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).
... 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.
...
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 always thought i loved shooting leicas for their glass, so I had to make up with the restrictions of the bodies, but recently i started to try to use my Leica glass on other cameras, like the gh2 and the sony nex, but it's not the same, optically they are fine, but the handling is lost. On the other side I never enjoyed shooting non Leica glass on a Leica body, not for quality reasons, which are mostly marginal, but again for handling. Any M with a 35 or a 50 Lux is a divine combo, which hasn't been bettered for pure joy of photography, at least for me.
I own lots of cameras, love doing that and my business rectifies it, but I always come back to my m9. It's my favourite camera of all times.
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'm sure the m4/3 will improve very fast, and they already did. I use to be very hostile to this format when they started, I didn't beleive tech will go that fast and well. Now I think they have a great future. I remember the first units and low-light was garbage. They made incredible progress.
only for lenses and the simplicity of M body , nearly no interest in range-finder
only for lenses and the simplicity of M body , nearly no interest in range-finder
Michael I have an M9 as well as a MFD system. Chalk and cheese ? yes!
To answer your question I did not buy the M9 because it was rangefinder I bought it because of the excellent image quality (lenses and sensor) and more importantly because of its compact size and build quality.
On your, and others, recommendations I have tried many compact and micro 4/3 systems as a lightweight carry anywhere camera but none, IMO, can match Leica's image quality.
So - lenses and image quality first - rangefinder not important to me.
PS keep up the good work!
maybe it is not a story between RF and lenses , the M9 body is wonderful , but for me (and I guess for many) I'd like to see a M10 as simple and built like the M9 but with one central AF or/and live view x10
I'd like to see the M10 with no less than 24 megapixels. Eleanorfor me 16 or 18 is enough on 24x36
I'd like to see the M10 with no less than 24 megapixels. Eleanor
If it wasn't for the inherent shortcomings - others see these as advantages - associated with rangefinders I'd be using the M9 now.
If it wasn't for the inherent shortcomings - others see these as advantages - associated with rangefinders I'd be using the M9 now.
I've come very close to buying an M system for many years now but hesitate because of the cost of the M9 body and it's limitations. I am guessing the high cost of the body is from the amazing workmanship in the old fashioned rangefinder system - as in a fine Swiss watch. I think Leica should get their teammate Panasonic to build a Leica branded M mount body with full size CMOS sensor, live view and digital viewfinder. Right now I'm waiting for the Nex7 with hopes of super high image quality with M mount glass. At the moment I lug around my Canon 1Ds3 and a set of Leica R lenses, so you can see my motivation for getting the same or even better quality in a much smaller and lighter package.
ten or twenty years from now digital will also become a historical process and be replaced by I know not what but eager to see.
Jean-Michel
... Right now I'm waiting for the Nex7 with hopes of super high image quality with M mount glass. At the moment I lug around my Canon 1Ds3 and a set of Leica R lenses, so you can see my motivation for getting the same or even better quality in a much smaller and lighter package.
FF Canon with R glasses work very well, but M glasses on smaller sensors like the Pana and the Sony aren't giving the excelence they deliver on a M body. There is no significant advantage to use M lenses on a GH2 for ex compared to the top-line m4/3.
This fact have been noticed many times by a lot of trustable experienced photographers.
I wouldn't bet a stellar IQ increment using expensive M glasses on a Nex except at full aperture.
I have heard this from a few people here and wonder why this is the case? Is there a scientific reason? I guess I'll wind up with an M9 after all if turns out to remain the only option for ultimate image quality in a compact system.
I'm not an engineer, but this is indeed the case. Putting M glasses on smaller APS sensors is not a profitable business IMO, because they are costly and the gain is academic. Of course if you already have a Leica lens collec you'll have great results. I'm talking about people who want to buy expensive M lenses from scratch thinking mounting them on those cheap cameras will be the grail...this is not working as expected. No stellar miracle.
Maybe those sensors are not yet capable to deliver the M glasses performances and we really need to mount them on a FF with little AA or not if they keep the CCD line.
Regarding the GH2, I've noticed that there is no logic at all: some expensive glasses are just ok, and some cheap ones are working very well. I give-up trying to find a rational explaination because that's none of my business and I go pragmatic, testing in real world each unit. When not convinced, I sell.
Hi,
The Panasonic sensor has a sensor pitch half of the Leica M9. The Panasonic lenses are designed for that small sensor pitch and the Leica lenses may not be optimized to such a small pixel size. I tried to compare RAW images from DPReview shot on their standard setup with both Leica M9 and Panasonic GH2. The GH2 was actually sharper, but working with "raw" I realised that DPReview shot the Leica M9 at /f16, so the Leica would be handicapped by diffraction.
Best regards
Erik
I think you're right. It must be something like that.
There are lenses that are incredible on m4/3, and they are top anyway: the Zuiko digitals of the 4/3 time (pro line). For a few thousand bucks you have the creme de la creme. They could compeat with any of the Zeiss, Fujinon or Cooke cine line, and for way way cheaper. IMO, the Zuiko digital of the pro line are as good as the best glasses available today.
Of course if you already have a Leica lens collec you'll have great results.
Im not so sure about that. I have done my own small comparison of Leica M and Pana glass and GH2, and frankly I was disappointed by the results from Leica glass when comparing with Pana glass.
Please see:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55566.0
My understanding and hope is that the NEX5n and 7 will be better optimized for such glass than the "old" m43 bodies.
By the way,
Do you know how to read the serial number on M lenses?
Hi,Thanks Jean Michel,
See if this link helps: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-serial-numbers.htm
Jean-Michel
I wouldn't bet a stellar IQ increment using expensive M glasses on a Nex except at full aperture.
If it wasn't for the inherent shortcomings - others see these as advantages - associated with rangefinders I'd be using the M9 now.
With respect to the poll, I have and will buy M glass (Leica or otherwise) even though I have no current intention to buy a M digital rangefinder and my film rangefinder days are behind me.
Stellar? Maybe not, that's a high level to achieve, adjective-wise. Noticeable? Absolutely.
My sample size is very small though... I have but the single E mount kit 18-55mm lens and am not planning on buying any others at this point.
Comparing the one kit lens (do I have a bad copy or are they all similar?) at 25mm, 35mm, 50mm to every M and SLR glass I have, every single manual focus lens new and old outperformed the Sony in terms of resolution and apparent sharpness. The Sony suffers from less flare than some of my decades old glass - a win there for the E team, barely. Sadly the Sony lens shows smearing at the edges and corners yet even the ZM 25 and 35 perform very well in this regard on the 5N.
Actually the sample size being small isn't really a concern - my observations aren't unique, as I've read similar accounts and seen visual evidence presented by others comparing various E mount lenses to current or legacy manual focus primes and zooms.
Back to the purpose of the thread, there was a time where a rangefinder body for me was a good compromise for a do-most-things camera. I especially liked the nature of the finder and how it supported shooting people in their environment. But for landscape and macro my small Contax with a nice Zeiss up front did things the rangefinder could not do, at the near and far end of focal lengths. A Contax 139 with a short lens is quite transportable in fact.
Yet I like rangefinder lenses; the dimensions (width primarily), the relatively short focus travel distance, better depth of field scales typically than my SLR glass. I really like using this glass on the NEX and have recently discovered the joys of a Hawk helicoid adapter on the NEX which drops the minimum focus distance of any M glass by a considerable amount allowing for whole new perspectives. For example a ZM 25 with stock MFD of 1.5 feet becomes something of a macro exploration tool with a MFD of just a few inches. One such adapter expands the utility of every M mount lens in one's bag. This sort of utility is impossible on a rangefinder.
The one thing I miss is getting the true field of view and depth of field characteristics my rangefinder glass can deliver on full frame film or digital sensor. Were Sony or Ricoh to introduce a FF version of their M compatible products I'd be one of the many who would be very interested indeed, although in Ricoh's case they need to up the ante in their EVF first, and probably would if a FF version were to be on the drawing board.
That said, even if crop cameras are the only available host for my M glass aside from paying up for a M9, I don't consider it a waste to put M glass on a NEX or Ricoh GXR or any short flange focal distance camera that can be adapted successfully to use M / LTM glass.
DeeJay
I think Cooter has said more or less what you seek to hear already... go spend the money!
Rob C
Thanks, who's cooter and where is it been spoken about? I've looked in this thread and can't find anything.
Basically, Leicas are the cameras I've had all my teenage and adult life. I've had other cameras during that time; often many but Leicas remained. I started with a IIIg and Ig and today have an M6, an M7, an M8 and an M9. The M6 and the M9 get the most use. In the last 50 years I've never had fewer than 4 Leica lenses and at present have a lot out of which I choose combinations for various reasons. An M9 and Summilux 35 would be the last camera/lens combo I would get rid of. As a straight picture taking machine, the M9 continues for the most part what Leicas have always done: take pictures without getting in the way, and with lenses you can trust to deliver at all apertures and under all conditions.
For telephoto and travel I mostly use m4/3's, and for paying work I mostly use Canon with tilt/shift lenses. For my own, general use I use Leica M's.
Henning
Used M 3s & 4s for thirty plus years, mostly with a 35 1.4. Went digital in '99 and worked my way up to a 5D II with the 16-35 II, a huge beast that felt wrong every time I picked it up. When the M9 came out, bit the bullet and started putting together lenses for it. Have concentrated on legacy lenses as I prefere the subtle contrast characteristics(and a fraction of the cost of new). Images in LR look very close to Kodachrome 25 by default and started dabbling in B&W again.
I just happen to prefere working with a rangefinder, and with the quality of the results will be happy with the camera for years to come. Have also gotten back in the habit of having it with me most of the time. Slung on a shoulder, you almost forget it's there. I've used large format, medium format, and a range of SLRs, as well as doing my own B&W processing(mostly 400 pushed to 800) and printing. Rangefinders are a good fit for me, and I still try and keep the craft of printing as part of the hobby. And no, I don't think everyone else should follow suite.
After almost 40 years of using Leica gear I'm still not a doctor...dangnabit.
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).
Only for the glass.
Over the past 20 years I had surely 6-7 different bodies, but what always stayed constant are my Summicrons.
I am sure even my children will pass them on to their children.
Rangefinder was designed in a time there is not much else and this is 2012, I mean, it is fun to use but not necessary the best way for photography. I love the rangefinder, shoot some picture, the lens factor in today's digital photography played a less important - but still important - roll, so as the choice of it. It is for me for fun (and it is important too), but for serious job, I think DSLRs (or those mirrorless) play better role for me.
The rangefinder system, like my M9, more for the fun and to make use of the lenses already have, not really that the lens play so much magic.
PA
I’m waiting to see what the Leica M10 has to offer or their promised 'mirrorless' offering. I'm also keen to see how the Fuji X-Pro1 performs.
Ideally I'm after a compact full frame system that has the option of accurate framing, focus confirmation and quality lenses. For the moment it doesn't exist, but I have the feeling it isn't that far off.
Here's another thing. When the M9 came out it pretty much matched the maximum pixels that you got on any 35mm DSLR. But there's now a Dalsa based rumour that the M10 will be 24 MPX, where as the Nikon bar (and Canon et al surely won't be far behind and may end up ahead) is now at 36 MPX.
As a long time Leica user I thought I was far too mature and wise to let that be an issue...but sadly it is!
Never had a problem using a rangefinder with glasses, never had a problem with a limited set of focal lengths. The M9 is a simple camera and that is why I like it, but that doesn't mean it only takes simple pictures and the only saving grace are a set of fine quality lenses. If people paid less attention to price and lens quality and more attention to creativity and productivity we may get beyond the 'I need' syndrome that keeps people at home wishing for the next imaginary model.
It is true that taking a simple camera out the front door is tantamount to leaving your 'blue blanket' behind, and that is perhaps why people always want something more, it is the fundamental insecurity of being metorphorically naked in public without a zoom lens to cover your bits up. But you can be sure of one thing, the next camera still won't be good enough, not until the insecurity of needing multi function DLSR's or EVIL camera's etc. is overcome. Photographers who use simple rangefinders and stick with them are not dinosaurs, but perhaps they do have a more pragmatic view of the world that makes them look old fashioned from the outside. They know that the only thing that makes a good photograph is the photographers eye, because there is precious little else regarding equipment to help them out, and that can be a scary thought. Steve
Better late than never. The M9 is the perfect digital camera, I pick the aperture, focus and if I don't like the shutter speed I spin either the aperture or shoot manual shutter speed. Simplicity. Less is more. The only cameras I enjoy as much is a Nikon F3 and Contax 645.
Still have one of those, but unfortunately it flourished on a diet of Kodachrome...
Rob C
Rob - get some Tri-X! Seeing this book of Jean Loup Sief made pretty clear we don't need no stupid megapixels ...
Well I'd be very eager to order a 24MP Leica M with a CMOS sensor and live view. Add a cheap built in digital viewfinder, like the Sony Nex7, and they can dump their complex focusing system and hopefully lower the price too.
The two biggest things holding me back from buying into the M system is the weight of the M9 body and the rangefinder optical system with no live view as an option.
Yes, he's an inspiration. But then, I worked through much of the same period and already know all any practical photographer needs to know about 35mm films and what they can do; the problem today is that analogue stuff has become the new luxury. I'm retired, money no longer hangs for the plucking from the tree of life and the sweet fruits of my labours are dying, rotting from lack of interest as they lie in the bank. I hope they still lie in the bank.
I share Slobodan's predicament and understand too well the anxieties therefrom, to which I can add: will I outlive my bank statement? Will my eyes deteriorate until I can no longer drive? Will governments screw my kids? Those are the real worries, not friggin' megapixels dancing on the nose of an invisible fantasy at 100%!
As with so much, we gain some and lose a hell of a lot more.
I envy you that Mamiya 67 ll!
Rob C
Honestly - I'm considering doing some street photography with Tri-X (for the look of it) with the old Minolta SRT 101b I inherited from my late stepfather. Some might call it retro - I just wouldn''t care ...
I live in hope that the M10 has the means to check critical framing and focus pre-capture but I won't be holding my breath.if not I could at once sell all my Leica M gear , I don't like the M9 but I'd like to keep on using the lenses
I wouldn't mind a Leica 14mm lens or tilt-shift...I need a TS lens too, if a Leica is M and R mount it will be possible a 28mm shift Super Angulon
I need a TS lens too, if a Leica is M and R mount it will be possible a 28mm shift Super Angulon
I hope the M10 ...., with at least 36MP, maybe even 54MP18 mp are enough and 36 mp is a no way on 24x36 for 99% of M users
without liveview or evf or any of this kind I'll sell all, for me the M9 sucks
18 mp are enough and 36 mp is a no way on 24x36 for 99% of M users
But 54MP doesn't hurtwith any of the bests lenses in the world you will get diffraction at f/8
with any of the bests lenses in the world you will get diffraction at f/8
why do you need 54mp ? do you plan to print 3 meters posters ?
54mp on 24x36 is the worst that can happen in digital photography
there is no reason to get 54 mp , no needs and no reasons
Why not, if the technology is there?when you buy a IQ 180 you need it for your job , I am not really sure it is the same situation for a Sony Nex 7
If the concern is pixel pitch, then there's no reason for the NEX-7 (same pixel pitch as 54MP full-frame), 7D (45MP full-frame) or D7000 (36MP full-frame) either.
If the concern is total megapixel count, then there's no reason for the IQ160, IQ180, P65+ and any number of other MF backs either, nor is there a reason for large-format film.
when you buy a IQ 180 you need it for your job , I am not really sure it is the same situation for a Sony Nex 7
if there is no needs for so many pixels why do you want to buy it ? me not
Because, with a high enough resolution and sharp enough lens, you'd be able to use a 35mm sensor for things you'd previously require a MF back to shootonly if you need it , who need it ?
only if you need it , who need it ?
and no it will never replace a sensor twice larger
The 35mm sensor requires more precise lenses, but it's easier to build a precise lens to cover a 35mm sensor (plus movements) than to build one to cover a MF sensor (plus movements).
99.99...% of photographers pro or not never print over A2
I have use probably each Leica M (except some special edition models) since M6 to M9, when using film it is more for the purity of fine color, sharpness of the lens, and of course the mechanical feel. Going to digital, it is more for the memory of using M and sometimes for personal pleasure - because I believe I have overall better tools to produce digital image. In short, it is less arguable of Leica M might represent the best of 135 quality image using film than with M9 in digital era, and I personally don't believe Leica would ever reverse it. But will Leica stays, I believe it will, photography for many is not a job, it is fun.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).
54MP on 24x36 would be quite interesting, maybe even ideal with current technology.a nonsense
Looks like there may soon be another full-frame camera to attach Leica lenses to. Rumor has it that Sony is developing a full-frame camera with an 18mm flange to sensor dimension (e-mount). From all the buzz on the various Sony sites there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm. Of course it's just a rumor, but stranger things have happened. This would be a direct way of polling how many people want Leica just for their lenses.if Sony does that FF for 2000 I shall never buy a Leica for 8000
because for A2 you don't need so many pixels, it's heavy and un-necessary, and diffraction will be worst than it is now
Diffraction is always the same, with lesser systems you just can not see it. Sharper sensor will always make pictures sharper than a less sharp (less resolving) sensor, diffraction or no diffraction.no diffraction is not always the same
no diffraction is not always the same
Diffraction is only dependent of the f-stop. Not sensor size, sensor resolution, image circle, lens quality. It can be calculated from a simple physical formula. That way it is always the same for the same f-stop. If the sensor and lens resolution* is better than the diffraction limit, it shows. If the sensor and lens resolution is less, it does not show (as much**). As the tests and common sense has proved, a sensor with better resolution than the diffraction limit makes sharper pictures even with diffraction coming into play than a sensor which falls short of the diffraction limit.diffraction depends on the pitch, the distance between 2 pixels
* meaning that the lens is diffraction limited, not optical quality limited.
** all quality constrictions affect the final output to some extent. It is like a chain of quality damaging factors (=>1) where the product of all the factors determines the final quality. If one of them approaches 1 its effect becomes negligible. With a truly good lens diffraction "factor" is practically 1 when using large apertures below the diffraction limit of the system.
diffraction depends on the pitch, the distance between 2 pixels
Basically we should just use bigger sensors. Cramming ever more pixels on to a redundant format that was not even ideal for still photography when it was first introduced is becaming increasingly ridiculous.
I am thinking that the rangefinder solution would be way more fun to carry around than a Nikon with a couple of heavy lenses.
I would answer the question first : lenses.
Long ago I was wondering what could be that little plus Leica could have that a Japanese brand was lacking for the enormous price difference.
Until the Nikon FA hit the shelves, the F…k All we used to call it, because it was really flawed ! I already had a very bad experience with the EL, destroying ten rolls of Kodachrome.
From that point on I knew the trend would be going all electronic. So I stepped into Leica.
Then I discovered deep detailed shadows in my slides, sharpness right into the corners, unctuous greys in the prints…. and as the equipment can last a life or two, I switched to Leica entirely.
Then digital arised and there Leica was lost. They shine in optical and micromechanical, they are specialists, but electronics is a complete different world, far less demanding with programmed obsolescence policy. This is a consumer industry, high turnover and low reliability. Two opposite worlds that tatooed Leica cannot grasp, they still identify Leica with abosolute quality, they throw 7000 $ into a piece of electronic that Leica doesn’t produce, believing they are buying the long famous high quality product.
The lenses remain what they have always been (at least until Leica get into AF) excellent, but the cameras have nothing to see with what they used to be, it is electronics into a Leica box, their value should be around 800, period.
Now if the question was about Leica film M cameras vs lenses, my answer wouldn’t be so straight. Range finder shines for candid shoots, but I manage as well with reflex. Where RF is best suited for is low light situations…..if you have a Leica lens together with. So I would keep my first answer : lenses.
Going a bit further, as I said earlier, the day Leica get into AF, then just forget about the brand altogether. They are thirty years late on this, they will have to switch to plastic components and again electronic and they will ask you 4000 for a lens…. then the answer to the question would be : neither.
For me Leicas challenge is the CMOS sensor with the M, which loses some of the qualities of CCD
Insofar as auto focus vs manual is concerned, just got back from a couple weeks in Italy. All those people with their DSLRs and P&Ss were still at it long after I had gotten my shot and was moving on. Once you know how to use a rangefinder it becomes second nature, and then there's hyperfocal...
By chance, I walked into a local bar where some musos I know had just been offered a gig three hours earlier. I'd been walking about with my D700 and 2/35mm down by the boats, playing with a polarizer and shooting up at the sky from below on the hard. Nothing much. Then I found the musos setting up.
You know, playing at f2 and seeing what you get, is beyond price.
Hyperfocal is open to all systems - as long as you have the wit to buy old lenses with a scale(!)
I'm afraid that in the end, once a dedicated slr user, it's almost impossible to go back to guesstimates...
Guess I was lucky in that I never became 'dedicated'. The 5D was always a love/hate relationship.
The first night in Rome was Good Thursday where all the Basilicas are open 24/7, but dimmed, and the whole town turns out to see how many they can hit in an evening. Handheld, wide open(ish), and 1/6 to 1/15 second with a 28mm. Actually got some decent images that printed well at 13X19.
I won't give up my Nikon, but I'd like to.
I know how you feel: I just got a used junk Canon 1Ds3, after a bunch of Nikons and suddenly I'm shooting random street images again.
Edmund
I have had 70% of the issues T mentions with my M-8.
The Olympus on the other hand is the opposite of the Pana. It reminds me of a leica because it's so jewel like. . It doesn't do the professional things I need like the Pana, but it's such a tremendously compelling camera and
the only camera I've held in a long time that is exciting, especially with the series of fast little primes they offer.
I had a bunch of issues on my M8 too; beautiful images, completely unreliable.
BTW, James, have you thought of using the Olympus lenses on a different 4/3? I think 4/3 is supposed to be interoperable between manufacturers, like the old 42mm Pentax screw mount.
I found an interesting set of comments on this topic on the preview forum (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3126842) :)
Edmund
I have had 70% of the issues T mentions with my M-8. I thought about buying an M9 or what's it called now M?
I even thought about the M240 (is that really it's name?) but I'm not that wild about the cmos samples I've seen from this camera and the M digital is so strange.
Actually the battery issue is the one that just breaks your brain. A new battery at 75'% and the camera shuts down. Put another battery in and it runs again, then same thing.
Unlike T I don't think an M is worth the hassel. Not with some of the newer cameras that are out there.
Edmund,
If I was shooting mostly for pleasure and did walk around photography like you, the OMD would be my first choice.
BC
James,
I will look at it; at least carrying an OMD is feasible. What I like about the "big" bodies is that when a situation is accidentally good, you can flash-freeze it, then crop and postprocess it to death.
I think in walkaround, as in sports, the body is as important as the lens if you are the type that catches the moment.
I remember coming on a roller skater doing backflips, and caught him upside down in mid-air with the 1Ds at a second's warning, no effort, and the print got hung in a gallery window, bought within the week.
Speed is also really useful in improvised portraits - there is sort of a fifth of a second where people have a spontaneous expression, then they present a different, composed visage.
Edmund
Edmund,
With the Leica mount you could find some very interesting older lenses and produce some very interesting imagery.
IMO
BC
Saw this programme on tv; very interesting tale about a Leica fan with penchant for older lenses.
http://banyak.co.uk/#/james-ravilious/
Rob C
Incredible trailer. What is interesting is the way they manage to match the B&W shots with their contemporary film - point a decent cinematographer at something and he can do it.
Edmund
Incredible trailer. What is interesting is the way they manage to match the B&W shots with their contemporary film - point a decent cinematographer at something and he can do it.
Edmund
For quite some time I have been convinced that cine guys do landscape better.Yes, I accept that the budgets are usually far higher, and that air shots are often used, presenting a paradigm that's usually far more exciting than what's visible from the ground. But I think it's deeper: I think it's probably much to do with BC's point about telling a story: it's what movie folks do and most of us still folks don't really consider - we tend to go for the beauty shot. At least, if I do anything, I do that.
The entire film is really gripping, and his widow, Robin, comes over as a very kind and good lady. Support from a spouse is so invaluable in life, especially for the lone wolf worker: emotional security back at the ranch is beyond price.
Rob C
Edmund,
I think your looking at this in a traditional way.
In fact maybe your not, because this off link is a documentary about a still photographer, that is more than a traditional documentary, it's a multimedia show, because it features a still photographer.
Now take this up double speed and that's the present.
That's what we do now . . . multimedia, video, stills, both, it doesn't matter, other than creative content needs to tell a story.
The days of . . . "that's a pretty picture" are fading fast, not that what is shot can't be pretty, but it has to be interesting.
That's why my latest camera is a Panasonic. cough, choke, wheeze.
It's the last brand I ever thought I'd buy, but the GH3 is a multimedia camera. Horizontal, vertical, 4:3, 16x9, art filters, stabilized video and stills, it's a camera for it's time.
I'm not in love with the camera, I'm in love with what it does.
The world's changed, really, really changed and whether it's one of those crappy repeating gifs, or a real story telling multi media piece, what commercial clients, or even amateur blogists want to see is something that is more than that one photo, regardless of how beautiful.
Look at Leica's next new M. It won't even have a traditional viewfinder.
For someone like you, that shoots for enjoyment, you should look at some of these new mirror less cameras.
In fact if I want to find interesting, inspiring content, I don't look at traditional websites or portals. I look at tumblr.
My camera of the future? I don't know, probably a camera that shoots a real 4:2:2: 12 bit video, a 18 to 20 mpx stills, fast, really fast zoom lenses and electronic finders that wi-fi.
Lighting, needs to be adaptable, but moveable. Not huge 40lb strobe packs, but Lightpanels that work off of v-locks.
IMO
BC
I have owned an M8, upgraded to M9 and hope to upgrade to M next week. I have four lenses: 21mm, 35mm, 50mm & 90mm.
I never use the 35mm. I know it was THE street lens in the days of film, but the 21mm offers so much more. It is a fabulous lens. The high resolution if the M9 allows cropping to the size of the 35mm with plenty of detail when needed. I'm selling my 35mm as an anachronism in the 21st century.
Why did I switch to Leica rangefinder after forty years of SLR (Nikon F to Nikon D3)? Largely because I was getting older and using a wheelchair. I continue to do street and travel photography (three books last year) but the DSLR is nowadays too cumbersome. My wife has inherited the D3 and loves it.
On the other hand, I continue to use a Hasselblad for landscapes (specifically for landscapes with people, which is my passion). I have been using Hasselblad since 1968, and now have an H3DII-50 which I find ideal for my Landscapes with people. When going digital I looked at Phase One but found the body awful and the sales staff worse. Hasselblad UK provided one of their own staff to talk me through the system during photo shoots in the field on two separate days. They have kept up that level of excellent support ever since. The Hasselblad camera AND lenses are excellent. But, excuse me Michael, you were asking about the Leica.
To answer your question: when I downsized from DSLR to mirrorless, I chose Leica for the lenses. I was not enthusiastic about the rangefinder, but it works OK for all but the 90mm lens. I'm hoping that focus peaking on the M will solve that problem. Meanwhile I have to stop down to f/8 when using the 90mm lens, which takes away one of the great advantages of Leica lenses: shooting with wide aperture for beautiful Bokeh.
Put me down as choosing Leica for the lenses, and tolerating the rangefinder.
Goff
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).
Why are you asking about only digital?
Hi,
Because film is history…Erik
No, it's not. And with regard to the Leica, the digital cameras are basically the same as the earlier film cameras.
Your choices were:
"Because I prefer shooting with a rangefinder."
"Because I want to use Leica and other M lenses."
Nether of these has anything to do with digital.
I use Leica reflex cameras because I am not a fan of rangefinders, and the Leica reflex lenses are superb. At one time I considered getting an M5, but I prefer the reflex camera.
So,
You have a wet darkroom or enjoy scanning film? You may even have a drum scanner, or just send of your film for drum scanning?
Or, you just shoot slide film and project?
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
Thanks for sharing, I am much impressed by your focusing technique…
Getting back to film. I am pretty sure that large format film, properly scanned, has some advantages over digital. But, I also have found that small format film needs expert scanning to compete with digital. In my experience, pretty high end scanning is needed to match digital and I don't find scanning to be fun. So, from my point of view, film is pretty much history.
Large format film, combined with expert scanning, may make some sense and it is very definitively an economical alternative to digital backs.
With the knowledge, experience and tools I have, scanned MF film is not an alternative to digital. I would expect that would apply even more to 135 format.
Best regards
Erik
To the best of my knowledge, that particular image could not have been produced with any competing autofocus system. You'll note the face-mask is a little softer than the eyes. I don't think any auto-focus system could have matched that. 8)
The autofocus systems would have focused on the face-mask, not the eyes...
Sure it can... by pure chance and a stroke of luck, just like you got your manually focused shot.
... and don't contradict me again...
... The auto-focus system will always fail at such a shot because it cannot distinguish between the mask and the eyes.
;D ;D ;D
Even the best autofocus systems have tolerances and because of that they can and will misfocus occasionally, even when locked on the right target. So, if they locked on the helmet, but missed it, they could have gotten the eyes instead. Just as it was a sheer luck that you got it focused there, while, of course, you try to peddle it as a "superior manual focusing skill."
... stop contradicting me because I know what I am talking about and you don't.
Ok, massa, let's say I agree with you. By agreeing with you (that I do not know what I am talking about), would I know what I am talking about in such a case? ;)
No, and don't contradict me again. The auto-focus system will always fail at such a shot because it cannot distinguish between the mask and the eyes. It's the same problem as trying to photograph through mesh.
Oh no! I cannot believe you are on about the same thing in this thread as the one on Sensors too.
Now I know you are deluded. If you honestly expect me to believe that you can follow focus an eyeball, manually, with a child running towards you at that depth of field you are living in dream land.
To the best of my knowledge, that particular image could not have been produced with any competing autofocus system.
I have 50 years of experience in photography, 43 years with Leicaflexes. I have eight lenses currently and have owned several others. I know the system well, and I know it's the best system ever. The designs are brilliant. The equipment is a dream to work with. Everything functions flawlessly and simply. If you owned this equipment you would understand how idiotic and unnecessary auto-focus is.
Yet, for some reason, 99.99999% of the professional photographers use modern Digital AF cameras, not Leicaflexes. Why, could you make any educated guess? Is it just that you have not told anybody about it before?
Yet, for some reason, 99.99999% of the professional photographers use modern Digital AF cameras, not Leicaflexes. Why, could you make any educated guess? Is it just that you have not told anybody about it before?
Nothing particularly wrong being in the 0.000001% club. :)
Jean-Michel
Actually, I was focusing on the third eyelash from the left, of the left eye.
My point was that AF systems cannot handle that kind of scene well: the bars of the facemask on the helmet will throw off the focussing.
However no SLR can compete with a rangefinder for quiet smooth operation.
Can't figure why this thread still open, so I assume Michael is still interested in Leicaphiles' thoughts.I was just thinking a similar thought, it seems strange that this thread continues to be pinned to the top.
I shoot w/Leica M type 240 & Leica lenses. Love the results w/Leica glass. Was shooting w/NikonD800e, no regrets in the switch. Nikon D800e is great but was getting cumbersome & sharpness from Leica glass is just great & very easy to focus w/Rangefinder.
The new M 262 is really quite.
OPPPs sorry yes QUIET!!!
I picked mine up a week ago today along with a 1980-1998 90 cron.
The one on the right is an object of such pure beauty and classic design. I don't care how good the image is, just owning something like that must be a wonderful experience!
One question.
For someone interested in trying the famous Leica look... Among the following 5 options, which would Leica experts pick:
1. New M10 at 900,000 Yen
2. Second hand M240 at 450,000 Yen
3. Second hand M9-P (sensor changed) at 450,000 Yen
4. Second hand SL at 600,000 Yen
5. Second hand Q at 400,000 Yen
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
One question.
For someone interested in trying the famous Leica look... Among the following 5 options, which would Leica experts pick:
1. New M10 at 900,000 Yen
2. Second hand M240 at 450,000 Yen
3. Second hand M9-P (sensor changed) at 450,000 Yen
4. Second hand SL at 600,000 Yen
5. Second hand Q at 400,000 Yen
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
One question.
For someone interested in trying the famous Leica look... Among the following 5 options, which would Leica experts pick:
1. New M10 at 900,000 Yen
2. Second hand M240 at 450,000 Yen
3. Second hand M9-P (sensor changed) at 450,000 Yen
4. Second hand SL at 600,000 Yen
5. Second hand Q at 400,000 Yen
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, I was out shooting indeed.
Thks a lot for the feedbacks, I’ll think about all that.
The M9 is tempting. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
One question.
For someone interested in trying the famous Leica look... Among the following 5 options, which would Leica experts pick:
1. New M10 at 900,000 Yen
2. Second hand M240 at 450,000 Yen
3. Second hand M9-P (sensor changed) at 450,000 Yen
4. Second hand SL at 600,000 Yen
5. Second hand Q at 400,000 Yen
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks for the additional feedbacks.
In the end I cannot help but feel that the M10 is the first digital M that is fully satisfactory.
Cheers,
Bernard
I went with a (lightly) used M9-P over the 240 due to its slightly smaller size and lack of EVF capabilities. Not that I don’t like EVFs—love ‘em in fact—but I wasn’t crazy about Leica’s implementation, so I chose a rangefinder-only option. From what I’ve seen the M10 is better in this respect. I also really like the M9’s files in the ISO 160–640 range. There’s not much room for error exposure-wise even in the RAW files. Shadows tend to be more recoverable than highlights. I shoot in full manual mode and meter carefully, same as with my M6 (b&w film) and M8s.
-Dave-
I see the M10 as having advantages and disadvantages over the M240. If I felt the M10 was fully satisfactory I'd be using it now. There again I've yet to use any camera that is.
What disatvantages do you see with the M10?
Cheers,
Bernard
Greatly reduced battery capacity, no video, no level and continuous only via menu.
I was disappointed with the inclusion and implementation of the ISO wheel - there have been issues with cameras getting stuck on one ISO setting. I was also disappointed that the batteries, dioptres, grips, L brackets etc. aren't compatible with the M240 which makes for a much more expensive and unwieldy two camera system. I was hoping that base ISO would be genuinely low rather than 100 ISO which is a pull setting and that there would be an industry leading EVF as in the SL as well as a silent or near silent shutter.
To summarise, although there are certainly improvements the M10 wasn't the camera I was hoping for and I couldn't justify upgrading to a two camera M10 system when used M240 bodies are now relatively cheap and plentiful. The reality is the M9, M240 or M10 will allow you to chase the "look".
Other's opinions will of course differ.
Best
Keith
A camera maker can resort to some tricks to lower base ISO, like adding a grey filter in the front of the sensor or reducing pixel aperture by artificial means.
Don't forget the CFA's effect on base ISO.
Jim
I've been shooting w/M240 for a few yrs w/24 & 75mm Leicas & w/results I'm quite happy with, but I wish at higher ISO I'd have less noise in blks. I left my Nikon D800E & Hasselblads, I do reminisce @ them but doubt I could go back. I feel bad that Rangefinders can't find an easy solution for longer reach lenses beyond 135mm & even that with difficulty in focusing. Maybe Nikon's new offing would address that.