lxlim Posted August 30, 2009 Share #41 Posted August 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Are you a gear head? Pro? Serious amateur? Think your equipment is going to make you a better photographer? Why don't you learn to use what you've got to its full potential because you have some of the best Canon has to offer. If portability is your only issue why did you buy all the Canon stuff to begin with? Rent an M8 with some lenses before you dump all that gear and see what you think first. Sometimes, the excitement of our hobby can be overwhelming. You buy because a lot of people says its a good choice. You buy because the specs says you can cover every possible possibility. You buy because the camera+lens didn't seem so heavy when you played with it in the shop. You buy because you want to start off well. Then when you put it all together and need to lug it around for hours ....... Then you think maybe I can do without .... Your advise are right though, learn with what you have then reset the parameters for the next choice of camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 Hi lxlim, Take a look here Canon -> Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest WPalank Posted August 30, 2009 Share #42 Posted August 30, 2009 {snipped}From what I can see the Canon takes by far the clearer, sharper, better white balanced and less noisy image. It is the easiest camera to get excellent images from providing the user knows what he is doing i.e. ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed relationship. {snipped} Jason, First off, thank you for your honesty and I think renting an M8 for a while is an excellent idea. As a person who has shot Canon since the inception of the 1D Mark II (I currently own the Mark III 1D and 5D Mark II), I couldn't disagree more with your statement above especially wide open. But like you, we all have a right to qualify our own opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmx_2 Posted August 30, 2009 Share #43 Posted August 30, 2009 I too came from Canon DSLR this Januar to Leica M8 (even though I have been shooting Leica R for a long time). My experience so far is this: Leica pros: *Small and light weight *RF (If you like it or not) *"Fast" (you can actually what is in the picture you see at that moment) *Produces amazing pictures in the right light *Discret *Perfect street camera Leica cons: *Poor perfomance in low light (to me everything above ISO 640 is not usable) *Poor closest focusing range *Very hard to shoot macro with *Crop factor *Need for special filters So if I where you I would first start with renting/borrowing an M8 to see if you like it or not, trust me, the way you take pictures with an M8 is very different from Canon. Then I would most likely sell all but the 5d and the 70-200, buy the M8 and a wide angle lens like the 28mm Elmarit and then keep both systems. This summer I was on Greenland and on the trip I had two cameras (1D and M8) and four lenses, (40mm Cron M, 90mm Elmar M, 70-200 Canon and a 28mm Elmarit R with adapter). Most of the time and had the Canon on one shoulder with the 70-200 and the M8 with 40mm on the other one and both took excellent pictures. I would say that it all depends on what you are shooting. I love to shoot flowers, and in those situation I would prefer the Canon with 70-200 in every situation. If you keep the Canon you also have the possibillity to buy used Leica R lenses and use with an adapter. To my experience Canon's wide angle lenses (both zoom and prime) are quite poor performers, the 70-200 is one of the best tele zooms on the market and is close to Leica perfomance. It's much better then the heavier and more expensive 70-200 2.8. Just some thoughts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lxlim Posted August 30, 2009 Share #44 Posted August 30, 2009 .... It takes a good 6 months to a year to understand how to process any digicam coming at the brand fresh like you are.... aye to that. It took me that long. 60 - 70,000 shots and I'm still learning. Initially, I preferred the canon files. More pliable in the shadows. Now I prefer the M8's. Less work needed. I shoot at as low an ISO as I dared for better shadow quality. The combination of optics and sensor usually puts it ahead of my 1DmkIII's files. That is not to say that the 1DmkIII's files are bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 30, 2009 Share #45 Posted August 30, 2009 I use both systems. I think someone has already suggested that you rent an M8 or borrow one if you have a friend who own's one. I would do this first before unloading the Canon gear. I see you enjoy B&W photography. The M8 is exceptional for B&W work. The down side of the M8 for me are the frame lines. These are a bit frustrating and when you really need a zoom, or need to focus really fast, you will lose some shots. That's why I keep both systems. The low noise on the 5D Mark II is way ahead of the M8, so that is another thing to consider if you need to use a high ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted August 30, 2009 Share #46 Posted August 30, 2009 …. The down side of the M8 for me are the frame lines. These are a bit frustrating and when you really need a zoom, or need to focus really fast, you will lose some shots. … Say, what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 30, 2009 Share #47 Posted August 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, you will lose some shots you would have gotten with a Canon DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted August 30, 2009 Share #48 Posted August 30, 2009 Yes, you will lose some shots you would have gotten with a Canon DSLR. I have the opposite issue. Nothing screams attention more than an SLR, for me. And zoom? Bleh. I use a zoom in studio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 30, 2009 Share #49 Posted August 30, 2009 I agree, it does scream attention, but sometimes you have to compromise, no system perfect. Wem: Again, I suggest you rent or borrow first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted August 30, 2009 Share #50 Posted August 30, 2009 I have the opposite issue. Nothing screams attention more than an SLR, for me. And zoom? Bleh. I use a zoom in studio. if you put a 70-200mm zoom you will call for attention. But if you put a 50mm 1.4 I garanty you will not call for attention more than with my M8 and a Noctilux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted August 30, 2009 Share #51 Posted August 30, 2009 Wilfredo, I concur; if you've never shot rangefinder for an extended period of time, it's a different style of shooting for sure. Everything is manual (if you want to do things right), and judging by your comments, OP, it sounds like it's just the ticket. You'll eventually want to keep or replace your SLR as time moves on, because RF photography is no replacement for SLR. But you'll be photographing much more discreetly than with an SLR. As far as I can tell, my Canon with a 50 is still a lot larger and the mirror slap is much more noticeable than my Leica/35mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted August 30, 2009 Share #52 Posted August 30, 2009 As far as I can tell, my Canon with a 50 is still a lot larger and the mirror slap is much more noticeable than my Leica/35mm. I compared to Noctilux, not 35mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted August 30, 2009 Share #53 Posted August 30, 2009 A Noctilux, as much as I wish someone would be bequeath to me , seems impractical. Like shooting street with a 70-200 2.8L Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted August 31, 2009 Share #54 Posted August 31, 2009 I have never shot Canon so I don't know about the quality of your lenses. I have a Canon 50D and three "L" lenses. ("L" lenses are supposed to be better Canon lenses.) In my opinion Leica lenses are better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted August 31, 2009 Share #55 Posted August 31, 2009 I have the opposite issue. Nothing screams attention more than an SLR, for me. And zoom? Bleh. I use a zoom in studio. Try a Canon DSLR with a big, white 100 to 400 zoom. Now that really SCREAMS attention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmanley Posted August 31, 2009 Share #56 Posted August 31, 2009 I have the Canon 5DII and 1DMII and all L lenses which are gathering dust on my shelves. I don't use them unless I absolutely have to for macro or telephoto work. The only Canon lens that comes close to Leica lenses is the 85/1.2 - a very good lens. I much prefer my M8s and will look forward to getting an M9. Nothing beats Leica lenses. The Canon high ISOs are better, but with fast Leica lenses, I don't need to use high ISOs often. Canon lenses show CA and fringing and are just not sharp corner to corner. Even with my Canons, I use Leica R lenses with an adapter for best results. As everyone else has said, it depends entirely on what type of photography you do and whether or not a rangefinder is appropriate. Renting to try it out is a good idea. I have never regretted a Leica purchase. Good luck! Tina Tina Manley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 31, 2009 Share #57 Posted August 31, 2009 if you put a 70-200mm zoom you will call for attention. But if you put a 50mm 1.4 I garanty you will not call for attention more than with my M8 and a Noctilux. I agree. Why is it almost always assumed that someone using a Canon DSLR will be using it with a big white 70-200mm zoom??? I have no such lens, I like to be close to my subjects. Like James Nacthwey (the distinguished war photographer http://images.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=James+Nachtwey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=duebSvvfMoS2swOIoeiSDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4 ) I believe that if you rely on a big zoom, you are probably not close enough to your subjects. My biggest zoom is a Canon EF 24 - 105mm L Zoom. I recently purchased two Carl Zeiss primes for my Canons and those two lenses have quickly become my favorites on the Canon. There is nothing big and intrusive about them. Here's a shot I took with the 85mm prime, had I been an intrusive presence, I would not have gotten this shot. Using a Leica M is less intrusive, but a small camera is not the only element involved in being less intrusive, the energy you give off as a photographer can also be very intrusive regardless of what you are shooting with. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/92048-canon-leica/?do=findComment&comment=1011991'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted August 31, 2009 Share #58 Posted August 31, 2009 I compared to Noctilux, not 35mm. A better comparison would be the 50 1.2L, which is much much bigger than the Noctilux. Look, it's also harder to hip shoot a dSLR, though with R or Zeiss glass it's easier. But if you're shooting a 1 series or D3 body everyone knows you have a camera. And on Nikon, if you want the best (but slower) glass for street shooting, you're talking zooms, which are big even if they're wide. The Nocti or 75 Lux are worst cases with an M and they're half the size, half the weight and way less conspicuous. With a dSLR I look like a old tall guy taking pictures. With an M I look like an old tall guy shopping. The one exception was in Shenzhen recently, where the fact I am 6'3" blond and blue-eyed really did make me stand out--even with an M and a 28 cron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgay Posted August 31, 2009 Share #59 Posted August 31, 2009 May I suggest, it depends how you come to rangefinders, Leica or whatever. Anyone whose first experience was with a fixed lens, direct viewfinder (ie not through the lens via a prism) may have a kind of purist urge to get back to photography for photography's sake, avoiding any complex equipment. Also, anyone who gets frustrated with the tunnel vision of SLRS - which the vast majority of SLR users love: it's a key selling point - may take naturally to direct, optical viewfinder cameras. Finally, complexity. The finicky, speaking plainly, Japanese approach to electronic cameras, drives some people crazy. I recall a top-ranked Nikon-equipped photographer and reviewer admitting if he didn't use his camera for a month, he had to get the user manual out again. If you see yourself in any of the above categories, rangefinders may be for you. There are other positive reasons to add a rangefinder to your arsenal - but, by definition, I'd expect someone to be aware of the positives. I bought a Nikon F5 two weeks before Voightlaender/Cosina launched the Bessa. The rangefinder renaissance was a wake up call. My untimely purchase proved to be a very expensive mistake. I had started with rangefinders yet found myself trying to solve the inadequacies of one SLR by buying another. A bit like Windows PCs. When I realised I could have bought an M6 for the money, I really kicked myself. Good luck, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.