Considering Leica in 28mm

N

nitevision

Member
Local time
10:11 PM
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
25
Hi all,
Long story short, I am considering getting a Leica with a 28mm lens to replace or work alongside my GR(V). The GR currently occupies the WA role in my Canon kit or when I just want to walk around with a 28mm camera in hand.

I love the GR's BW output and pixel-level "bite", so I am considering the following:

Option 1: Leica Q (used or new)
For:
  • Ticks all the boxes in terms of capability- f1.7, fast response, OIS, good ISO performance
  • Smaller size (though no longer pocketable)

Against:
  • Lens is stuck to an expensive camera - not good when body goes out of date/fails because I'd like to keep the glass.

Option 2: Used M9M and 28mm lens (which one though???)
For:
  • Incredible BW files. I really like what the M9M CCD produces.
  • I get to keep my lens investment if camera fails

Against:
  • Cost, likely to turn out (much) more expensive compared to the Q
  • Rangefinder calibration required to get the best performance
  • Sensor issues (I haven't been following this issue much but from what I have read Leica will replace it if it's bad)

It seems the Q has the M9M beat, since I'm thinking the Q's BW conversions can't be all that far off from the M9M. But I'd like to hear opinions and experiences from everyone. Is there still a case to be made for the M9M?
 
It seems pretty simple to me;

1. Do you want autofocus with an EVF? --> Q
2. Do you want manual focus with an OVF? --> M

They are completely different beasts way above the differences in b&w conversions or size or "investment" in lens.
 
I'm increasingly leaving my 28 2.8 ASPH on my MM CCD. The lens is small and sharp and a little too contrasty. The Summicron tonality is the dream match for this camera. Just can't justify buying another thing. Then I'm thinking about an f5.6 28 Summaron. And the Leica Q does look good.

Don't agree with your RF calibration concern and especially at 28mm focal length.
 
I never like bw conversions from digital color images. Once you have opened an original MM file on a good monitor, you will immediately be convinced. I don't have experience with the M246(?, MM version of M240..) but I will never let go of my MM. It had the sensor corrosion issue and Leica took care of that, gave the camera a complete overhaul and new cover.
I also have a Q and since I got this little gem my M9 is retired. I never liked 28mm on my film Leica's, still don't have one for my MM (25 Biogon, 35 'cron asph in that range) but the results of the matched 1.7/28 on the Q are just stunning. The auto focus (I only use single not continuous mode) is way faster and when it comes to street photography, I was able to catch a few moments with the Q that I would have missed with a RF. OK, you can stop down and zone focus to get a better rate of in focus keepers with a RF but if the focus is where you want it at f=1.7, that's something you just can't mimic any other way.
If you love BW photography get a MM, you won't regret it. Anyone selling the MM now will get serious sellers remorse.
 
If you have canon gear you could always go cheap with a 28 2.8, fast with a 28 1.8, or pay a bit more for a 24 1.4. I've still got my 28 Summicron from M8 days and as much as I still like it on M9 it must be about my least used lens. I always end up using 35 Summicron.
 
Thanks for the responses guys! Will be heading down to a Leica store in the near future to test out the Q and the M9M (if they have one in the used section).
 
These are actually the only two cameras I own now and I use mostly the 28mm summicron on the m9m.

Every time I use the Q, I'm so pleased with how fast and effortless it is to use, and I don't understand why I ever use the m9m. But every time I upload new pictures taken from the m9m, I remember.

The Q is a fantastic camera. It's so quick and easy to use. I get a very high percentage of usable picture with it. The picture quality is very nice as well.

The m9m is so much slower and just feels like a very old camera compared to the Q. 28mm is my favourite focal length, but I will say it is more difficult for me to work with on a rangefinder. I don't use an external finder on it, cause it makes it even slower to first focus, then switch finders. Even though I can see the outer lines with some movement, I often end up with pictures that look too far away. I'm often fooled thinking I've filled the frame better then I have, cause it's hard for my brain to understand that the 28mm lens is wider then what I see with my eyes through the finder, if that makes sens. I've been using this 28mm lens for about 10 years on different M cameras, and I still struggle with it. I don't have this issue at all with the Q, because I see right away what I am getting.

