colonel Posted May 31, 2016 Share #81 Posted May 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Marvelous. If I remember correctly, it didn't have an LCD screen on the back did it? A proto M-D, really. Sorry to disappoint Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260447-m240-m9p-or-q/?do=findComment&comment=3054060'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Hi colonel, Take a look here M(240), M9P or Q?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hendriphile Posted June 4, 2016 Share #82 Posted June 4, 2016 Well, I suppose I'd ask whats more important to you? The shooting experience or the end result? Personally, I find no need to justify the lack of AF or precise framing or inability to seamlessly accommodate ultra wide or long glass. Its just a fact of life when shooting with an M. Other cameras are lighter, small, faster, offer better low light performance, are far easier to point, shoot and go home with higher levels of confidence. RF vs OVF/EVF debating aside, its not at all unreasonable to see those things as tilting any choice you might make well away from any M. When I'm in a situation which requires some of those attributes to be successful, I use other cameras. But those circumstances are rare for what I do and when such things are not paramount, despite having substantial investments in other gear, I always, always, always shoot with the M. Why? Masochist? No. More of a sense of accomplishment? Nope. Simpler, purer photographic experience? Negative. I take the Leica because no other digital camera I'm aware of renders quite like it. If you fall in love with what this camera can produce, you accept how you have to go about extracting it. Once hooked, as I am, nothing else matters. Some find the transition easy, some not so much, but if you simply have to have the image drawn with a Leica's subtle sense of clarity, there ain't any alternative thats truly satisfying. You learn to focus faster and more accurately, you figure out how to deal with center weighted metering, you pick up tricks for pre-focusing, you learn how to better estimate framing. All hurdles that you simply aren't forced to deal with if you shoot with any other genuinely modern camera. So if its about casual ease of capture, look elsewhere. But if its about the photograph, buy yourself an M. It costs far more than money, but you're not likely to regret either the cash nor the effort spent on it. What a great summary of the Leica experience. I wish this could be permanently posted at the top of the Site for those new to Leica M and wondering what it's all about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philjh Posted June 5, 2016 Share #83 Posted June 5, 2016 I would recommend a Q without hesitation. Cropping the images is no problem at all with this sensor. I have just received from the lab a 3ft x 2ft (91 x 61cm) print. The image was cropped to the equialent to a 35mm lens from raw. It is amazing, sharp, noise free, lovely. The Q's Summilux lens wide open is a revelation to me. I've done portraits of my grandchildren with no problems. I also have an M2 and a selection of lenses for when I wish to go back to basics. I have noticed that people who don't recommend the Q on this forum are usualy those who have a large amount of M digital gear and it is understandable for them not to have a Q, but I quess they have either not seen or done a long term test of the camera. I have had both M-E and M240, after a lot of thought I opted for the Q and am so pleased I made that choice. Your style of photography would ideally suit the Q. In my humble opinion. Its a shame Leica bumped up the prices, perhaps you should wait until used Q's arrive in the shops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 5, 2016 Share #84 Posted June 5, 2016 M9-P and any 35 will be a great start into Leica, heaps of threads about which 35... Don't worry they are All great bat very few. If you can pick up a 35 summicron of any vintage (I love the mkiv) it will be light neat and easy to use and produce stellar pictures. G.A.S is something we all suffer from. I still look fondly at my well kept nicely brassed M9-P and am currently yearning for an early pre ASPH 35 summilux which I absolutely don't need ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernstk Posted June 5, 2016 Share #85 Posted June 5, 2016 ...and am currently yearning for an early pre ASPH 35 summilux which I absolutely don't need ! Everyone needs a pre ASPH Summilux 35! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 5, 2016 Share #86 Posted June 5, 2016 Sorry to disappoint mavica_back_$_57.jpg Wow, nice user interface. Sony seem to have regressed a fair way since then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest )-( Posted June 6, 2016 Share #87 Posted June 6, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree an M9 and any 35mm Summicron is a great place to start. I maybe wouldn't bother with an M9P since it's extra money for no user benefit. Something to note with the Q is that the lens isn't only fixed to the body, it's fixed to digital. Should you feel like playing around with film, you're starting from scratch again which is a shame when you already bought a great lens. Sounds like it's not an issue for you but there is an easy (slippery?) path to dabbling in film if buying into M mount lenses. From what you described in your original question, don't rule out a Sony a7x body and a couple of adapted manual lenses. You could stick a 35mm Summicron-R on there, a superb lens, closer focussing, WYSIWYG, tiltable screen etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 8, 2016 Share #88 Posted June 8, 2016 With MkIV summicron 35mm and 12504 hood. A Sony will never be quite the same Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260447-m240-m9p-or-q/?do=findComment&comment=3058460'>More sharing options...
