Back (almost) - and around the block once more...

[Winedemonium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to be fairly active here on this forum, at one especially GAS-filled point using the M, S, and SL systems, so as well as enjoying 'photography', I know at heart I am also a shiny things fondler. 🙂

In mid-2019 I found myself for the first time in many years with no Leica gear at all. I adopted - rationally (my rationale anyway) - a two system approach using Fujifilm's X and GFX platforms, all native lenses. I liked the manual controls, the lightweight of the X system, and the IQ of the GFX100. In practice, I've gone into a creative slump. The X system doesn't inspire, and the GFX system is too much of a big lump, so in the end I grab neither when leaving the house. (To be clear, both systems are brilliant, just as almost everything made today, right?)

So, after almost 2 years out, I find myself back round the block looking again at the Leica M system. Why? I know its limitations, and for me they are made worse now by the fact that in the intervening 2 years my eyesight has worsened, and I'd need to wear glasses while focusing the OVF. But I always found the M system pleasurable to use, and would often find myself picking up, and taking out the M without a clear objective in mind... just get going. 

My last M was the M10. I thought it was brilliant. There wasn't really anything much I would have wanted more (except perhaps IBIS, but we are told the wizards cannot do that spell yet, or perhaps ever). And, having "looked away" for a couple of years, I'm only now catching up on what has come since - the M10-D, M10-P, M10-M, M10-R, etc. It made me smile to see that the M engineers are still working on improvements, without losing what the M is all about. 

So, I'm pondering what to get, starting in the M system again completely from scratch. There's are lens choices to make. I've used most key ones - modern Karbe-era ones, older Mandler-era classics, and older ones still - on MM, M246, M240, and M10. The latest fast/enormous ones I haven't tried, but back when I had multi Leica systems, I found my 50NX better suited to my SL than my M. Many are better skilled at focusing at f/0.95 with a rangefinder patch than me, even with lens/body alignment assured. So for lenses, I have a shortlist in mind.

Where I find myself still trying to work things out is the current crop of bodies. I've seen some of the tests, and debate on M10-P v M10-R v M10M. Clearly no one is buying the Monochrom unless they want at least a good chunk of their efforts to go to B&W output. But I'm also more persuaded by those who say the technological advantages the M10M might have aren't for them the main reason they bought it - rather its because carrying the M10M forces you to "see" black and white images, to pre-visualise, because you can't hedge your bets later in PP. When I had the MM and M246 I found my B&W work improving because I was focused on light and shape. I also enjoyed being able to attach colour filters to lenses and play around with that. Some argue that having the colour channels info in your RAW file at PP gives more options in processing than a Monochrom file - you have these channels to slide around, absent in the Monochrom files. 

Some say the M10(-P) files have more latitude in them, other say the M10R files do. Some point to the challenge of rangefinder photography at higher resolution - human errors are amplified (shake, mis-focus). 

I didn't pose a question in the title of this post because I'm not quite sure what mine are yet. I guess at this point I'm interested in comments from experienced M users who have considered an M body purchase in the past year or two. What were your considerations, what did you choose, and has the experience of the new body delivered what you thought it would? Also, if you bought an M10R or M10M, did the higher resolution lead you to like certain lenses more, or less, than on lower resolution bodies?

And, FWIW, I'll update here too what I end up getting. It's nice to be (almost) back.

Happy New Year!

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[chasdfg]

I purchased 2 Ms in the past year and completely understand what's going on (or so i think i do) . Basically i used an M240 for the most part of 5 years, itched for something new and went through Sony, Canon, Fuji GFX, Sigma FP, Leica SL/2 cameras before realising I just want to shoot with Leica bodies, and within that brand, preferably M cameras (I only like shooting with M glass so an M camera is best for this, along with the form factor of the body, physical dials, simple button layout, etc.). My process wasn't as "clean" as yours in that I still had my M lenses and 1 of my 2 current M bodies whilst going through all those other bodies and systems. In any case, it was plenty of soul searching of sorts and a very restless time gear wise. I'm now perfectly contented with my M10M and M10D, two cameras which I feel compliment each other well.