All of this said though, the picture quality from the m9m is absolutely gorgeous. I LOVE the look of the files, so I still use it. I hate having two cameras, I'm a one camera one lens kind of guy because I don't like second guessing myself if I brought the right camera or lens, but I don't think I'll ever make up my mind which I prefer between these two. If you put a gun to my head though, I'd probably go with the Q, but I would miss the m9m.
 
icebear said:
I never like bw conversions from digital color images. Once you have opened an original MM file on a good monitor, you will immediately be convinced. I don't have experience with the M246(?, MM version of M240..) but I will never let go of my MM. It had the sensor corrosion issue and Leica took care of that, gave the camera a complete overhaul and new cover.

If you love BW photography get a MM, you won't regret it. Anyone selling the MM now will get serious sellers remorse.
Click to expand...

Plus one on the comments on the MM. I happen to use a 28 Cron on mine. Out of all the modern Leica glass my 28 Cron seems to match the response of the sensor the best.

Also know that I print 20x30 on 24x36 and easily get medium format like results and at times even large format tonality, resolution and detail.

The 28 Cron on the MM has the broadest midrange.

Cal
 
Maximilian said:
These are actually the only two cameras I own now and I use mostly the 28mm summicron on the m9m.

Every time I use the Q, I'm so pleased with how fast and effortless it is to use, and I don't understand why I ever use the m9m. But every time I upload new pictures taken from the m9m, I remember.

The Q is a fantastic camera. It's so quick and easy to use. I get a very high percentage of usable picture with it. The picture quality is very nice as well.

The m9m is so much slower and just feels like a very old camera compared to the Q. 28mm is my favourite focal length, but I will say it is more difficult for me to work with on a rangefinder. I don't use an external finder on it, cause it makes it even slower to first focus, then switch finders. Even though I can see the outer lines with some movement, I often end up with pictures that look too far away. I'm often fooled thinking I've filled the frame better then I have, cause it's hard for my brain to understand that the 28mm lens is wider then what I see with my eyes through the finder, if that makes sens. I've been using this 28mm lens for about 10 years on different M cameras, and I still struggle with it. I don't have this issue at all with the Q, because I see right away what I am getting.

All of this said though, the picture quality from the m9m is absolutely gorgeous. I LOVE the look of the files, so I still use it. I hate having two cameras, I'm a one camera one lens kind of guy because I don't like second guessing myself if I brought the right camera or lens, but I don't think I'll ever make up my mind which I prefer between these two. If you put a gun to my head though, I'd probably go with the Q, but I would miss the m9m.
Click to expand...

I agree, the M9M and the Kodak sensor is sublime. I think it is going to hold its value more than any other modern Leica camera.

@jaap - of course he means the M9 monochrome when he abbreviates m9m.
 
nitevision said:
Hi all,
Long story short, I am considering getting a Leica with a 28mm lens to replace or work alongside my GR(V). The GR currently occupies the WA role in my Canon kit or when I just want to walk around with a 28mm camera in hand.

I love the GR's BW output and pixel-level "bite", so I am considering the following:

Option 1: Leica Q (used or new)
For:
  • Ticks all the boxes in terms of capability- f1.7, fast response, OIS, good ISO performance
  • Smaller size (though no longer pocketable)
Against:
  • Lens is stuck to an expensive camera - not good when body goes out of date/fails because I'd like to keep the glass.
Option 2: Used M9M and 28mm lens (which one though???)
For:
  • Incredible BW files. I really like what the M9M CCD produces.
  • I get to keep my lens investment if camera fails
Against:
  • Cost, likely to turn out (much) more expensive compared to the Q
  • Rangefinder calibration required to get the best performance
  • Sensor issues (I haven't been following this issue much but from what I have read Leica will replace it if it's bad)
It seems the Q has the M9M beat, since I'm thinking the Q's BW conversions can't be all that far off from the M9M. But I'd like to hear opinions and experiences from everyone. Is there still a case to be made for the M9M?
Click to expand...