Duane Pandorf Posted June 9, 2016 Share #89 Posted June 9, 2016 ..... currently yearning for an early pre ASPH 35 summilux which I absolutely don't need ! You've reminded me to take mine out of the box and use it this month on my M-E. My 35 Lux ASPH. is normally glued on but your mention here reminded me to be different this month. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBond Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share #90 Posted June 10, 2016 Out of curiosity what is the difference between the pre asph and the asph lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted June 10, 2016 Share #91 Posted June 10, 2016 What a great summary of the Leica experience. I wish this could be permanently posted at the top of the Site for those new to Leica M and wondering what it's all about. Thanks for the exceedingly kind words, very glad mine resonated with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted June 10, 2016 Share #92 Posted June 10, 2016 Everyone needs a pre ASPH Summilux 35! Amen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted June 11, 2016 Share #93 Posted June 11, 2016 Out of curiosity what is the difference between the pre asph and the asph lenses? For one thing, most asph lenses are " new " made models of the same lens. They have an aspherical lens part, which makes a better optical performance possible in a given optical sytem. Most asph lenses are "modern " designs, in a way that Leica wanted to make lenses better . To some the sharper asph were not always better in all views. Some people prefer pre asph lenses for different estetic reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted June 11, 2016 Share #94 Posted June 11, 2016 With MkIV summicron 35mm and 12504 hood. A Sony will never be quite the same Lovely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted June 11, 2016 Share #95 Posted June 11, 2016 For one thing, most asph lenses are " new " made models of the same lens. They have an aspherical lens part, which makes a better optical performance possible in a given optical sytem. Most asph lenses are "modern " designs, in a way that Leica wanted to make lenses better . To some the sharper asph were not always better in all views. Some people prefer pre asph lenses for different estetic reasons. There's also the added issue of modern coatings. In general the newer lenses offer greater contrast, flare resistance and superior corner performance, but to some, myself included, these gains are offset by a lack of gentility and character. I would liken it a bit to transistors vs tubes in audio realm, the former being superior in specs, but in many instances a little more brittle in rendition. For some, photography is about obtaining the most faithful rendition possible, for others image making is more commentary than documentary. Where one falls on that spectrum tends to influence their preference for later or earlier glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBond Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share #96 Posted June 13, 2016 Well, I have only ever used Nikon lenses until now so habe no "user experience". However by looking at the various pictures that people have posted in this forum I can say that more often than not I tend to prefer the grainy or soft looks of some of the photos instead of the clinical pristine look of the others. I assume I might fall in the pre ASPH group. In fact the other day I was reading a review of the Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 and rather liked the look of the photos taken with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2016 Share #97 Posted June 15, 2016 I wouldn't start with a Q. My advice, and I know many will disagree, is not to spend this amount of money on a fixed lens camera. The great thing about non-fixed lenses is that you will allways have them. I still use lenses I bought 16 years ago as if they were new, (35mm and 90mm summicron asph are that age), but I have a closet full of little used cameras. M3, M4, M6, M8. I also have some beautiful lenses on fixed lens cameras I never use (35mm minilux, 35mm Zeiss Tessar on a Yashica T4, even some nice fixed lenses on a Canon cameras). In three, five or certainly ten years the Q will be a paperweight, technology just moves too fast and deteriorates too quickly, the lenses you will always have. That is a very valid point. It is the lens where the real value lies, this is why I would never buy a fixed lens camera. Plus of course your versality knows no bounds with exchangable lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenrikP Posted June 15, 2016 Share #98 Posted June 15, 2016 I do not entirely agree. I started with a Q, I was like many pretty cautious of the fixed 28mm lens. But right quick, I found out that it was perfect. Now I also have a M, I use it when I want to geek out and have enough time. My Q is the one I take with me for everything else, and what I use the most. It has a fixed lens is not such a big problem again, no reflection on whether you should bring the 35 or 50 mm etc. Just have fun and take great photos. Henrik Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamgm Posted June 15, 2016 Share #99 Posted June 15, 2016 Leica X Vario maybe - very good camera (I've been very impressed with mine, purchased used from a Leica dealer). Auto-focus is a little slow, but the lens is amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.