I had always wanted a monochrom and was always drawn to the idea of learning how to shoot in b&w as I never had the discipline to convert my pictures to b&w in post. Likewise, i was always drawn to the idea of a screen-less M. Not that I had any major issues with chimping (or so i didn't think i did, until i got the M10D last month). I chose those 2 cameras because I felt they could teach me more than a colour M could alone. People might dismiss the idea that seeing in black and white changes how you shoot, but I've experienced it first hand, as have you. One is forced to think of better ways to draw the viewer's eye. I move more, I look for stronger lines, contrast and shadow more. It's a subtle shift but it's there. The M10D has made me make sure I get the shot when I'm "getting the shot". I don't take for granted that I'm shooting digital so much any more. Being forced to shoot differently with these two cameras has made me improve more than any other camera has, aside from my initial few years with the M240 and with my Nikons when I first started photography. I may be a marketing victim, or convincing myself I made the right choices with the M10M and M10D, but hey if I feel a difference in my shooting and I'm enjoying this hobby more, isn't only relevant barometer the level of satisfaction I derive from using this gear? It's a breath of fresh air and I'm loving it. It's never going to be sensible in the grand scheme of things, to spend money on Leica gear. If I was rational and wanted just one M, I'd have gone with an M10R. If I was rational and just wanted a camera a Nikon Z (or even a DSLR from yesteryears) would suffice. 

Have the two cameras delivered what I thought they would? Absolutely. And I feel I have plenty to grow into and any limitations are on me. The beauty of the monochroms and the D versions is that you're paying a high price of entry for the concept and way of shooting they promote. It's kinda like paying the high price of entry for an M, but this time a niche within the niche. Once you own a mono/D, even if a new model comes out, the incentives would merely be technological. With cameras this good these days, and with the M10 form factor, it'd be hard to make me give these up for a newer version. I suppose one could argue that if you want to buy the concept, then an M246 and M-D262 would be most economical - however having used the M10 series cameras, I don't think I could go back to the M240 body size and buttons (for M246).

Speaking of GFX and Ms, one big reason why I got it was the 40mp bayerless sensor. After my experience with the GFX 50S, I was bitten by the high MP bug. Not because I print big or leave sloppy composition to be fixed in post, but because every time I zoomed in past 100% in my GFX files, I saw so much it was downright fascinating that I could see all these "new" details I was capturing. You might appreciate the M10M or M10R on this basis alone, having come from the GFX100. 

On lenses on the cameras: I've kinda "been there, done that" with most lenses I've wanted. I owned/used fast glass, modern glass, vintage glass, limited edition lenses and sorted through what I wanted in my kit and got rid of the rest. Sometimes I feel I should have kept some of the glass I sold cause I took a while to acquire them, not to forget the adage about never selling Leica lenses. But the clutter bothered me more than the idea of selling them. I more than halved my kit and I now "only" have 5. 3 core lenses (28cron, 35FLE, 50APO) and 2 "extra"/superfluous ones (50 f1, 75lux) for portraits/Mandler days. My main pairing on the M10M tends to be a 28cron and 50APO. Both of these lenses have great clarity and don't embellish photos excessively, much in line with how I view my black and white shooting (no colours, fancy bokeh to spice up the pictures, but lines, shadows and contrast). One side thing I realised with the M10M is I prefer 28mm or 50mm on b&w whilst I prefer 35mm in colour (or prefer 28mm and 50mm less in colour?). Haven't really figured this one out yet, but it might have to do with 28mm giving more room to compose different angles, and 50mm giving an extra tightness to draw the viewer in. I do admit the 40mp sensor does make me want to put the 50APO on more than any other lens, because it can eek out the extra details. I often get pleasant surprises in my photos when I zoom in. This said, I have used Mandler glass on the M10M due to the charm of shooting oldish glass with b&w. With my glass and the M10M, it's very much "same same but different", in a pleasant way. I suppose I'm not really answering your higher MP camera + certain lenses question though, since my response has a b&w slant to it. My 35FLE lives on the M10D. Not much to say about this, as that lens could live on any M and I'd be happy camper (being a 35mm guy).

 

Apologies for the long post. I tend to get carried away when talking about cameras...a little too carried away...(I could do a summary if that helps?)

Cheers and happy new year to you too!

 

 

[Guest]

I totally agree with chasdfg's suggestions regarding his choices of the M10-M plus a M10-D for all of the reasons he outlines in his post above............They would make a good re-entry kit back into the digital M world. I have both, it would be hard to choose one over the other. I don't feel the need to move up to a M10-R for colour work, the M10-M for B+W however is another piece of work altogether and I love it's capabilities.