I would recommend getting a used M body - a Monochrom v.1 if you are seriously into B&W - and the new version of the Leica 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit M lens. I have this lens and it is outstanding; it is a steal compared to what most M lenses sell for on the new market.

Regarding the Q, you correctly observe that the "Lens is stuck to an expensive camera - not good when body goes out of date/fails because I'd like to keep the glass." That is a deal breaker IMHO. If you invest in a Q and it dies - which it ultimately will - you are out your camera and the 28mm lens, which equals $4250 USD down the crapper. Besides that, not being able to use the 28mm lens on other M cameras would cause never ending frustration in my view.

The 28mm Elmarit and a used M body are the only way to go IMHO.
 
noisycheese said:

...
Regarding the Q, you correctly observe that the "Lens is stuck to an expensive camera - not good when body goes out of date/fails because I'd like to keep the glass." That is a deal breaker IMHO. If you invest in a Q and it dies - which it ultimately will - you are out your camera and the 28mm lens, which equals $4250 USD down the crapper.
...
Click to expand...

Obviously Leica does repair cameras in case there is a need;).
Yes, the cameras/lenses are expensive and also the repair is not cheap but at least it is worth to repair it.
What most of other digital cameras can't claim ... you just get the latest and greatest. The IQ of either the MM or the Q are so good, for no real world purpose these will ever go "out of date". If the camera was the right choice for the style of photography the user likes, then the IQ should be plenty good enough ... but hey just my cheap $0.02;)

And what about the OP ... decision made since earlier this year?
 
decision made since earlier this year?
Click to expand...
Due to work commitments I have not done any research on this topic since, but the intent to buy is still there. Glad to see lots of good info from RFFers regardless.

Saw that the M9-Ps are a little cheaper than their MM brethren so I might be considering them too.

Does anyone know if used prices fall after announcement of a new Leica? I might just wait for the new Leicas to be announced at Photokina and pounce once the prices fall a bit.
 
icebear said:
Obviously Leica does repair cameras in case there is a need;).
Yes, the cameras/lenses are expensive and also the repair is not cheap but at least it is worth to repair it.
What most of other digital cameras can't claim ... you just get the latest and greatest. The IQ of either the MM or the Q are so good, for no real world purpose these will ever go "out of date". If the camera was the right choice for the style of photography the user likes, then the IQ should be plenty good enough ... but hey just my cheap $0.02;)

And what about the OP ... decision made since earlier this year?
Click to expand...

Leica will repair a Q - or any other camera they make - for the time being.

I was thinking in terms of long term. Will the Q be repairable in 10 years? In 20 years? What about 25 or 30? There are M cameras like the M3 that are as old as I am (59) that are still in use and are repairable after almost six decades of use. We don't know the longevity of the Q but I would expect it to be significantly less than 59 years; perhaps 1/3 that. And when that time rolls around, the lens goes off into the sweet by and by with the body.

Also bear in mind that with electronics based cameras, there are some kinds of damage that are simply not repairable. When/if that kind of incident happens, there's no writing off the body and saving the lens. Both are lost.

In that situation, I'd rather have a camera like an M where you can take the lens off, have it CLA'ed and continue to use it on another M body.

Just saying...
 
Obviously a digital camera with a full frame sensor and autofocus lens is a little bit more complicated than a fully mechanical M3.:D
It requires a lot of specialized parts that might not be around after 20 years. Do you know of any other brand's digital camera that comes with a repair guarantee of 50 to 60 years?:rolleyes: If I drop my Q, I trust that either part body or lens that is usable will be saved and "traded" in against a repair or replacement. I got both my sensors replaced in my MM and M9 with new body cover at no cost.
If you want a full frame digital camera roughly the size of a Leica M and a f1.7 lens of the same quality as the lens on the Q, then good luck. Let us know how much it is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom