Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear

M Leica – Camera or Lenses?

(1/50) > >>

michael:
A Poll For Those Owning a Leica M8 or M9 Only
I'm working on an article on the future of rangefinder cameras. I have my own ideas, but I am therefore curious as to what you think.

If you own (or have owned) an M8 or M9, I'd like to know whether this is primarily because you like shooting with a rangefinder / viewfinder style camera, or because you want to be able to use Leica M lenses (including Voigtlander and Zeiss).

eleanorbrown:
Michael, I own 2 M9's and 4 Leica asph lenses and shoot with this the majority ot the time. I still shoot with my P65 but not near as much since I goy the Leica system.  The Leica glass quality is Incredible, the system is small and light and perfect for travel, I don't use high iOS speeds much, and I like having full frame. Eleanor


--- Quote from: michael on October 25, 2011, 08:03:58 am ---A Poll For Those Owning a Leica M8 or M9 Only
I'm working on an article on the future of rangefinder cameras. I have my own ideas, but I am therefore curious as to what you think.

If you own (or have owned) an M8 or M9, I'd like to know whether this is primarily because you like shooting with a rangefinder / viewfinder style camera, or because you want to be able to use Leica M lenses (including Voigtlander and Zeiss).

--- End quote ---

JeanMichel:
Hi Michael,

First, thanks once again for maintaining this site and for the various articles, reviews, tutorials and such.

I purchased a new M4 with a new 50 Summicron on March 11, 1969 for $398.95 from Wongs Camera Wholesale on Yonge -- yes I still have the bill -- when a student at Ryerson.
I later acquired a used M3 (built in Ontario according to the serial number), 35 Summicron with goggles (Canada), a 135 Elmarit (Canada) (rarely used) and more recently an M6. I also purchased a Voigtlander  21.

The 35 with goggles was mainly used with my M4 or M6 -- I wear glasses and the 35 mm frame is outside of my viewing comfort zone, There was no problems with focussing with film.

Other equipment used included a Hasselblad 500CM and lenses.

When I finally decided to 'go digital' I opted for a Canon 5D -- your reviews helped with my choice. I strongly considered an M8 but was weary of buying a 'version 1.0' item at a substantial cost; did not like the crop sensor size, and did find it a bit weird to see the purple shirt on the man you photographed with an M8, and that was before the IR issue became news. I am quite happy to have delayed my purchase of a digital M.

I purchased an M9 this last July. I wondered if that meant also 'upgrading' my lenses but it appears that my old lenses will do just fine. Although I am sending them all (except the VC) to Leica for focus adjustment - the 21 VC, and 35 are fine, but the 50 is off by some 4 inches and the 135 is also off. i suspect that they were not perfectly adjusted by a local former Leica specialist.

As soon as I picked up the M9 all became familiar and easy again. With the Canon, even with a small 40 or 20 VC lens the camera feels like a fearsome rig; I mainly use the 24-105 with it, and it is an excellent tool. I use it to document exhibitions and the LiveView feature alone is worth the purchase. With the M9, I'm almost back to film thinking, where each frame cost - film, darkroom time, ...- I turned off the image display and only occasionally review an image to see the histogram. I was photographing an exhibition opening this past Sunday and it was neat to hear a few people commenting on 'Jean-Michel's liking to use old cameras' quaint!

So, to finally answer your question: I prefer using a rangefinder/viewfinder camera with a fixed focal length lens. I like the compact, unobtrusive size. The fixed focal length eliminates the distracting multiplicity of zoom settings when photographing, and unglues the feet.

When packing for a future trip, I will probably bring both the M9 and 5d2, and my wife will bring the GH2.

Thanks,

Jean-Michel




 

fredjeang:
I've worked intensively with M9 cameras during about 3 months.
If I had to go on a deserted island and choose one camera (understanding a still camera), I would choose the M over any other gear available, included MF.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the handling at all except the left hand because the size of the glasses is just about right. I didn't like very much the dificult focussing in some situations, the position
of the viewfinder and found the size of the body a little too large.
I didn't particularly find this extreme built quality Leica is known for (in the body I refer). It's well built, no doubt, but being used of a 1DMK3 and 4 you don't particularly find a stellar difference, at least I didn't.


But...that said,

There is something different with this camera, the volume of pictures shot is much less while the rate of keepers is higher. That was constant on good or bad days. You can turn the problem up and down, left or right: it's a camera that helps to take better pictures. I suspect that it's because it's simple, non-intrusive and obliged to get more involved into the action. In other words, it's a camera that helps the photographer who is commited with what he-she's doing, and at the same time, very fast in use because it's dead simple. It's very painfull for fashion...in the studio, but, again, outside the studio, in a fashion session in-situ, it can smokes any dslr, without talking of MF.
The pictures taken by the Leica, or lets say in another way, the M allows a freedom in space that result in more dynamic and spontaneous action. It's a collaborative camera. The non-photographers (in short, the people that point the lens, talents included) react differently to a rangefinder and they tend to be more relaxed and let you enter in more intimacy. No other camera does that. A point and shoot, you look amateur voyeur, a dslr, you look distant pro. The M design is just about right. It's trustable.