[LocalHero1953]

I have nothing of value to add to this debate (I have vacated the M-mount for the L-mount) except welcome back! I remember and valued your contributions previously, and wondered where you had gone.

Edited January 8, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[LBJ2]

5 hours ago, Winedemonium said:

I used to be fairly active here on this forum, at one especially GAS-filled point using the M, S, and SL systems, so as well as enjoying 'photography', I know at heart I am also a shiny things fondler. 🙂

In mid-2019 I found myself for the first time in many years with no Leica gear at all. I adopted - rationally (my rationale anyway) - a two system approach using Fujifilm's X and GFX platforms, all native lenses. I liked the manual controls, the lightweight of the X system, and the IQ of the GFX100. In practice, I've gone into a creative slump. The X system doesn't inspire, and the GFX system is too much of a big lump, so in the end I grab neither when leaving the house. (To be clear, both systems are brilliant, just as almost everything made today, right?)

So, after almost 2 years out, I find myself back round the block looking again at the Leica M system. Why? I know its limitations, and for me they are made worse now by the fact that in the intervening 2 years my eyesight has worsened, and I'd need to wear glasses while focusing the OVF. But I always found the M system pleasurable to use, and would often find myself picking up, and taking out the M without a clear objective in mind... just get going. 

My last M was the M10. I thought it was brilliant. There wasn't really anything much I would have wanted more (except perhaps IBIS, but we are told the wizards cannot do that spell yet, or perhaps ever). And, having "looked away" for a couple of years, I'm only now catching up on what has come since - the M10-D, M10-P, M10-M, M10-R, etc. It made me smile to see that the M engineers are still working on improvements, without losing what the M is all about. 

So, I'm pondering what to get, starting in the M system again completely from scratch. There's are lens choices to make. I've used most key ones - modern Karbe-era ones, older Mandler-era classics, and older ones still - on MM, M246, M240, and M10. The latest fast/enormous ones I haven't tried, but back when I had multi Leica systems, I found my 50NX better suited to my SL than my M. Many are better skilled at focusing at f/0.95 with a rangefinder patch than me, even with lens/body alignment assured. So for lenses, I have a shortlist in mind.

Where I find myself still trying to work things out is the current crop of bodies. I've seen some of the tests, and debate on M10-P v M10-R v M10M. Clearly no one is buying the Monochrom unless they want at least a good chunk of their efforts to go to B&W output. But I'm also more persuaded by those who say the technological advantages the M10M might have aren't for them the main reason they bought it - rather its because carrying the M10M forces you to "see" black and white images, to pre-visualise, because you can't hedge your bets later in PP. When I had the MM and M246 I found my B&W work improving because I was focused on light and shape. I also enjoyed being able to attach colour filters to lenses and play around with that. Some argue that having the colour channels info in your RAW file at PP gives more options in processing than a Monochrom file - you have these channels to slide around, absent in the Monochrom files. 

Some say the M10(-P) files have more latitude in them, other say the M10R files do. Some point to the challenge of rangefinder photography at higher resolution - human errors are amplified (shake, mis-focus). 

I didn't pose a question in the title of this post because I'm not quite sure what mine are yet. I guess at this point I'm interested in comments from experienced M users who have considered an M body purchase in the past year or two. What were your considerations, what did you choose, and has the experience of the new body delivered what you thought it would? Also, if you bought an M10R or M10M, did the higher resolution lead you to like certain lenses more, or less, than on lower resolution bodies?

And, FWIW, I'll update here too what I end up getting. It's nice to be (almost) back.

Happy New Year!

 

 

Happy New Year!

M10-R and M10-M are the ultimate rangefinders in 2021.

If I was just returning to Leica Rangefinder again and ready to start a fresh new build, I'd get back in the saddle with the M10-R and two Leica M lens. You wrote you already have your lens short list. Me ? I'd start off again with a 35mm and a 50mm. Test the waters with this kit to make sure the Leica Rangefinder system is still everything you remember it to be to include the motivation to get out there! 

It really is one click of one button in Lightroom to switch from color to B&W. If you find yourself converting most of your M10-R Color images to B&W, I would then consider adding the M10-M. 

** I've always worn my glasses when using the RF patch and thankful I can. I see that as a benefit. 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by LBJ2

[Jeff S]

Nothing wrong with getting another M10 and/or older Monochrom (MM or M246) for when you’re in the mood.  Still excellent cameras, fully capable of producing terrific photos....and prints. But if it’s the shiny new toy that attracts, only you can say which one appeals.

Not that it should matter, but I use the M10 and MM (not together) for 28/35/50 RF shooting, and address complementary needs with the SL2 (longer/wider lenses, zooms, IBIS, weather sealing, etc).  The M lenses remain on the M’s.

Jeff

[Mr.Prime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here’s an off the wall idea - what got me re energized in photography after a long break was a film M. With an M4 you have all the same constraints as mentioned already but also with that ‘look and feel’ that makes film unique.

[John Miranda]

I settled on M10-R and M10-M, both fit in a relatively small bag, each with a mounted lens, and a 3rd lens stored in the middle.  absolutely love the combination.  Every so often, I'll also just take 1 camera and 1 lens.  I feel like I am in M nirvana, and to hopefully a more post-covid normalized world later this year to venture out a bit more.    

[Winedemonium]

It's so nice to get these replies. I'd forgotten (forgive me!) how much I enjoyed chatting with other photography nuts here on this forum. 🙂

chasdfg - so much of your experience seems familiar to me! Regarding the M10D, I really smiled when I saw that one. I can't claim to have been part of the clamour here from those who imagined this camera, but I was one of those persuaded by it. I bought, and reported on the M60 - kind of the beta release for this, and I also had and reported here on the M-D (typ262). The same concept in M10 form has appeal I really get. But I also learned - especially with the M-D, the sometimes I like to frame and shoot, slightly arms length from the rear screen, and it is useful to have that option. But... I get it. The M246 I never really gelled with, and in fact while I owned that one I "downgraded" to the MM, which really made the MM's antiquated feel stand out, not to mention that "guh jjjjjjrrrrrrrr" after the shutter release. But there is - to this day - something about the MM files, and when I happen upon them in my catalogue they really stand out. I can imagine, in a return to the M, even if I had an M10M, I would still consider an MM, just as much and for the same kind of reason as I would consider another M-A/MP/M3, etc (so, I'm with you Jeff S too). Just like the M10D each of these bodies delivers slightly different strengths and weaknesses, we become attuned to them, and work creatively to deliver through them. It's part of the appeal, especially as other (immensely capable) systems deliver so much 'more' so much more easily. (I think everyone here gets this, right?).

Thank you chasdfg, petermullett, LocalHero1953, LBJ2, and Jeff S for your comments too, and thank you LocalHero1953 for the welcome back too. 

LBJ2, regarding the shortlist, it's been tough working on this. I don't want to go nuts in the way I have in the past. I've been fortnate enough to own or try most at some point or other, or for longer periods. I want to get what I will really use, as opposed to fondle. 😁 The change in eyesight is also something I have to get used to. I've gone in to a couple of boutiques to try to figure out what feels comfortable. I don't want to set myself up for frustration. I do like the 28mm fl, but with eyeglasses in between me and the OVF (something that will be new to me), I worry that to much of the periphery of the view will be obscured by the limited access the glasses create. I'm someone who likes to do a quick scan around the framelines during photo-taking to check composition. I don't like to over-crop later in post. Or, at least, I try to challenge myself that way, and worry that this new dimension to the challenge will be de-motivating. I have found in the past that I feel very natural composing in 35mm, so that, and I think 50mm would make a good two lens starting point. I'm still debating 50APO and 50LX. Before I think it would have been no hesitating for the 50APO. I owned that lens for 6 years and know its immense capabilities. But right now for this system I also feel a little tempted back to the more painterly qualities of the near-focus range open aperture range of the 50LX ASPH - which, as we know, is no slouch either. But, I'm still working on this...

 

 

 

[Good To Be Retired]

After departing Leica for a period of time, I also found that the rangefinder experience/small form factor, and general experience of using a system with the Leica quality was something I missed.  For me at least, an M240 embodied all the qualities I enjoy.  The M10, which offering several improvements, didn't offer anything I wished to have bad enough to justify the additional cost.

I use the M240 in addition to my medium format system and a Nikon D850.  This covers pretty much anything in which I hav an interest.

The M10-R, however, strongly tempts me to upgrade from the M240   I rather prefer the higher resolution bodies for my personal uses.  YMMV.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Good To Be Retired

[Winedemonium]

23 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Here’s an off the wall idea - what got me re energized in photography after a long break was a film M. With an M4 you have all the same constraints as mentioned already but also with that ‘look and feel’ that makes film unique.

