Switching from Q to M

[ianforber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, stindiri said:

I think whatever you choose and keep shooting will be the one suiting you the most over time. 
 

I also believe using the M is a wonderful experience on one hand, but it has definitely a „dr. Oetker“ effect in it. Hence as you need to do the work of focusing with the RF, the end effect pleases you more - even when not perfectly in focus (you will find these same effects with IKEA furniture).

Nonetheless i would be really interested in - especially M11 users - how much % they use RF, zone and live view. So the M without considering the interchangeable lens topic makes IMO just sense if the RF focusing is used at least 40%. The other 2 modes i can do perfectly with the Q. 
 

In an ideal world i would just have both Q and M 😁

On %age of time using RF vs zone vs live view, it depends! For landscapes, it will be about 70% RF and 30% live view, with live view only used when the camera is on a tripod. For general purpose photography, 98% rangefinder and 2% live view (when I’m using the close focusing on my CV35mm, which focuses to 0.5m). For street, about 80% zone, 20% rangefinder (mainly when I’m taking street portraits rather than candid scenes). 

Overall, I’d say it’s about 60% zone 39% RF and 1% at the moment because I’m not doing any landscape photography but doing a fair amount of street. 

[dpitt]

3 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

, I'm struggling to understand what aperture has to do with it. Perhaps you are referring to employing M glass on the SL, in which case I would heartily agree.

I think he is referring to using SL with M lenses (or any MF lens for that matter)

The issue with small apertures and magnification focusing is that you never really see the critical focus point. So you have to go back and forth to choose about the 1/3 position of in-focus and out of focus to know. Or (better) you have to open up the lens fully, focus and then stop back down to the desired aperture. Focus peaking is even worse because it will show everything in focus (or nothing because of lack of light)
Lack of light is also an issue with EVF focusing at F11 and higher. At some point your sensor does not work properly and EVF lag time increases enormously.

This is very slow compared to aligning the focus patch of the M (or a vertical line going through it).
RF focusing is independent of the aperture used. Always with  the same maximum accuracy, which is as accurate as it gets with < 50 mm FL...  And you always have maximum light to work with in the view finder. Again, because it works independent of the aperture used. I can understand that the impact of this is hard to appreciate for those who have no experience with it, but it is one of these unique advantages of the Leica rangefinder system.

Edited March 2 by dpitt

[Advertisement]

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

[fotografr]

On 3/1/2024 at 12:30 PM, dpitt said:

And I guarantee you that I can focus a 28mm or 35mm almost perfectly before I raise it to my eye (by estimating the distance and finger position of the tab with tabbed lenses). Try to do this with an EVF and non tabbed lens 🙂
The RF is very hard to beat in MF speed, It is much faster to line up a vertical line or map an image compared to use magnification to focus... Even split screen reflex finders which I consider in second place to the RF patch are slower. And third of them all is the focus with magnification x6 or x10. Focus peaking is not accurate enough for critical focus in my experience. Mind you, I do not have a Q. I just refer to MF with the SL, which also has a very good EVF.
YMMV of course.

EVF will make much more sense with tele lenses (>135mm), but that is not what we are discussing here. The Q only has 28mm FL to deal with.

I agree with you. If I want to be ready to grab a quick shot, as one must be around young kids, I put a 28mm on my M10-R and set the aperture around 4 to 5.6. I then pre-set my focus to the approximate distance from the subject. If I need to shoot quickly I'll I do it without getting the camera to my eye and I can nearly always get a properly focused shot. If there is time to get my eye to the viewfinder there's usually just a very small focus adjustment needed. In this way, I'm using my M very much like a Q, and it's as fast or faster for me. 

[fotografr]

7 hours ago, trickness said:

The Q has a 1.7 Lux. Put a 28 Lux on your M (for like 8 grand) and then tell me how small it is.

Ever heard of Voigtlander? They have a 28mm f1.5 that is quite small and light and a wonderful performer. 

Edited March 2 by fotografr

[trickness]

2 hours ago, fotografr said:

Ever heard of Voigtlander? They have a 28mm f1.5 that is quite small and light and a wonderful performer. 

I have, and I’m old and a snob, life is too short not to shoot with Leica glass. For me.

But for me a fast 28 makes little sense in terms of what I’d want in an M mount anyway. A Summaron 28 5.6 is more my speed (again, in M mount. I’m happy to have the 1.7 in the Q2M)

[fotografr]

1 hour ago, trickness said:

I have, and I’m old and a snob, life is too short not to shoot with Leica glass. For me.

But for me a fast 28 makes little sense in terms of what I’d want in an M mount anyway. A Summaron 28 5.6 is more my speed (again, in M mount. I’m happy to have the 1.7 in the Q2M)

I'll venture a guess that I'm older. I also felt the same about Leica glass for about 35 years. A few years ago I was lured by Voigtlander's vintage line--black paint on brass--and after trying a couple of them and comparing the results to my Leica lenses, I concluded that there was no reason not to put them on my M cameras.

I'm also a long time acquaintance with a highly regarded Leica repair person and my conversations with him about their decline in quality control and the switching to inferior, cheaper parts and lubrication have caused me to lose my Leica brand loyalty.

In addition to Voigtlander, Light Lens Lab is producing M lenses that easily hold their own against their Leica counterparts. 

Edited March 3 by fotografr

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/2/2024 at 4:19 AM, Smogg said:

The vast majority of famous street photos are taken at a small aperture

This is a patently ridiculous reduction of what classic 'street' photography is or has been about. Most famous street photographers did not shoot at f/8/11/16 because they are not lazy and actually focus the shot and prefer some separation from background. It's amateurs that have heralded the 'zone, everything in focus, just switch to a higher iso' way of thinking. A very boring way imo, where one might as well use a phone for a similar result. 

[kiwidad]

only thing I miss when I went from Q2 to M11 was AF option and well the image stabilization. sometimes its just simpler to just whip out and click (a very anti leica process methinks tho)

 

the M11 does take wonderfukllpics just like the Q's do!

[FocusDot]

On 3/1/2024 at 6:30 PM, dpitt said:

Agreed it is easier with AF. But, I hate that AF often wastes my time just at the moment I do not want it. It picks the wrong subject to focus on...

Picks a wrong subject to focus on? I use single point focus and I choose where that point should be (persons eye e.g)  without the need to recompose
afterwards (like you would need with M)
PS. I have used M for number of years and liked it for many reasons, but ultimately switched to SL/Q - much easier to properly focus both in AF and manual mode

Edited March 6 by FocusDot

[mekener]

Hello

    I took both an m11 and a q2 to Svalbard recently. The temperature was mostly below -12 degrees Celsius and I spent around 4 hours each day on a zodiac or hiking in snow. I had zero problems with the m11 regarding weather sealing, actually I ended up using the m11 more because the q2's battery was draining very rapidly and died on me on two occasions. I also frequently manage to overexpose highlights on the q2(possibly due to my error) so the q2 is currently collecting dust as a backup. I mostly use 50mm lenses, I got myself a 28mm Elmarit 2.8 ASPH and I love that lens to death. Extremely sharp and to my eye the colors are amazing. The 2.8 aperture doesn't bother me at all...