Leica alternative (M10 related)

[Adam Bonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I actually did exactly this. I left my m9 at home thinking the af on my Fuji x would mean more keepers. I ended up with an equal number of oof shots. Granted my xe1 and x100 aren't as good as the latest models for af.

 

On the Fujis, use MF + focus peaking.

 

Set something in focus, it will glow like a strip across the frame, unlike a true RF you won't need an actual object to focus on.

 

Set exposure ahead of time

 

On the X100 go back to OVF

One the XE1 open both eyes

 

- this will negate EVF lag

 

Half press shutter, which will remove shutter lag and don't move your position

 

Wait for the kid to arrive to the spot, it won't matter if they're not dead centre frame, as you've seen where the focus is with the focus peaking

 

Take the shot. (Possibly consider a burst mode, but I don't tend to bother myself)

 

Overall # of shots will go down, and so should OOF ones

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

(How much do they make profit per body, anyone have a wild guess?)

 

...

 

Why isn't anyone offering a full frame digital rangefinder alternative for half the price of Leica M?

It's a handmade camera and they give a sort of lifetime warranty, not on paper but in practice.

You would be new to Leica rangefinder if you decide to go for it. Why not start with a 2 or 3000 occasion of M9 or preferrably an M9-P? This guarantees you a new sensor if anything goes wrong with that. It is quite probable that the secondhand price remains more or less stable over time.

A second thing is the lenses: in Leica you never have to loose money on lenses if you buy smart secondhand. The lenses with the best reputation do not loose but rather gain value. With Fuji you always throw money away.

[otto.f]

(How much do they make profit per body, anyone have a wild guess?)

 

...

 

Why isn't anyone offering a full frame digital rangefinder alternative for half the price of Leica M?

It's a handmade camera and they give a sort of lifetime warranty, not on paper but in practice.

You would be new to Leica rangefinder if you decide to go for it. Why not start with a 2 or 3000 occasion of M9 or preferrably an M9-P? This guarantees you a new sensor if anything goes wrong with that. It is quite probable that the secondhand price remains more or less stable over time.

A second thing is the lenses: in Leica you never have to loose money on lenses if you buy smart secondhand. The lenses with the best reputation do not loose but rather gain value. With Fuji you always throw money away.

You say you're not rich; the idea that you can always sell for the price you paid for it is very reassuring (also for rich people).

[lct]

[...] My blanket statement is that people think focus speed (be it manual or auto) is the only key to the moment, but IMO it's not, IMO the other key is camera set up for exposure, I base this on my opinion that an in focus shot that's (say) hopelessly over exposed isn't a keeper & therefore being in focus counts for jack; and its also my opinion that it's comparatively quite slow to change all the exposure parameters on a camera in a very short space of time (compared to acquiring focus via MF or AF - I don't mean it's slow to actually do, just slower than focusing) [...]

 

AE and auto ISO work fine on modern cameras. The only slowdown causes for me are startup/wakeup times, EVF lag and focusing issues. My Fuji X-E2 is a fast camera in this respect but with M lenses it has no auto image magnification. Same for my Sony A7s mod but its ergonomics are better. My M240 is sluggish in EVF mode but faster in RF mode fortunately. My faster digital RFs are the M8.2 and R-D1 in this respect but they have no EVF needless to say. 

[Adam Bonn]

AE and auto ISO work fine on modern cameras. The only slowdown causes for me are startup/wakeup times, EVF lag and focusing issues. My Fuji X-E2 is a fast camera in this respect but with M lenses it has no auto image magnification. Same for my Sony A7s mod but its ergonomics are better. My M240 is sluggish in EVF mode but faster in RF mode fortunately. My faster digital RFs are the M8.2 and R-D1 in this respect but they have no EVF needless to say.

I don't doubt it.

 

But what I actually said was that setting a fully manual exposure is slower than focusing

 

Of course some cameras let you set aperture, SS, ISO and focus all automatically, but not the Leica M

Edited April 29, 2017 by Adam Bonn

[lct]

Not sure to follow you here . With the same M lenses, the only significant difference between say an M240, a Sony A7s and a Fuji X-E2 is indeed focusing. All have AE and auto ISO but no AF of course. In manual exposure mode they can be equally fast or slow depending on the skills of the photographer.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm NOT SURE you mean this, but you kinda make it sound like if 2 people are walking down the road, both with cameras, both having their cameras preset to correctly expose for the light and both cameras pre focused to the correct spot, and one of them has an M, that because of some sort of Messsucher magic only the M will be able to get the shot.

 

I don't agree with that. I realise that you haven't actually said that - but that's the subtext I'm getting*

 

I thought I'd made it clear that my choice of M for speed and responsiveness was down to its design and technology, not cachet or magic. (Girls don't chat me up when I'm holding the M, nor do my shots contain extra magic, and I never fondle my camera.) The technology elements that contribute to the M's responsiveness include the OVF and RF, the clarity/accessibility of the basic aperture, exposure and focus controls (and now ISO on the M10), the absence of any other visually or mentally distracting controls, the instant shutter response, and no EVF blackout. One could add to the list a simple menu structure. Yes, you can set up a lot of cameras to match the M; the perfect photographer will always have their camera ready for the shot they see coming. As an imperfect photographer, I know I don't have to do this: the M will be close to ready when I pull it out of the bag.

 

I have an SL and my wife recently took my OMD-EM5ii off me; I'm happy to use a phone camera. These systems can do many things better than the M, and in many circumstances I use them instead. Of course they can all be used to take the same shot, but I certainly don't see them as equally suitable for different types of photography.

 

Edit: rereading this, it looks like I'm implying that setting exposure manually is faster than AE, which is certainly not true when everything is set up as you wish. What I meant was that more complex, more automated cameras with a wide range of settings can get in the way, physically and psychologically, of getting a quick shot. I have often been with photographers where I have got a manually exposed shot while others are still sorting through their options for AE and AF (etc).

Edited April 29, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Adam Bonn]

I thought I'd made it clear that my choice of M for speed and responsiveness was down to its design and technology, not cachet or magic. (Girls don't chat me up when I'm holding the M, nor do my shots contain extra magic, and I never fondle my camera.) The technology elements that contribute to the M's responsiveness include the OVF and RF, the clarity/accessibility of the basic aperture, exposure and focus controls (and now ISO on the M10), the absence of any other visually or mentally distracting controls, the instant shutter response, and no EVF blackout. One could add to the list a simple menu structure. Yes, you can set up a lot of cameras to match the M; the perfect photographer will always have their camera ready for the shot they see coming. As an imperfect photographer, I know I don't have to do this: the M will be close to ready when I pull it out of the bag.

 

I have an SL and my wife recently took my OMD-EM5ii off me; I'm happy to use a phone camera. These systems can do many things better than the M, and in many circumstances I use them instead. Of course they can all be used to take the same shot, but I certainly don't see them as equally suitable for different types of photography.

Sounds like we're basically in agreement then.

 

As you just said

 

"Yes, you can set up a lot of cameras to match the M"

 

As I said originally

 

"In fact I doubt there's MANY cameras that can't be used this way"

 

Cheers

[LocalHero1953]

Sounds like we're basically in agreement then.

 

As you just said

 

"Yes, you can set up a lot of cameras to match the M"

 

As I said originally

 

"In fact I doubt there's MANY cameras that can't be used this way"

 

Cheers

Hmm, I didn't read your first remark as equivalent to mine - in their original contexts. But I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Adam Bonn]

Not sure to follow you here . With the same M lenses, the only significant difference between say an M240, a Sony A7s and a Fuji X-E2 is indeed focusing. All have AE and auto ISO but no AF of course. In manual exposure mode they can be equally fast or slow depending on the skills of the photographer.

I've no disagrement with that (not that it would matter if I did of course!),

 

I'm sure that Sony didn't have M glass in mind when they made the A7 and although Fuji do make a M adaptor, my hunch is that they'd rather users bought more expensive XF glass, so the SonFujis are not necessarily designed around the "legacy" lens experience

 

But with native glass the Sonfuji can offer a fully automatic exposure and focus mode, which is fast and can be very accurate.

 

The speed pitfall can be when we're unhappy with what our fully automated cameras select for us and we need to overiide it manually (or not get the shot we want)

[lct]

MF vs AF is indeed another story. Some AF camera/lenses are fast and accurate, others fast and inaccurate, other slow and inaccurate etc... My Sony A7s mod for instance tends to be rather slow in AF mode but i use it mainly with M lenses where it shines fortunately. In general, when comparing different cameras with the same manual lenses, i find focusing faster on RF than TTL cameras but YMMV.

[Adam Bonn]

 

Edit: rereading this, it looks like I'm implying that setting exposure manually is faster than AE, which is certainly not true when everything is set up as you wish. What I meant was that more complex, more automated cameras with a wide range of settings can get in the way, physically and psychologically, of getting a quick shot. I have often been with photographers where I have got a manually exposed shot while others are still sorting through their options for AE and AF (etc).

 

OK I'll reply as you edited!

 

Firstly, I think we have MORE OR LESS been saying the same thing all along, but not understanding each other very well.

 

And I certainly agree with this paragraph...

 

In fact in my 'Fuji-world' when people write in and say "Aaaaah Adam it's SO complex" I always say 'just learn what you need'

 

Some of my readers have disbelief that I don't use and holistically understand every single facet of the camera.... I know of people who have migrated from Fuji to Leica, because they've felt... I dunno.... intimidated maybe... by all the menu crap... 

 

But however fast the full auto cameras are to expose, IN MY OPINION there's a very good reason to do yourself... you know what you want more than the camera does!

 

I know if I care about shadows or highlights in a particular shot, I know that if my camera makes a ETTR exposure because of (say) a sun beam hitting a puddle in the background, that I'll have to drag the shadows up in post, and they'd look cleaner if I just exposed for them in the first place.

 

(I also have a hunch that when you need to make massive exposure changes in PP you're replacing the character of your sensor with the character of your PP SW. Erm I digress)

 

So where ever possible I like to work fully manual, and this would be true with any camera that I own or will own, so for me - all the cameras become a muchness because I use them in much the same way and they therefore operate at about the same speed - my speed!

 

anyway... probably not best to ramble on... I'm inherently verbose and that tends to muddy clarity

[Adam Bonn]

MF vs AF is indeed another story. Some AF camera/lenses are fast and accurate, others fast and inaccurate, other slow and inaccurate etc... My Sony A7s mod for instance tends to be rather slow in AF mode but i use it mainly with M lenses where it shines fortunately. In general, when comparing different cameras with the same manual lenses, i find focusing faster on RF than TTL cameras but YMMV.

 

No not at all, my mileage is pretty much the same, legacy lenses on a mirrorless can be a little ponderous, but the accuracy is high.

 

I did find when I used the M that it was faster (to focus) than a legacy lens on my Fuji, and it was pretty accurate too, but I didn't know that for sure until I saw the files later

 

I found myself sometimes making focusing compromises on the M... stuff like 'Hmmm I wanna focus on that guy's eyes - but he's moving his head and walking and I can't see it properly in the RF patch, so I'll focus on his hat instead, I should have enough DOF from where I'm standing here" 

 

But that worked out ok(ish) and was fast enough!

[Robert M Poole]

With focusing there's another factor involved. The lens, my Summicron I found much more accurate than my Summarit 2.5 for example. Just to throw another variable into the mix.

 

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[IkarusJohn]

Just spent an afternoon strolling the Old City of Jerusalem with the M-A and 28 Summilux. Sunny 16 all the way - what could be faster and simpler?

 

Well, at the wedding earlier this week, I set the SL, with 24-90 zoom, on Auto everything, and shot what I could.

 

Horses for courses - neither slow, just the M perhaps more considered ...

[jmahto]

Just spent an afternoon strolling the Old City of Jerusalem with the M-A and 28 Summilux. Sunny 16 all the way - what could be faster and simpler?

 

Well, at the wedding earlier this week, I set the SL, with 24-90 zoom, on Auto everything, and shot what I could.

 

Horses for courses - neither slow, just the M perhaps more considered ...

Once I was shooting landscape in broad daylight with my friend who was using Canon and AF lenses. Mine was all preset and I was simply framing and clicking. He commented on how fast I am able to focus and shoot. I replied that I am not focusing or setting exposure for each shot.

 

Yes. Horses for courses.

Edited April 29, 2017 by jmahto

[Robert M Poole]

Once I was shooting landscape in broad daylight with my friend who was using Canon and AF lenses. Mine was all preset and I was simply framing and clicking. He commented on how fast I am able to focus and shoot. I replied that I am not focusing or setting exposure for each shot.

Had he known his gear better he could have been doing the same. Leica makes it easier but does not have a manly monopoly.

 

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[jaapv]

With focusing there's another factor involved. The lens, my Summicron I found much more accurate than my Summarit 2.5 for example. Just to throw another variable into the mix.

 

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

That is a matter of adjustment, it could easily be the other way around. It may be, however, that variables like focus throw and smoothness make one lens easier to operate than another.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I thought I'd made it clear that my choice of M for speed and responsiveness was down to its design and technology, not cachet or magic. (Girls don't chat me up when I'm holding the M, nor do my shots contain extra magic, and I never fondle my camera.) The technology elements that contribute to the M's responsiveness include the OVF and RF, the clarity/accessibility of the basic aperture, exposure and focus controls (and now ISO on the M10), the absence of any other visually or mentally distracting controls, the instant shutter response, and no EVF blackout. One could add to the list a simple menu structure. Yes, you can set up a lot of cameras to match the M; the perfect photographer will always have their camera ready for the shot they see coming. As an imperfect photographer, I know I don't have to do this: the M will be close to ready when I pull it out of the bag.

 

I have an SL and my wife recently took my OMD-EM5ii off me; I'm happy to use a phone camera. These systems can do many things better than the M, and in many circumstances I use them instead. Of course they can all be used to take the same shot, but I certainly don't see them as equally suitable for different types of photography.

 

Edit: rereading this, it looks like I'm implying that setting exposure manually is faster than AE, which is certainly not true when everything is set up as you wish. What I meant was that more complex, more automated cameras with a wide range of settings can get in the way, physically and psychologically, of getting a quick shot. I have often been with photographers where I have got a manually exposed shot while others are still sorting through their options for AE and AF (etc).

I would say that the last aspect is a lack of expertise or forethought. With technically versatile/complicated cameras it is essential to evaluate the type of photography one will be up against and set the camera accordingly beforehand.

[almoore]

Many experienced users can focus an RF as fast as Autofocus. Focus-recompose on an RF will beat fiddling with AF  focus points anytime.

The thing about experienced photographers is that they generally know how to how set up and use their cameras properly and won't be fiddling with focus points. Focus and recompose on something like a 5D4 is definitely faster than the equivalent action on a Leica M, with just a simple blip from your thumb locking AF immediately.