Thanks Mr.Prime. I didn't mention it, but this has also been on my mind. In the latter days of my film M period I had two bodies - an M2-R, which I hahd had Kanto Camera custom paint for me, and an M7 a la carte in chrome with MP-style controls and a fewer-framelines 0.85 OVR. Yes, I kick myself now, as I've seen that a la carte is no more, but we should count ourselves lucky that M-As and MPs are still available new. (And of course decades' worth of older bodies that still work and feel great and can be CLA's until long after we have all gone). The thing I want to test is whether - with glasses (again, something new for me with the M), the smaller OVF aperture of the M3< system will let me comfortably see the framelines. Many here have managed just fine, so perhaps this is just practice. I do like the way film has, in the past, made me think a little differently while shooting, and the results have their own feel. 

For a while I was really into this, and I had a Hasselblad Flextight X1 virtual drum scanner, and would travel with lots of film, a couple of film bodies etc. I loved it, but the scanning and 'cleaning' of the files took up time I felt I could be out shooting, or printing. The nail in the coffin however was asking numerous airport security people if they wouldn't mind not scanning the film (probably no problem, but I was coneerned about cumulative effects after the umpteenth airport, etc), and in the end my long suffering wife thought that this film thing was a little less romantic that I did. 🤪 But, in the past few days as I have been contemplating the possibility of an MP in the mix I have been considering how to make it ia rewarding but less time-consuming option. (Airports are not such a factor these days!). Finding a lab who will process and scan the negs is one - even if those scans are basic level, its enough to make selections from, and if by chance I snap something good, I can always get a single neg drum scan later. etc. So, it's in consideration. 

 

 

[Winedemonium]

1 minute ago, Good To Be Retired said:

After departing Leica for a period of time, I also found that the rangefinder experience/small form factor, and general experience of using a system with the Leica quality was something I missed.  For me at least, an M240 embodied all the qualities I enjoy.  The M10, which offering several improvements, didn't offer anything I wished to have bad enough to justify the additional cost.

I use the M240 in addition to my medium format system and a Nikon D850.  This covers pretty much anything in which I hav an interest.

The M10-R, however, strongly tempts me to upgrade from the M240   I rather prefer the resolution upgrade for my personal uses.  YMMV.

Exactly. I think that's the thing these days. Just like radio has survived TV, and TV has survived the internet, theyv'e done so in part by narrowing their use to their key virtues, and we don't have to choose one fully over the other. The M stands out - especially in "Barnack" camera form, but we may also wish to have an SLR, a high speed eye-detect mirrorless, or a medium format camera in the arsenal too. We are, as some have noted 'beyond sufficiency' here. The tools exceed our - mine anyway - skills to fully exploit, so we are spoiled now to choose from what inspire, or helps us with specific purposes. 

[Jeff S]

Thin, flexible eyeglass frames can help.  Also be sure to experiment with diopters.  My aging eyes now benefit from a +.5 diopter, in addition to my glasses, which correct for distance and astigmatism.

Maybe heresy on the M forum, but some folks have switched to, or added, a Q2 or Q2 Monochrom to deal with poor eyesight and to have a compact solution by cropping the 28 lens to 35 or 50 equivalent (via VF frame lines), made possible with the higher resolution sensor.  Not my cup of tea, but others like.

Jeff

[Mr.Prime]

We have in common that age has attacked our youthful eyes. My fond memories of film were all sans spectacles. Today, there’s no hope at all of focussing anything other than my Rolleiflex TLR without wearing them (and even on that big viewscreen you rely on the focus ‘pop’ to find it).

Wearing my glasses means not seeing the whole viewfinder, the outer framelines are difficult to work with. My Minolta SLR is limited because I can’t see the exposure meter information and f # in the viewfinder very well. I’ve gotten used to the limitation with my M but it robs me of the full joy and rather than limit myself to a compromised view I have resolved to address this properly. I would like to try wearing contact lenses for my photography, but active cases in my region, of this awful pandemic are keeping me away from the optician so these plans are delayed for now. The other option is a dioptre corrective lens fitted to the camera, something I’m now looking into (ha ha!).

 

I have a CL digital with built in dioptre and this works perfectly as a solution but I’m far from happy with an EVF.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Mr.Prime

[WvE]

Unless you absolutely need countless MP's, I would advise to slow down a bit and start with a used M10 and take lots of photo's. In my experience taking photo's is much more satisfying than buying and selling equipment. And...the M11 will arrive eventually. 🙂

[LBJ2]

42 minutes ago, Winedemonium said:

It's so nice to get these replies. I'd forgotten (forgive me!) how much I enjoyed chatting with other photography nuts here on this forum. 🙂

chasdfg - so much of your experience seems familiar to me! Regarding the M10D, I really smiled when I saw that one. I can't claim to have been part of the clamour here from those who imagined this camera, but I was one of those persuaded by it. I bought, and reported on the M60 - kind of the beta release for this, and I also had and reported here on the M-D (typ262). The same concept in M10 form has appeal I really get. But I also learned - especially with the M-D, the sometimes I like to frame and shoot, slightly arms length from the rear screen, and it is useful to have that option. But... I get it. The M246 I never really gelled with, and in fact while I owned that one I "downgraded" to the MM, which really made the MM's antiquated feel stand out, not to mention that "guh jjjjjjrrrrrrrr" after the shutter release. But there is - to this day - something about the MM files, and when I happen upon them in my catalogue they really stand out. I can imagine, in a return to the M, even if I had an M10M, I would still consider an MM, just as much and for the same kind of reason as I would consider another M-A/MP/M3, etc (so, I'm with you Jeff S too). Just like the M10D each of these bodies delivers slightly different strengths and weaknesses, we become attuned to them, and work creatively to deliver through them. It's part of the appeal, especially as other (immensely capable) systems deliver so much 'more' so much more easily. (I think everyone here gets this, right?).

Thank you chasdfg, petermullett, LocalHero1953, LBJ2, and Jeff S for your comments too, and thank you LocalHero1953 for the welcome back too. 

LBJ2, regarding the shortlist, it's been tough working on this. I don't want to go nuts in the way I have in the past. I've been fortnate enough to own or try most at some point or other, or for longer periods. I want to get what I will really use, as opposed to fondle. 😁 The change in eyesight is also something I have to get used to. I've gone in to a couple of boutiques to try to figure out what feels comfortable. I don't want to set myself up for frustration. I do like the 28mm fl, but with eyeglasses in between me and the OVF (something that will be new to me), I worry that to much of the periphery of the view will be obscured by the limited access the glasses create. I'm someone who likes to do a quick scan around the framelines during photo-taking to check composition. I don't like to over-crop later in post. Or, at least, I try to challenge myself that way, and worry that this new dimension to the challenge will be de-motivating. I have found in the past that I feel very natural composing in 35mm, so that, and I think 50mm would make a good two lens starting point. I'm still debating 50APO and 50LX. Before I think it would have been no hesitating for the 50APO. I owned that lens for 6 years and know its immense capabilities. But right now for this system I also feel a little tempted back to the more painterly qualities of the near-focus range open aperture range of the 50LX ASPH - which, as we know, is no slouch either. But, I'm still working on this...

 

 

 

You have the benefit of many years experience with old and new Leica and what appears to me, a very open mind...I like and value that on a Leica forum. 

I only know the M10 OVF and I've always been near-sighted. The M10 and my glasses seem very natural to me which is great since I can't RF accurately without it and my eye lash smudge the Leica diopter so I can't RF with a diopter either. Not sure if the M10's slightly increased eye relief has anything to do with it or it's simply all I know ha ha. 

My lens path started with the 35 Lux FLE and 50 Lux APSH specifically for the f1,4 and later selected the large Noctilux 50 f0,95 for special occasions. My motto has always been buy as much light as I can, even if the 50 APO is stunning at F2 and latest-greatest APO technology is my typical inclination. One day I'll try the 50APO, but don't want to give up f1,4. Even with digital, I find f1,4 logistics very much needed for low light where I have to really push ISO to keep handhold-ability.

Either way, best wishes and much fun on your Leica M rebuild journey and I look forward to reading about your finds and adventure.

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by LBJ2

[Winedemonium]

That's very nice of you LBJ2, thank you.

Taking the (not insignificant) issue of cost aside, it strikes me that we consider three things when choosing a lens at a given focal length: the light-gathering potential of the lens (1.4 gathers twice as much as 2.0 after all), the ergonomics (bigger v smaller lenses), and 'drawing' capabilities of the lens. I feel that the whole catalog of present day lenses is way better than good enough optically not to restrict the photographer, at least this one, and many of the older lenses too.

