Why I couldn't pull the trigger on a Leica

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only thing that made the Leica digital M models worth it to me was that there were no other digital cameras that let me work exactly as I have for 50 years with my film M models. Plus that I didn’t have to buy new lenses. The M lenses I’d been using since 1968-71 are just fine for my use on these cameras.

The SL would let me do the same for my R lenses, but the Sony A7 had already done that much cheaper. 

[IkarusJohn]

9 hours ago, Flyer said:

... £7000 for a Leica that will give me that inner satisfaction of using a creative tool or will I have buyers remorse at spending all that money when I could spend £1200 and get similar results but still continue to dream of a leica? 

 

I’m not sure anyone can answer that question for you. 

What I can say is that I have never been into the features that digital photography has to offer.  Most of my photography was with fully manual film Nikon cameras of the 1970s and 1980s.  When I bought a digital Canon G10 in the 2000s, it drove me crazy not being able to find the wretched aperture control, or ISO.  It drove me nuts.  When I had my Nikon gear stolen, I tried to be interested in the Canon 5D mk2 with no success.  When I found the M9, with its traditional controls and fabulous lenses, I was hooked.

Your route to Leica may be quite different.  The fundamentals of photography (ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus) remain the same.  But does direct manual control of these factors work for you?  And would you miss those digital features?

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

Ditto...

I too grew up with Nikon FE then FM2/FE2 from 1979-1985, and then an FT/3 from 1985 to 2010. The Leica Ms are the only digital cameras that keep it simple (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, manual focus, ± aperture-priority auto), compact, and those wonderful (but oh-so-expensive) lenses. 

[pico]

9 hours ago, Flyer said:

£7000 for a Leica that will give me that inner satisfaction of using a creative tool or will I have buyers remorse at spending all that money when I could spend £1200 and get similar results but still continue to dream of a leica?

There are special virtues of settling with what is affordable. You are not likely to regret spending less and at the same time you can concentrate on image making (and eat well. ;)) The images you make will not likely be appreciably technically inferior to the Leica if you stick to fundamentals which is easier to do with limitations, and limitations are important.

[Stealth3kpl]

11 hours ago, Flyer said:

or will I have buyers remorse at spending all that money when I could spend £1200 ......? 

 

I have buyer's remorse having spent £450 on a Panasonic LX100. The images are superb, it's compact and light weight. The problem for me is all those little buttons which I somehow keep pressing sending the camera settings somewhere I can't understand. What I'm getting at is you can get superb images from any camera, but can have buyer's remorse whatever sum you're spending if the ergonomics are wrong. That's where the Leica M-P (and if I could afford it, the M10) wins for me. It has become a cliche, but the camera doesn't "get in the way". I never think about the expense of the system because it's ideal for my needs. It might not be so ideal for you.

Pete

[steveclem]

On 2/4/2019 at 10:20 AM, jaapv said:

It does act like a 35 mm lens; the sensor/film format does not change the focal length. It just records a more narrow angle on a smaller sensor. Just what you do when you frame a scene.  Why don't you want it to act like a 35 mm lens on Medium Format? That is nice too...

35mm FOV means 35mm to me. I'm not interested in crop values or anything else. Its my own FOV I'm interested in, my background is 24x36 and I don't wish to change that I'm comfortable with it. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 mm FOV on which format? The focal length in itself is a completely meaningless number. As is the film/sensor size. The image counts.

[IkarusJohn]

Oh, gee!  35mm results in a different image depending on the size of the sensor/film?  Who’d a thought!

Meanwhile, the rest of us take it as read that Steve was referring to 135mm format or “full frame”.  But then, I guess you knew that ...

[jaapv]

Yes, who'd have thought that it would become a doctrine. I blame Edison...

I also know that 135 is an arbitrary historical film size that has been considered "miniature" until the Canon marketing machine decided that "full frame" was a good way to push their 1D cameras.