But...that said #2

When I got the GH2, it was a discovery to me and a big surprise. The day I got the GH2 is the day I decided that I will not buy a M. Before someone jumps on me saying: "what? Are you comparing the GH2 with the M9?"...let me explains my view on that and then you can through your bombs on me if you feel like.
Yes, I will compare to some extend the GH2 to the M. (and I'm not making a mistake with the GF2 that looks more like a rangefinder).

The first time I used the EVF, I was amazed indeed. Now it's normal and Sony already does better EVF. But having all the infos inside, being able to zoom for focusing without having to get the eye away from the viewfinder, this is Leica spirit to me. Filming in live view within the viewfinder, this is M spirit too. Then, the size. The size of the gh2 is the size I'd like the future M generations to have, more or less. Also, the size of the m4/3 lenses are very much on the size of the M lenses. And it's just about perfect.
I found with the GH2 a camera with a similar flavour than the M, yes. It's fast, small, efficient and fun. But, it's electronic is way more advanced.
Then, the Leica M lenses are suiting very well the GH2, although, honestly, I don't find that they increase the IQ, at all.

So, a new generation Leica Rangefinder, but with the electronic of 2011 and video capabilities, then I would reconsider a possible M_ purchase.

Ps: and if an EVF, please, an EVF that display the "hors-champ"  (more than 100% but the surrownding).




Answering Michael question: my motivation to reconsider buying a M will not be because of the lens line, because those lenses are adaptable to more modern devices. It would be the body.
As I said, an EVF, maybe also a modular sensor, like Ricoh did, wouldn't be bad (something I'm asking for years), keeping the M spirit.
So shooting rangefinder, yes, but shooting modern, not any more with what's there.

And why not a universal mount, like the M42-M39 in the past ? (After all, I use the M39-M42 with the GH2 and it's great to have so many brands still usable in the 21' century)
With the recent progress of the APS, is it really necessary a FF rangefinder now? I 'm not sure really.
Leica could join a Sony Nex or a m4/3 standard, not kidding. Those are brilliant format in wich tech goes fast and they could benefit R&D. Then, they can apply their own sauce, a less agressive AA, hand-made built, golden components if they feel like, but the point is that they should escape the CCD.

And, oh yeah...video. With everything stabilized and digi ND filters so we don't need any more zacutories. The M should be able to shoot hand-held videos with no hassle. (actually, mobile phones do that now)


 
 

John Camp:
I currently own an M7 with a Summilux 35, and once owned an M8 with most of the fast Leica M glass, which I have sold off. For most of my shooting career, I shot Nikons, starting with an F2, and I currently shoot a D3 and D300; I also have a Panasonic system with most of the Panasonic glass, and that's the system I now use most often. Also got an adapter and tried using the Panasonic system with M glass, but found I didn't get much better results than I did with Panasonic glass. I did find that I got a heck of a lot better results with the Panasonic and the 135 and 90 than I did with the same lenses on an M8, though.

In my opinion, rangefinder cameras are simply an older and antiquated style of camera which, like large format film cameras, can be used by enthusiasts to make exquisite photos. But, the key there word is not "photo," but "enthusiast." Rangefinders seem to me to be like great old English sports cars, fine old mechanical watches, and exceptional old fountain pens. You can take pictures, drive fast, tell time, and write beautifully with those things, just not as easily, or with the flexibility and range, of modern instruments.

I don't know exactly why anybody would want evolve rangefinders, because the heart of the system -- the rangefinder device -- seems basically inadequate to the demands of modern photography. It's not particularly accurate (not with all lenses at the same time, anyway) and not particularly fast, and I think that the quality that everybody seems to like, the ability to view the area around the photo, could be replicated with a mirrorless system, if anybody wanted to do it. Furthermore, evolution seems to adamantly opposed by most people on the rangefinder forums. The *point* of what they are doing is to use this older system. The camera is the point, not the photograph.

If someone were to determine that, say, Leica glass is so good that a modern rangefinder-style system should be built around it, that might appeal somewhat to the John Camps of the world, I'd say give the new camera:

-Focus assist. Can't do autofocus without creating a whole news lens system, but focus assist would make up some of the difference. Focusing would be much faster in marginal situations.
-Live View. You'd have to go to a CMOS chip, I guess, which most Leica people adamantly oppose, for some reason or other, but it would make usable the 90 and 135 lenses, which are really hard to focus accurately, and you could even have longer lenses. And, if anybody wanted them, sophisticated long zooms.
-Electronic frame lines that would adjust for parallax and for each specific lens focal length.

All of that, I'd point out, is currently available in the Panasonic/Olympus m4/3 system which can be used with Leica lenses. The downfall there is the Panasonic sensor, which, at this point, doesn't have the refinement of the Leica M9 sensor. A D7000-quality sensor in a m4/3 camera would be all I'd ever need, perhaps.

I do know for sure that some people make great photos with Leicas -- I've seen some of Eleanor Brown's work (she posted up a couple of frames) and it's really fine. But I think that has more to do with a sort of meeting of the minds between a person and this particular machine, and that you can find people who have the same relationship with their Nikons.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page