Leica M for landscape photography

[Izzy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi. In terms of image quality, how  well does the M perform for landscape ? I'm using the M10 with Mandler era lenses . For landscape I frequently use the GFX but the weight is a problem and I prefer going light . Thus lately, the M has been my go to . I would love to hear the opinions and experiences from the members.  

Cheers

 

[a.noctilux]

Very well ( thousands of good pictures with M10 and so many more with M ) when used with care as usual.

The lens in use can be (or not if well choosen) the limited factor.

Mandler's lenses are huge numbers and not all (if any) was created with landscape in mind of the creators.

I had tried them (Mandler's lenses, 21mmto180mm, all over the world) with thousands of more than adequate "landscapes" on slides and sensors.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

Why wouldn't it be good for landscape? Add a light carbon tripod and it would be excellent!

There is some sort of mythologising that Leica M's are only for 'street' or 'documentary', but that is from people trying to make rules for other people. With an adapter on a lens you can use lenses from other makes that go beyond 135mm, or below 21mm, so there shouldn't be a focal length you can't match and use in LV or with the Visoflex.

[IkarusJohn]

Not sure I understand the question.

The camera body isn’t really a limiting factor, is it?  I can’t think why a digital or film M would be better or worse than any other 135 format camera.  A larger format will always be better.

So, what is critical about landscape?  My guess would be sharpness across the frame, and detail if you intend to print large.  That dictates the lens being stopped down, so a tripod might be a good idea.  Some of the best landscape images I’ve taken were with the v1 Monochrom and the 75 Summilux (pretty much telecentric).  If you want wide, then the APO Summicron-M 35 would be a good bet.

I’d have to say that most of the landscapes I’ve taken that I like were taken with a Hasselblad 503cx, and the fabulous Zeiss V series lenses, a tripod, filters and a spot meter.  The advantage of the M system, by comparison, is its compact size.  The best landscapes tend to be a long way away from your car …

Edited July 18, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[pedaes]

28 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Mandler era lenses

The Digital M's are fine landscape cameras. If you want to use grad filters probably best with the LV models where you can use an electronic Visoflex to judge effect. You ask about IQ and then say you are using Mandler era lenses. If you want to max IQ I suggest using 'designed for digital' lenses, either Leica or the latest Voigtlanders.

[erniethemilk]

I use my M10-P predominately for landscape and woodland photography and it’s my camera of choice over other camera systems I own. 
 

There are some limitations I find frustrating - using an ND filter system is not the greatest, due to the filter size required for the Summicrons I shoot with, the long exposure options are a bit limited and not being able to turn off Noise reduction isn’t great but on the whole I think the advantages of image quality, weight and  flexibility along with the fun factor outweigh the negatives for me.  YMMV. 

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It performs very well, just don't shoot the lenses wide open to avoid field curvature.

A Leica M will be no substitute to your GFX and its bigger sensor though. I own both.

Also, GFX is 32 oz and Leica M is 24 oz... no dramatic reduction here, less than one third.

[RexGig0]

M, for landscapes? Yes, of course. I usually think of some of my Zeiss ZM lenses, especially the f/1,4 35mm Distagon, and f/4 85mm Tele Tessar, when considering landscapes, but if Mandler lenses provide the look that one wants, for landscapes, that is a valid artist’s choice.