M Leica – Camera or Lenses?

Because I prefer shooting with a rangefinder.

9 (45%)

Because I want to use Leica and other M lenses.

11 (55%)

Total Members Voted: 20

Voting closed: October 30, 2011, 08:03:58 am

[Jim Kasson]

The new M 262 is really quite.

Quite what?

Jim

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Quiet?

[Allen Bourgeois]

OPPPs sorry yes QUIET!!!

I picked mine up a week ago today along with a 1980-1998 90 cron.


with the MM


Merry Christmas everyone.

[Nelsonretreat]

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!

[Allen Bourgeois]

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!

Thanks and yes the MM is very nice indeed. IQ is truly amazing. Here is the current line up.

Left to right M 262 and 35 lux FLE, M-E and 90 cron and original MM and Zeiss 35 Biogon c

[budjames]

I was Canon FF shooter since high school (1973) and then switched to Fuji X about 3 years ago. Currently own the Fuji X-T2, X-Pro2 and X100F, all have the latest 24mp Trans III sensor. Using Fuji XF glass on the X-T2 and X-Pro2 bodies. Very happy with the IQ and capabilities of the Fuji system.

That said, I have also lusted after Leica since high school, but I could never justify the expense. With the introduction of the Leica M10, I decided to order one along with the Leica Summicron 35mm f2 and Summilux 50mm f1.4 lenses. The M10 and Summicron is on backorder from B&H Photo. They don't know when it will ship.

I also ordered the Fuji Leica M adapter so that I can use the Leica lenses on my Fuji X bodies.

Oh, I am so spoiled!

Regards,
Bud James

www.budjames.photography

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[KLaban]

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

Bernard, you could worry yourself into an early grave searching...but if you really believe it exists or really want to find it then I think your time would be better spent researching lenses rather than bodies.

[Telecaster]

There are lotsa different Leica looks. Most of ‘em have little to do with the cameras other than that using a rangefinder can guide you (well, me anyway) toward seeing & framing in a different-than-SLR way. But you could use a Voigtländer Bessa or an Epson R-D1 and experience the same thing.

This photo is a Leica look in that I took it with an M8.2 and a 1937 50/2 Leitz Summar lens. The camera’s strong IR sensitivity gives it an unusual color palette in certain kinds of light, which can be mostly corrected for but which I typically leave alone. And the lens is…unique. 

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Bernard,

You may need to get a camera you can put film in...

It is a bit natural that cameras evolve into a common direction. Obviously, all try to achieve low noise, natural color, great DR and high ISO.

Best regards
Erik

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

[Bo_Dez]

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

If it's just about trying the aesthetic out the M9 is the best and most cost effective way of doing it. It is an exceptional good and capable camera. I would recommend the 50 Summilux ASPH to go with it.

But the M240 is a much better camera in terms of operation and it has slightly better image quality all round and much better high iso.

Personally, in terms of testing the water out the M9 is a ridiculously good camera and probably all you need. The M240 is nice upgrade if you want to spend a bit more, it is worth it.

The lens is important if you want the Leica look. Take a look at the 50mm Summilux 1.4 ASPH, or the 35mm Summilux 1.4 FLE ASPH to get things going.

[KLaban]

It would be good to hear from Bernard ;-)

[Rob C]

Maybe Bernard is away shooting pictures just now...

But the Leica "look" in photographs. This has been denied; this it has been held up as gospel; but in my own case, while I never did own Leica, I did process and print from it.

My experiences are this: in black/white prints I saw a difference between Nikon and Leica as I was printing side by side, same film stock, same development chemistry. I can't properly qualify the difference, but it was certainly there; perhaps I saw more mid-tone differentiation and less overall contrast?

I also made some Cibas from Leica originals, but though the trannies looked superb, Ciba didn't allow enough DR to work very well. That was common to all cameras, though - just a problem with the Cibachrome system. (Yes, masks could be made, but a normal studio such as the one that employed me never had the time or budgets for all that stuff, and when doing Ciba for my own clients, the same unhappy logic applied in the few instances folks wanted colour print.)

In conclusion, I think that today, in a digital world, the question and its answer have changed because the variables have, too.

If Leica lenses really can give more micro-contrast on a sensor, as I think they could on film, without making too much contrast overall, then the lenses have a quality that PS should be able to do miracles with because colour, today, can be so operator varied as to make it pretty much impossible for a "standard" colour look, native to one manufacturer, to survive the digital process itself. Let's face it: if Leica glass gives more intrinsic, tiny tonal separation than others, how can Leica not produce a better final image, operator skills and intentions being equal?

A digital R6 might have been the camera that I would have traded everything else to own, in retirement, where the needs are different. As much as I am in love with the M rangefinder camera's looks, always was, I know that those who advised me recently about my probable problem were I to go rangfinder are right. It's a mental approach to seeing, which has been created by a lifetime of usage and custom. Old dog problem. I think old horses suffer from this too.

Rob

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, I was out shooting indeed.

Thks a lot for the feedbacks, I’ll think about all that.

The M9 is tempting.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

Yes, I was out shooting indeed.

Thks a lot for the feedbacks, I’ll think about all that.

The M9 is tempting.

Cheers,
Bernard

She's exactly the Siren who's been tweaking my bits too!

Rob

[KLaban]

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

Bernard, I've used the M9 together with the M240 but have ended up with 2 M240s. I found I was using the M240 to the exclusion of the M9.

My take on the advantages include:-
Better high ISO.
Better screen.
More MP.
Better range of auto ISO options.
The option to use live view, EVF, focus magnification, peaking and level etc. (think ultra-wide and telephoto lenses. A vast array of 3rd party un-coupled non-rangefinder lenses). And yes, I know this has nothing to do with the rangefinder ethic but the rangefinder has little to do with the specific look of the resulting files. That said I love using rangefinder cameras and value the way they influence my working methodology.

The price of good used M240 and M9 bodies are roughly the same.

The truth is either body would allow you to search for a specific look but it is lens selection that will deliver it.

BTW, I've a beautiful M9-P for sale but unfortunately I'm only willing to sell within the UK 

[Telecaster]

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-

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[KLaban]

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 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.

[KLaban]

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 loved using my M9-P, loved the simplicity, nothing I loved more than using it as a walk-around camera with a single lens. But ultimately I found it very limiting as I have no other systems or cameras. Now that I have a pair of M240 - I, for the moment - want for nothing.