Do you mind a front-weighted camera via a heavy lens? Do you want something compact? Do you want a focusing tab? How much of the frame can you tolerate being blocked by the lens in the OVF? Do you want high contrast or lower contrast? Do you want a very neutral drawing, or one with lens signature contributing? Do you really want a flat focus plane with edge to edge sharpness, or could you find a curved one useful for human subjects? It's why I feel the MTFs are just a useful component, and not the deciding factor. 

Take the 2/50APO and 1.4/50SX ASPH for instance. I really love both of them and I am finding it hard to decide between them. For me, the way they render is a bigger consideration in this decision than the f-stop difference between them. The M10's sensor, in my experience, already had enough head room for most of the low light situations I find myself in, and the dramatic rolloff between the on focus plane at f/2 and out of focus on the 2/50APO is so clear that I never found myself wishing for one more stop of 'thinness' in that regard. Rather, when shooting a human subject with the 2/50APO I sometimes wished I'd had the (relatively speaking) more gentle feel of the 50SX's rendering, especially when lighting conditions already delivered plenty of contrast in the scene. 

Between the 2/35SN ASPH II and 1.4/35SX FLE, it's partly about the ergonomics. The latter can have a slightly stiff focus tab when the FLE is moving, while I found with the former I got into a snap-fast rhythm when focusing, and loved the overall form factor of the package with the M. But I think here I may return to the FLE, because the look here at f/1.4 offers more possibilities for me than f/2 on the Cron. (I tried each generation of the 35SN, and my favourite was a v1 8 element copy, but I also know that when dealing with lenses of that era, each copy delivers something slightly different. My dealer had 4 copies of that 8 element lens at the same time, and I shot two scenes with each of them. I then asked him to pull the files up on his computer in LR and show me each image without telling me which copy of the lens produced it. I selected my copy based on the images rather than the cosmetic condition of the body or glass. It did turn out to be the most expensive copy, with a great barrel and glass condition, but it's not always the case in my experience. All that to say that sometimes the older lenses offer something the newer ones no longer do, and its nice to have one when the situation or mood calls for it).

Again, I just want to get back out shooting, and I must remind myself that any choice I make here is not going to be the technical limitation of what I can produce. If the ergonomics, and the special feeling and method the M motivates me to shoot, then it will be the practice, practice, practice, that will give me the results I'm looking for.

That said, I really do appreciate the advice on this forum, and the anecdotes of others' experience given the choices on the table today which are wider than the choices I last had a couple of years ago. I'll better accept the choices I do make if I know I gave it all good consideration (and the eyesight issue is a new factor for me).

[chasdfg]

@Winedemonium I didn't realise you've had the M60 & MD262 before, like the Monochroms. Just want to add points on the M10D and M10M compared to their predecessor(s). On the M10D, aside from the slimmer body, it has that really nifty thumb rest. I wasn't sold by this at first. Ergonomically, even without the thumb rest the M10D feels better in hand than the M10M because the back of the camera has no clutter and no LCD in the way. When I tried the M10D at different Leica stores I didn't much of the thumb rest and thought I would only use it for the sake of it. I was very wrong though, and it's something that grew on me quickly. Another thing is wifi, which is quite handy when commuting and I want see some pics I've taken or to use the remote function with live view via the Fotos app (not that I use wifi much, but it's there)...though the wifi aspect can be very divisive for purists. Also, the M10D looks so bloody good and is the most beautiful production digital M I've seen. This said, my feel about the M10D is that unless one is absolutely averse to the idea of processing film, buying a film camera and shooting film would get you there too, so it's not really as much of a game-changer in that respect. Plus it really depends on one's view of the "inconvenience" of developing film - if one enjoys the process, then it's not much of a con (I for one am too lazy and would probably hoard dozens of rolls before doing anything about them). My only bugbear about buying a Leica film camera now is that prices for popular cameras have gone through the roof (and too the moon, and past that) in the past couple of years.

On the M10M, I completely understand the appeal of the M9M and how unique those files are. I tend to view the M10M a little differently, in that the camera is it's own camera, not just lumped into the family of "Monochroms" and having the title of being the latest one on the market. It isn't an M9M and won't be. It has different film loaded into its DNA and will produce different files (out of the camera, the files are too punchy for my liking, so much so i changed the LCD picture review to have lower contrast too). Alfonso Cuaron mentioned that when he was producing the movie Roma, he wanted that movie to be in black and white, but didn't want it to be a black and white movie with the film grain and rawness reflecting the 1970s it was set in. He took a different approach and wanted the black and white aspect to convey nostalgia yet shoot "clean" black and white, utilising the strength of modern sensors today (with Arri cameras) and exploiting the depth and capabilities of this modern medium. I hope I didn't butcher or mis-convey what he was saying. Anyhow, I realised that that is how the M10M sensor should be seen -  a modern medium to shoot black and white. Not Tri-X, or Ilford Delta, or even M9M. You can emulate those in post to some degree, but the M10M can also be its own camera and should be seen as it's own camera. It's tough even within the trio of Monochroms due to the M9M's cult following. Just my thoughts!

Of course the above is moot if you just want to go simple and just get an M10P or M10R. Either one of them can do everything the M10M and M10D can as long as you have the self-imposed limitations, plus the M10R can do high res too.

Lens wise, I feel the same as you about the 50APO in that I never found the f2 lacking in giving me "thin DOF". I would always say the 50lux ASPH is the ideal 50mm M to get because it does everything great (not just doing everything "good enough" but great) with speed, sharpness, size, MFD all thrown into one. I don't think any general photographer should find the sharpness and capability lacking in all modern Karbe lenses and they are all reliable performers image quality wise. More so if you don't go out testing lenses to no end and worrying about wavy plane of focus or that pinch more distortion than the 50APO, which to me are imperceptible and almost never in-your-face.

One thing I've determined after my tedious and tiresome journey to deciding my current kit is that honestly, the only rational thing one should do is ensure you can afford what you're looking at. After that, the heart takes over and you should just get what you want. Too much of my time was wasted counting pennies and depreciation over 5 years, not wanting to put so much money in a spare camera, feeling guilty about owning X camera or Y lens, being practical or "too economical"...and this took a lot of joy out of the hobby. Ultimately, if you do get your lenses used, the cost of ownership per month is almost nothing if they are kept in good condition (plenty of places in HK to shop used too. I am envious!) and the cost of ownership for each of those cameras per month probably the same as how much you'd spend on film (or a nice meal or some alcohol...you get me).

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by chasdfg

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Winedemonium]

1 hour ago, chasdfg said:

My only bugbear about buying a Leica film camera now is that prices for popular cameras have gone through the roof (and too the moon, and past that) in the past couple of years.

I was really surprised too when I saw the current asking prices for used Leica M film bodies, having not looked for about 2 years. Ironically it makes the idea of a new film MP seem less unreasonable. 😅

52 minutes ago, chasdfg said:

I tend to view the M10M a little differently, in that the camera is it's own camera, not just lumped into the family of "Monochroms" and having the title of being the latest one on the market. It isn't an M9M and won't be. It has different film loaded into its DNA and will produce different files

I think this is a really good way of looking at it, and I was intrigued too by what you wrote about Cuaron. Always healthy to see things as they are rather than as you might wish them to be. 

54 minutes ago, chasdfg said:

Too much of my time was wasted counting pennies and depreciation over 5 years, not wanting to put so much money in a spare camera, feeling guilty about owning X camera or Y lens, being practical or "too economical"

For me, with this, I've learned that it also a false economy, because in the churn, the switching (up) costs mount up. I recently decided to get into making espresso at home. I did a fair amount of research first about what to buy, and then got the best and closest match to what I felt would give me what I would want and could afford - a Weber Workshops EG-1 single-dose flat burr grinder, and a La Marzocco Linea Mini espresso machine. I have made coffee on this setup every consecutive day for the last 126 (the pleasures of a pandemic!), have no regrets, know that the only important limitation in the system is my own skill/experience, and feel fairly confident that I am a long way off desiring any 'upgrade' save perhaps a different tamper, shower screen or other minor element. It's even, possibly, a buy once only thing, which would be a first!

So, I'm with you, I won't skimp on the choices, rather, I'll economise by not buying too many choices. (I tell myself 🤪).

[Guest]

Just one thing I would add, ( I know that at least one of the forum members posting above would agree ), and that is if you've the work space available to you get a decent printer, at least A2 size, and commit to making prints from whatever camera you may eventually choose. Printing one's images, printing them yourself rather than sending out to a pro' shop, is the best way to hone the craft irrespective of whatever camera you may have used to create the image...................Just my two cents worth.