Why so many Leica owners have Sony as well? (Nikon -> Fujifilm, Canon -> Olympus)

[Patrick NL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a background in Nikon. I moved to Fujifilm in 2014 in search of a camera Nikon did not have at the time. Over the years, I can clearly see the move Nikon -> Fujifilm is very common. I do not see many people moving from Canon to Fujifilm. They ended up with Olympus I think.

This might have something to do with the way these brands work (left is left on both, and right is right). So both zoom in and out the same direction. Is that it? Now I bought a Q3 and I'm still struggling with the direction; Leica works the "wrong way" compared to my Nikons and Fujifilms. The Canon/Olympus way...

Anyway. I see a lot of people that also have Sony camera equipment next to their Leica. Why is that? For me Sony cameras are computers with a sensor. Leica is a photographers tool very different from Sony. Much more like Fujifilm; those cameras are also "true" photographer central cameras.

[Ray Vonn]

20 minutes ago, Patrick NL said:

For me Sony cameras are computers with a sensor.

No different to an SL then.  That occasional need for that computer behind the sensor is why I have a Z6 and native AF prime lens, it enables me to get in and out without much thought and return home with stellar images.  I just have to live with the fact that said stellar images were as much to do with the abilities of the computer as me. As I said it's an occasional need and I take advantage of what's available to me. It is possible to be like this and use a rangefinder most of the time.

[Advertisement]

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

[Anbaric]

Lots of people have another system alongside their Leicas. Even when everyone was using film it was common to have an SLR if you wanted to use longer lenses or zooms or autofocus or fast motordrives. I can't say I've noticed more Leica users have Sony than other brands, but if they do that probably just reflects the popularity of Sony in general - they are the #2 brand behind Canon, selling more than Nikon and Fuji put together. Sony have been pretty innovative and introduced a proper mirrorless system early on, five years before Canon or Nikon, which gave them a lot of market share. Sony mirrorless was also immediately attractive to people who wanted to adapt lenses from other systems, including Leica.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Anbaric

[jankap]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Patrick NL:

I have a background in Nikon. I moved to Fujifilm in 2014 in search of a camera Nikon did not have at the time. Over the years, I can clearly see the move Nikon -> Fujifilm is very common. I do not see many people moving from Canon to Fujifilm. They ended up with Olympus I think.

This might have something to do with the way these brands work (left is left on both, and right is right). So both zoom in and out the same direction. Is that it? Now I bought a Q3 and I'm still struggling with the direction; Leica works the "wrong way" compared to my Nikons and Fujifilms. The Canon/Olympus way...

Anyway. I see a lot of people that also have Sony camera equipment next to their Leica. Why is that? For me Sony cameras are computers with a sensor. Leica is a photographers tool very different from Sony. Much more like Fujifilm; those cameras are also "true" photographer central cameras.

The wish photographers have, is to produce and show nice pictures. The camera is the similar tool as a vacuum cleaner with which you clean your house.

Think of Dyson .....

[TomB_tx]

I bought a base Sony A7 quite early because of my collection of different film era SLR lenses that were orphans in digital, and they work quite well on the A7. The tiny A7 body is well matched to the small Pentax-M lenses that I used to use on the small MX SLR. I got the A7 options set the way I want and don't mess with them, so I ignore the computer aspects. If Leica had the SL series then I might have bought it, but now that I have the A7 it does what I need.

In film era my kit always included a Leica RF for most photos, and an SLR for ultrawide (no accessor finder needed), long, and very close work. I bought both a Leica M4 and Leicaflex SL when I left college, which made a great (if heavy) kit. But after 1970 everything Leica took a big jump in prices, especially R lenses. So when Pentax came out with the small ME/MX and M lenses the Leicaflex and lenses semi-retired and my kit got lighter and more versatile. 

I still use the Leica M (10 now) for most shots for what it does best - fast handling and enjoyable haptics. I also don't care for auto-everything cameras (especially auto focus), as I enjoy setting exposure and focus myself.

[dpitt]

I was using Nikon exclusively for 25 years and my first 2 digital camera's were Nikon. My move to Leica was logical. I wanted better IQ without going larger in size and weight than my Nikon D70. That brought me to the Leica M8 rather than a Nikon D700.

I always did like macro and tele work. This is an area the M8 is not designed for. Wanting the same Leica quality, I ended up with Leica R lenses. The only FF available that could use the R lenses with a simple adapter was the Canon 5D at the time. So I switched to Canon for my R lenses, and later bought a R8+DMR. I never liked the Canon look, but it worked when I needed FF. If Nikon would have had a Nikon Z at the time I would have bought that for my R lenses. If the Sony mirrorless would have been available I might have used that one.

As soon as the Leica SL was available in my budget, I switched to Leica SL for FF with the R lenses. It just works better and is the best we can have for using R glass now. I still use my M system and M lenses for anything they can do. The SL system with R lenses fills the gaps.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by dpitt

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jankap said:

The camera is the similar tool as a vacuum cleaner with which you clean your house.

But I never met anyone who enjoys vacuuming, but many who enjoy the process of operating a camera. Fine tools are functional art objects in themselves.

[Zeitblom]

Q: Why so many Leica owners have Sony as well?
A: When traveling in previous decades, never I could listen to the BBC Worldservice on my M3 and M6, nor I took a single picture by my Sony shortwave radio.📻

[willeica]

6 hours ago, jankap said:

The wish photographers have, is to produce and show nice pictures. The camera is the similar tool as a vacuum cleaner with which you clean your house.

Think of Dyson .....

I'd rather not. I'm on my fourth Dyson from the same purchase- 3 replacements already. . It has to be one of the most unreliable brands on the planet. I've had issues with Leicas, but nothing like I've had with Dyson. Miele is pretty bad too.

In truth , though, brands are only reliable indicators of potential performance when considered on the basis of past experience. 

William 

[Pyrogallol]

Still using an Electrolux I bought around 1980 and the M3 I bought in 1974.

[jankap]

I worked for Siemens, so the vacuum cleaner is one from Bosch-Siemens. Camera from Sony, 6500.  And from Sigma the fp and an early one.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by jankap

[250swb]

It’s a fashion to look for the next best thing and abandon what you began with. But other than the brilliant Olympus M43 cameras I’ve never come close to the systems I started with, Nikon and Leica. But I admit this is routed in the traditional Nikon/Leica connection from the 1960’s when professional photographers would happily use both at the same time. And of course both the Leica M mount and the Nikon F mount have both stood the test of time while others have failed along the way. F mount lenses can still be used on Nikon Z cameras and M mount lenses can still be use on L mount, and visa versa into infinity with the appropriate adapter. I’ve never been tempted by Sony or Fuji digital cameras.

[irenedp]

When I started, I did with Fuji, but they were progressively replaced by Nikons and Leicas. I have two Nikons for action work, two Ms, two Ss(the reason of being two is not having to change lenses, but also that the more modern one covers things the other can’t do well, like fine focusing with  liveview), and a Phase One, which I use for very specific purposes. I’ve never had the least interest on Sony or other makes. 

[Martin B]

Several things to say in this regard. Some prefer Fuji due to its bit of a Leica-like look and compact size. Main con of compact Fuji mirrorless cameras is their limit to APS-C cropped sensor which was at least for me a no-go since I like to shoot with wide and ultra-wide lenses on full-format. Preference from Sony comes from a time when Sony was first to release full-frame mirrorless cameras with E-mount which allows to adapt rangefinder lenses. I was excited in 2014 and bought the A7R which I am using to this day as my only mirrorless camera parallel to my M rangefinder cameras. I have not bought into the E-mount lens system and only use the A7R with third party AF and MF lenses. Many like me switched from Canon to Sony when the first full-frame mirrorless cameras appeared on the market - it took years until Canon and Nikon released competitive full-frame mirrorless cameras. Now the market situation is different, and especially Nikon Z-series cameras also allow decent adaptability of rangefinder lenses. Panasonic cameras are also in the game, but their market share is way smaller. 

Biggest debit of using any third party mirrorless cameras with M lenses was and still often is with wider lenses causing color vignetting and unsharpness at the corners of the frame. This can be corrected in post processing, but over time it became a time consuming tedious process. Later Kolari offered sensor-glass modifications to replace the thicker sensor glass with thinner one avoiding often the issues caused the the thicker sensor stack in mirrorless full-frame cameras. This is probably the best alternative instead of buying an expensive more modern digital M camera. I personally decided to get M 240 series based digital rangefinder cameras which mostly replaced my former workflow of using M lenses with my A7R. Still using the A7R but mostly with my adapted (D)SLR lenses where the thicker sensor stack is not an issue. 

This said, I wish Leica made a Q-based EVF camera with exchangeable lens mount instead of fixed lens. Would love to add such camera in parallel to my M cameras. Such move would make my A7R pretty redundant. Until this happens, it will be my M 240 and MM246 cameras with VF-2 and my A7R for in-camera EVF. I don't consider the SL series since I don't need video nor AF, and I prefer a smaller camera form factor. 

And yes, Sony cameras have a very different functionality and ergonomics than M cameras. I honestly don't care too much about how menus look or the often hyped "Das Wesentliche" approach. I get used to a camera no matter what. The Sony menus have much more than I often need, but I simply ignore the options I have no need for - easy. I like it better than being restricted upfront in options - I have no issue of having video capability in my M 240 even I barely use it. I shot with Canon, Sony, Leica, Pentax, Hasselblad, Mamiya - all cameras have their pros and cons and are best used in certain situations like any other tool in a workshop. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Martin B

[liggy]

I have some pretty good reasons to shoot Sony.  

Arguably the best autofocus/tracking extant in the A1.   A huge array of excellent lens options.  Speed (30fps), zero blackout high res EVF w 9.44M dots.  All these things make tele/Action/BIF possible to a degree that no Leica offers.  

It  might not offer the tactile pleasure of a Leica but I can assure you that it is an incredibly capable camera.  

And the notion that a Sony = a computer while any digital Leica is somehow a superior computer with a lens is a horribly snobbish belief at best.

 

[liggy]

@Martin B an ILC Leica Q would be outstanding but imo would absolutely decimate SL sales.  

[spydrxx]

Leica digital bodies were unaffordable for me whereas Olympus M4/3 and Sony A7R series bodies (used) were in my price range and could use my Leica and other mfr's legacy lenses. That simple. I still have and occasionally use my Leica film M & Barnack bodies, as well as other mfr's film bodies I've accumulated over the years. IMHO it is mostly the photographer's vision and capabilities to use whatever gear he has effectively which counts, not some fancy price nor logo. Given that all of my gear allows me to make 3x4 ft prints which capture my and others' attention, I'm ok with what I have.