Best Non-Leica body for Leica lens IQ

Best Non-Leica body for Leica lens IQ

  • Oly OM-D

    Votes: 7 6.3%

  • A Lumix G-something.

    Votes: 3 2.7%

  • Fuji-X system camera

    Votes: 40 35.7%

  • Something else entirely.

    Votes: 65 58.0%
  • Total voters
    112
M lenses on digital bodies, this is what I'd pick in order of quality and usefulness, not considering price

Leica M digital (M8, M9, M-E, new M, and variants depending upon budget etc)
Ricoh GXR + A12 Camera Mount
Sony NEX 6, NEX 5n (NEX 7 doesn't do so well with wide lenses)

It's a short list. If you're not going to use wide RF lenses, almost any of the NEX and Micro-FourThirds bodies do very well actually. The Ricoh is still the best performer after the Leicas, however. There are times I prefer the Ricoh over the Leica M choices.

(Yes Roger, I use my M lenses on film Ms too, but I don't think that was the question. ;-)

G
 
I have the Fuji X-E1 and Nex 6. I prefer the Fuji menu and body ergonomics. The Nex 6 files are quite nice, but the Fuji just kills it at anything above ISO 1250. Fuji B&W conversions also look quite nice. That said, I prefer the image output from my ancient M8, by a far margin, than these two alternatives at or below ISO 640. I'm keeping the Fuji for high ISO stuff and I'm letting the Nex 6 go. I guess I'll decide on an M9 or M (240) or mini M (whatever) in the future.
 
A Leica M would be best. And M43 is a strange choice due to the crop. That means the Ricoh is the best choice, followed by the Fuji or Sony. And wow, the poll does reflect this!
 
One camera body that I cannot remember if it has been mentioned in this thread is the Epson rd1. I have never used one, any comments from anyone about this camera? Would anyone pick this over anything that has been mentioned so far?

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
One camera body that I cannot remember if it has been mentioned in this thread is the Epson rd1. I have never used one, any comments from anyone about this camera? Would anyone pick this over anything that has been mentioned so far?

Gary
Click to expand...

I had one briefly. Found it clumsy to use. Old, slow, expensive, hard to find, etc.. But a real rangefinder.

G
 
I agree with Roger that a film M would be suitable.
The other suggestion is to buy back your M9 or get an ME.
The rest is built around gimmicks.
 
icebear said:
If you don't mind, why did you sell the M9 in the first place and are now looking for a band aid :confused: ?
Click to expand...

Firstly, I had hoped to find a Typ 240 by now, and did not realize how long it would take. Secondly, I can always buy back another M9 if I wanted to- there's no shortage of people selling them for LESS than I sold mine for. I hope you are less confused now. :D
 
Godfrey said:
I had one briefly. Found it clumsy to use. Old, slow, expensive, hard to find, etc.. But a real rangefinder.
Click to expand...
For me, the R-D1 is far from clumsy or slow. It's not an fps monster for obvious reasons, but it is not a slow camera either for other than chimping. It's the one digital that almost made going into the menu unnecessary. They only forgot to implement a shortcut for formatting the SD card.
 
raid said:
I agree with Roger that a film M would be suitable.
The other suggestion is to buy back your M9 or get an ME.
The rest is built around gimmicks.
Click to expand...

Roger, who I believe is no longer on RFF, had made a flippant response, to my question, knowing (again, I believe) that I was asking about a Digital body. I already own an M6, M7, 2 M2s, a IIF, IIIG, and a Canon RF. A film body I do not need.
Getting an M9 or M-E is not what I want to do, having owned one for about a year.The improvements in the TYP 240 are what I lust for :p

I'm not sure what the "gimmicks" are. Having owned a x100s now, for a month, I can assure you that there is nothing "gimmicky" about the new Fuji system.
The Fuji X-Pro1/XE-1 would be great (except for the sensor size).
For the moment, I'm waiting to see what the rumored "X Pro-2 or XE-2" might be like. AND I'm on a few waiting lists for the M Typ 240 :D
 
There are no gimmicks to either the GXR/m or the Fuji, unless a 1.5 crop is the gimmick. They are superbly thought designs at prices affordable to those of us who, as Bill Pierce affirmed recently, counting himself among this group ethically if not owing to financial constraints, are not able or willing to be in the market for a $4-9k digibody for our otherwise cherished RF lenses. In the case of the Fuji 35 1.4 and the Ricoh 33 2.5, I don't feel as though my primAry digibodies are especially in need of "upgraded" IQ from lenses from other systems. I'm glad to have those lenses to augment what the GXR and XE1 can do with their own matched optics, and to have the pleasure and challenge of manual focus. A considered look at Johan's photos above should show that there is no gimmick to getting splendid results with good lenses on adaptive CSC cameras. It depends as it always has on the vision and skill of the photographer.

To the OP, I would endorse either Ricoh or Fuji as a more than acceptable surrogate during the waiting period for the obviously desired 240, as long as you are willing to learn their navigations, ingenious implementations, and limits.
 
Hmmm.. curious post. You seem to have sold your body without knowing what your personal gear roadmap looks like. So, I would guess that you haven't any immediate need to replace your M-9. That said, just wait. The next six to eight months will have some very interesting announcements with regards to mirrorless bodies. I suggest that you not buy anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom