Doubts about buying a Leica M

Roger Hicks said:
Yes, but what does "justify" mean? The only person to whom I would ever have to "justify" buying a camera is the tax-man. A more accurate assessment would be the intersection between "want badly enough" and "can find the money for".
Click to expand...

I was considering the m240 to other digital full frame cameras such as Canon 6D, 5DIII etc which are probably take a similar image but of course at the expense of size, enjoyment etc. More so I was comparing the cost of upgrading from my previous camera, the Leica ME which was already a fantastic camera and made the decision a little bit harder.

Personally, for others who are still undecided, the high ISO performance and ability to use my visoflex with perfect focusing and zoom lenses (don't have to ever consider buying a DSLR now) tipped the decision in favour the of the M240. I dislike using the live view but I have found myself increasingly reliant on it when shooting with super wide lenses.
 
This actually reads like a poem ...


leicapixie said:
Amazing discussion.
In the end if i was to spend that kind of money,
plus more to get my lenses adjusted for my Digital M body,
i would actually spend on a train, bus whatever
to go to Rome, Milan or wherever there is a Leica store..
A Leica is not the best camera.
It is a special camera.
I needed SLR more than my Leica.
In the end though, you must make the payment.
I see the small Sony as a very high priced Point and Shoot.
I use P/S all the time.Just not at $3000 plus taxes.
All digital cameras are disposable..see instruction books..
I have FILM Leica. i can't be bothered to get a Leica digital.
Click to expand...
 
Finally I got it! My first impression after 3 days of use:

- Image quality is outstanding: I was wrong in trying to guess final image quality using my M lenses on a M43 camera. Using them with the Leica M, final results are far far better than using them with my GF1. It really gives "justice" do those lenses.

- The camera is heavy and solid but really comfortable to use. Live view is very useful; unfortunately I have the same issue with my glasses when shooting with the rangefinder and 35mm lens: the frame inside the glass is too large and I need to remove my glasses to see the whole composition rectangle. I would have preferred a bigger magnyfing rate for the range finder.

I am really excited to get used to this superb camera.

This is one of my first pictures, nothing special but hope you like


Reach for the Sky by Riccardo Campaci, on Flickr

Thanks everybody in these thread for helping me about taking my decision.
 
louisb said:
This fad for putting manual lenses on relatively sophisticated cameras is, imho, counter productive. The cameras all do massive amounts of lens correction with their own-brand lenses which is completely negated when you slap what is a dumb piece of glass in front of the sensor instead.... Yes, you can try to convince yourself that you have a M9 or M240 or Monochrom for a 10th of the price but really you haven't and you are just compromising.

LouisB
Click to expand...

Bingo. Adapting expensive, manual-focus rangefinder lenses to sophisticated but not-designed-for-them digital bodies wastes the talents of both.

In general, Fuji's APS-C and Leica's 4/3 leses are tremendously sharp and well corrected. You are not going to surpass them except with very modern M glass on a current digital body. They also function better with live view because the bodies can operate the apertures to optimize viewing and focusing.

One other mildly irritating thing about the adaptation fetish is that it diminishes the supply (or radically raises the price of) some rangefinder lenses for people who actually need the RF coupling. A case in point is the 40 Summicron/Rokkor - which mirrorless people are snapping up (look at Flickr). If you wanted to be truly smart and thrifty, you would buy a 40 Hexanon compact SLR lens ($40). Its rays will be hitting more head-on. And not only did it out-test the Rokkor/Summicron back in the day, it's also 1/10 the price. If you wanted to spend a little more and get even more retrofocus action, there is the 45 GN Nikkor.

Dante
 
And who cares about some product that may or may not be coming "tomorrow"? Your life is going on, and you could get hit by a bus while waiting for that next NEX.

I put a much higher premium on time and mental well-being than I do on money - and so, at least to me, it seems silly to herniate and agonize about some rumored product rather than enjoying life and photography now. Buy what works for you now, worry about new products when they come (and are debugged - X100s, anyone?), and sell/buy when you feel a need to.

And by the way, Sony's track record with NEX lenses is pretty dismal, some deserved and some undeserved (if you stop a 16/2,8 down to f/4.5 or 5.6, "wipe open" on a CV lens, it's actually pretty good - but I have yet to see the NEX lens that would justify a $3K body). So I would not sit out an M because some full-frame NEX supposedly is coming. That said, the NEX is a fantastic camera line for video - but a 24x36mm frame is wasted on that.

Dante
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom