min shutter stuff is a bit different, and its a bit more primitive in the menus, but that's expected since the camera is quite a bit older. But hey, i've shot like 30 frames, i have a long way to go, and much to learn.

 

Looking forward to spending the easter with it

Good luck and have fun

 

The first time I used an M it felt like a WWI artillery piece ... Which I really liked after all the plastic stuff passing for cameras these days

[bbran33]

I just made the exact change you describe, and I'm in my 2nd week with my M9 after I sold a very similar kit (5D3, 17-40L, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.2L), and I've been a canon only shooter for the past 15 years since the 5D1. 

 

I decided to switch because quite simply, I wasn't taking as many photos as I used to since we had kids (3 kids under 5). With the size of the 5D3, I just didn't want to carry that around along with the "kid stuff".  I chose the M9 over the M240 because of price, and I like the CCD look over CMOS. So, I've just finished my first week with my first rangefinder, a 2nd hand M9 (new sensor) along with a 15mm Voigtlander, 35mm Summicron, and 50mm Summilux. 

 

So, after shooting for the past week my thoughts are  : I LOVE photography again. I take more time now composing shots, and I actually enjoy focusing myself. I may have a few out of focus shots because I'm learning, and my kids don't exactly sit still when I ask them to  . But, even accounting for the few "soft" shots here and there, I've captured 3-4 of some of my favorite shots I've ever taken over the past 15 years, in one weeks time. That is the really the bottom line. I am absolutely thrilled with my choice to switch. 

[Martin Fagerås]

I just made the exact change you describe, and I'm in my 2nd week with my M9 after I sold a very similar kit (5D3, 17-40L, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.2L), and I've been a canon only shooter for the past 15 years since the 5D1. 

 

I decided to switch because quite simply, I wasn't taking as many photos as I used to since we had kids (3 kids under 5). With the size of the 5D3, I just didn't want to carry that around along with the "kid stuff".  I chose the M9 over the M240 because of price, and I like the CCD look over CMOS. So, I've just finished my first week with my first rangefinder, a 2nd hand M9 (new sensor) along with a 15mm Voigtlander, 35mm Summicron, and 50mm Summilux. 

 

So, after shooting for the past week my thoughts are  : I LOVE photography again. I take more time now composing shots, and I actually enjoy focusing myself. I may have a few out of focus shots because I'm learning, and my kids don't exactly sit still when I ask them to  . But, even accounting for the few "soft" shots here and there, I've captured 3-4 of some of my favorite shots I've ever taken over the past 15 years, in one weeks time. That is the really the bottom line. I am absolutely thrilled with my choice to switch. 

 

 

Thanks for a informative and posivitve comment, Always nice to hear the experiences from someone that have done the same.

 

I think pretty much the same as you, I expect some adjustment time, but just today i got some nice shots in the afternoon. Just after about 3 hours active shooting i already notice that the rangefinder is pretty allright.

 

Regarding lenses we also think similar. I too plan to buy the 15mm Voigtlander if i make the jump, and after fiding a nicely priced 50mm summilux, i'm probably going for that over the 50 summicron or 50 summarit as well. I can afford it, and there is something about that lux

I'll wait with a 35mm though, my Q cover that need with the 28mm. It also covers macro shooting, close focus shooting and autofocus ( i don't have kids yet, better be prepared ). I think i'll be fine if i decide to switch, and i honestly don't think i'll miss the clunky 5D3. 

 

How hard do you, as a fresh rangefinder user find it to focus the 50 Lux? is the learning curve tolerable with f/1.4? 

[bencoyote]

How hard do you, as a fresh rangefinder user find it to focus the 50 Lux? is the learning curve tolerable with f/1.4? 

 

Not hard. It was my first lens too and I do a lot of night and lowlight stuff. It just takes practice. There are some good tips in Working Your Leica M but mostly it is practice. The biggest two that I have for you are:

1. In the beginning use aperture judiciously so that you don't always have to instantly nail it perfectly.
2. Always reset your lens to infinity and move the tab left until the images line up rather than hunting left and right.

50 lux was my first and is still my favorite. My small kit slowly grew but only as needed and I was surprised at how few lenses I really needed:

1. 50 Lux for a long time this was it. It is still my goto lens
2. 28 Cron great for backpacking and some street shooting and better for landscapes
3. 135 Elmarit I knew I needed a telephoto lens for various situations and I got a great deal on it but it arrived out of adjustment and spent 4 months getting adjusted. It is now kind of superfluous but I have it so I'll keep it. Now back from the shop, it's great but in the meantime I bought
4. 90 APO Cron in addition to being a kind of portrait lens, it has been surprisingly useful in diverse ways but it's hard to characterize what for and white it it down. 

 

I think if I ever publish a book I'm going to call it 28-50-90 because that feels like everything that I really need. That is really the most amazing thing for me. I run around with the 50 and occasionally the 28, and I'll take the 28, 90 backpacking. Someday I may pick up a 90 Macro Elmar to save weight. When traveling when weight doesn't matter, I take all 3. It is so wonderfully simplistic and minimal.

 

I think next on my list is probably going to be a 15mm CV for architecture and astrophotography. 

Maybe someday I'll pick up a 35.

 

I love how you really don't need much.

[colonel]

Never really got on with 50mm but I do think the summilux is one of the best lens ever. I think it's perfect for 1.4 portraits and tight people/street. I just don't use 50mm much.

 

35mm is my main FL. In terms of bringing in people and their context it's unrivalled. It can also be use for portraits especially with centre crops. 28mm is for tighter spaces but has a slightly non natural look

 

My kit these days is 21mm, 35mm and 90mm. It gives a long zoom range and I tend to shoot at the extremes or at 35

 

My 2 cents

[Jakobben]

A few years back I had the luxury of being able to get an M in addition to my "aging" 60D, Fuji 100 and Fuji X-E1. I still have all of them, but rarely use anything but the M. The Fujis come out once in a while due to autofocus (snapshots at home). Like most people here, the M has made me get back into photography (hobby).

 

Like others have said, and like I did some years ago, try it out, and see how it feels. I rented an M9 and fell in love with the handling and viewfinder.

 

Regarding lens choice - I have three Leica lenses (28 Elmarit, 50 summicron and 90 summarit) and the new 35mm f1.7 Voigtlander. I'm my experience, the handling of the lenses, outweighs any small differences in image quality. I prefer the 35mm focal length, but love the handling of the 28mm (focus tab). So I also bought a TAAB for the 50mm, and that has made me want to use that lens much more! With MF lenses the handling of the lens is way more important than with AF. I haven't used a Zeiss lens, but my sugguestion is to try out both, and see which one feels the best. Image quality is great with both!

[Martin Fagerås]

Well thanks everybody for the feedback

 

The easter loaner project was successful, as suspected i really enjoyed shooting with a rangefinder. 

Now i'm a happy owner of a pretty much new (store demo) chrome m240 and a mint summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. 

 

Two minor things though, it seems like the rangefinder in this 240 is a teeeeeeny weeeeeeny off vertically. i have no problems focusing it (even at f/1.4) as i can see from the results, but it's slightly bothering as things never seem to completely "pop in focus" in the patch.

The other is that the focusing ring is a bit stiff, and the aperture ring is a bit loose on the summilux. I can still shoot it fine. and as i read about the summilux, this is not new issues with that lens. I guess i'll adjust.

 

Finally, a showoff picture

 

[bencoyote]

Well thanks everybody for the feedback

 

Two minor things though, it seems like the rangefinder in this 240 is a teeeeeeny weeeeeeny off vertically. i have no problems focusing it (even at f/1.4) as i can see from the results, but it's slightly bothering as things never seem to completely "pop in focus" in the patch.

The other is that the focusing ring is a bit stiff, and the aperture ring is a bit loose on the summilux. I can still shoot it fine. and as i read about the summilux, this is not new issues with that lens. I guess i'll adjust.

 

You might want to get the vertical offset checked.

 

The lenses do break in but it happens slowly. I bought an ostensibly used 50mm summilux but it must have been almost NIB because it was stiff like that. I didn't notice it until I bought a well used 28mm Summicron. Now a year later my 50 is about half the way between my 28 and my brand new 90.

Edited March 30, 2016 by bencoyote

[photoboydc]

Well, here's a different thought. Yes, go with the M and the Leica glass; that's pretty much the ultimate in image quality now. For back-up when traveling, and for when you need the autofocus, get one of the Sony alpha 7's. With an adapter your Canon glass will go on it and retain their auto capabilities. And with a (different) adapter, your Leica glass will also go on it, but with manual focus, obviously. The Sony bodies are amazingly compact and light, a small fraction of what a big Canon DSLR is. Very wide M lenses will smear in the corners on the Sony, so leave them on the M. This arrangement gives you a lot of flexibility for a lot less weight/bulk than carrying a 5D. Sean Reid recently reviewed the Sony alpha 7r and the alpha 7s and seemed impressed with both. I use the 7r (first version) along with the M, and it is a very workable combo, particularly if you are alert to the wide angle corner issue on the Sony. And if you are ever going to want to do a longish time exposure, you are going to want the Sony, not the M...a fact I discovered on a dark night out in the Burmese countryside with both the Sony and the M in my bag.

[Martin Fagerås]

Well, here's a different thought. Yes, go with the M and the Leica glass; that's pretty much the ultimate in image quality now. For back-up when traveling, and for when you need the autofocus, get one of the Sony alpha 7's. With an adapter your Canon glass will go on it and retain their auto capabilities. And with a (different) adapter, your Leica glass will also go on it, but with manual focus, obviously. The Sony bodies are amazingly compact and light, a small fraction of what a big Canon DSLR is. Very wide M lenses will smear in the corners on the Sony, so leave them on the M. This arrangement gives you a lot of flexibility for a lot less weight/bulk than carrying a 5D. Sean Reid recently reviewed the Sony alpha 7r and the alpha 7s and seemed impressed with both. I use the 7r (first version) along with the M, and it is a very workable combo, particularly if you are alert to the wide angle corner issue on the Sony. And if you are ever going to want to do a longish time exposure, you are going to want the Sony, not the M...a fact I discovered on a dark night out in the Burmese countryside with both the Sony and the M in my bag.

 

 

Thanks for the input. 

 

As you may see from two posts up i'm now the owner of a M240 + 50 Lux and CV 15 Heliar, And the Leica Q offcouse. 

My Canon gear is sold, except the 100-400 and samyang 14 for astro. they will silently hibernate in a bag until i might need them with a rental or temporary canon body in the future.

 

The leica Q covers your scenario to be honest, super fast autofocus, and a backup body when travelling (though no interchangeable lenses) but i love 28 for general purpose travel so. it got better ISO capabilities than the m240 too.

 

I'm afraid i'll never buy a Sony a7 camera, no offence to the fans, but i tried (never bought) both the a7s and a7II and i find it the most unpersonal and uninspiring photographic experience i've ever tried. I had a RX100 III for a couple of months as well back when it was released, i sold it because it too were cut from the same cloth.

 

No doubt that the a7 cameras are technically superior over the m240 in terms of resolution and/or ISO capabilities. But its not because of the tech specs i bought into Leica, it was the shooting experience that was a major factor for me and in that department the Sony's are a whole different animal

Edited March 31, 2016 by Martin Fagerås

[colonel]

 

Two minor things though, it seems like the rangefinder in this 240 is a teeeeeeny weeeeeeny off vertically. i have no problems focusing it (even at f/1.4) as i can see from the results, but it's slightly bothering as things never seem to completely "pop in focus" in the patch.

The other is that the focusing ring is a bit stiff, and the aperture ring is a bit loose on the summilux. I can still shoot it fine. and as i read about the summilux, this is not new issues with that lens. I guess i'll adjust.

 

Finally, a showoff picture

 

 

Take back the camera and get them to fix it. Its an easy fix for those that know how.

Or just swap it for a different camera.

If the vertical is out you can focus fine but its annoying and you shouldn't accept it.

 

In terms of stiffness and loosness of rings. You can have this modified by Leica. Turn around time can be many many weeks. Again this should be funded by your dealer as I presume they are under guarantee, or they can swap for different ones.

 

Its personal taste of course. I prefer stiff rings myself. If the aperture is loose this doesn't matter as long as it doesn't fall out of the aperture selected by itself.

 

I have had 3 M240s and they are all spot on in focus, so I guess you are unlucky. I have had 5 M9s and 1 needed vertical adjustment. Actually in that case it was second hand and I just swapped it for another one at the dealer, but the dealer (reddotcameras) was also happy just to take it back and refund. which is why I like them.

 

rgds

 

 

have fun!

[tobey bilek]

If you need to sell gear,  you can not afford Leica.  Seriously.  The cost of ownership is highest among all cameras in my opinion.

 

Are the pics better?  Marginally.  The biggest advantage left is small size.

[Martin Fagerås]

If you need to sell gear,  you can not afford Leica.  Seriously.  The cost of ownership is highest among all cameras in my opinion.

 

Are the pics better?  Marginally.  The biggest advantage left is small size.

 

 

That's a ridiculous comment man.

 

For the record i could technically afford buying both a brand new M240 and 50 Summilux,

But who in their right mind would not try to be economical and sell unused gear to fund or partly fund new gear?

 

Rangefinder Leica cameras are so much a niche that in my opinion asking for advice from people more experienced than myself and those that have done a similar switch is pretty smart before a purchase of this magnitude (hence this thread) 

 

And never have my cameras made my "pics better". thats up to me as a creative, regardless of the tool used. If you happen to refer to technical image quality, that's not really why i bought into Leica. the brand and legacy, shooting style and forced mindset while photographing was the deciding factors for me.

 

You make it sound like unless you have so much money that 10k don't make a dent at all in your economy Leica is not for you. 

thats a pretty elitist attitude if you ask me... Thats like saying you shouldn't buy a sports car if you don't have the cash in full, and need to sell your old car or/and loan money to buy it. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter Kilmister]

Martin, Please forget the negative people on this wonderful forum. The positive people outnumber them.

There is an old English word for negative people = gainsayers. In modern terms Eeyore fits the bill.

Good luck to you for buying and selling whatever you want. It is a free world ... unless you are Eeyore.