Doubts about buying a Leica M

[pelpa]

Hello everyone I am writing to ask for advice. I currently own a Panasonic GF1 and I'm saving since long time to switch to a full frame camera. I'll keep my GF1 with its 4 lenses but I wanted to have also a FF camera. Among the full frame offers, I want to avoid any DSLR, too bulky and too heavy to use for me.

So the choice is necessarily limited to the only two FF compact cameras today on the market: Leica M or Sony RX1(R).

My indecision arises from the fact that I already have 3 Leica lenses (Summicron 35mm "King of Bokeh" 50mm Summicron Pre ASPH and a 90mm Elmarit pre-asph), purchased with an M6, camera that I've already sold because film was not my cup of tea.

On the other hand, the Sony would be more versatile and more convenient to use as a camera, in addition it is less expensive and it has a more modern lens. Also it has really good performances at high ISO, I love shooting in low light. (I thought about buy a used M9 but I know that ISO results aren't up to scratch enough.)

But choosing Sony I would let those 3 Leica lenses stay in my closet and the RX has just only a fixed lens.

If I hadn't those three Leica lenses, I would definitely buy the RX1(R) but it seems a pity not to use them at all, and now I have doubts also on lenses.

Yesterday I finally got my ring adapter M-mount to M43, so I had the chance to try for the first time my three Leica lenses with my GF1. The result was pretty disappointing... I mean, I found my three Leica lenses a lot less sharper than lenses I am using with my Panasonic GF1.

Here you can see two samples.

This one have been shot using my Summicron 35mm via ring adapter:

f2, 1/50, Summicron via ring adapter

This one have been shot using the native Leica Summilux DG Vario for M43

f2, 1/50, Summilux DG for M43

I used for both manual focus and a tripod (focus point is Homer's ear).

As you can see, M43 lens is really much sharper, and it is not something you can observe just zooming in; if look just at Matt Groening's sign or just at the little monkey plush, you can see the difference at first sight. The second pics is by far sharper than the previous one.

So, having never used a Leica to try my old lenses, I would like to know if this "sharpless" is something about the lens or it is something about using this specific lens with M43 sensor.

I would not want to buy a 7000 dollars camera for, at the end of the day, finding out that my Leica M with my old lenses is less sharper than my GF1. That would be very very disappointing and I would rather consider upgrading to a better M43 (Panny GX7 or Oly OM-D) or buying a RXR1 instead of a Leica M.

Currently I am a bit confused and honestly from one side a can feel the desire to hold a Leica M in my hands but on the other side I am not able to find any strong motivation to justify the big expense.

Thanks in advance.

 

[mdarnton]

If we assume that the first picture is focused on the android pillow and the second on the Duff Beer, then they look about the same to me. but I have a feeling you are thinking they're both focused on the Duff beer. . . .

 

[pelpa]

If we assume that the first picture is focused on the android pillow and the second on the Duff Beer, then they look about the same to me. but I have a feeling you are thinking they're both focused on the Duff beer. . . .

I can assure that I personally manually focused both shot on Homer's ear with magnification.

You can check details here: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1706521806 you'll se the difference in details.

 

[David_Manning]

I'm not sure I'd be worrying about ultimate sharpness. As soon as you get into the real world, camera shake, subject movement, etc. will affect technical numbers.

I'd get the camera you'd enjoy shooting the most, especially if it isn't necessarily a cost issue. You've got three M-mount lenses, you'd have quite the kit with a new M240 (and it'll deliver adequate low-light performance, from what I've read). The RX1(R) is probably the best at low light, but it shoots like a compact camera. Do you enjoy holding a camera at arm's length to shoot? Are you willing to use an add-on viewfinder? Are you fine with just 35mm?

I've changed cameras a lot, and still have most of them, and what it comes down to for me is user experience. At the end of the day, most cameras will shoot most pictures.

I just bought a used M9, knowing the high ISO performance isn't up to par with modern cameras (I also own an X-Pro 1, X100, RX100, and 5DmkII). What I've realized is I enjoy the RF experience, something not quite satisfied by any of the other offerings. The Sony RX100 is now my wife's, the Fuji X100 is my oldest daughter's, I'll keep a dSLR for telephoto, and the X-Pro 1 plus two lenses will probably get sold.

If you're printing images, you'll not be able to tell much between sensors, noise, and sharpness. The computer can fix most things to a reasonable state. Get what you like to shoot.

 

[aizan]

according to rumor, sony will announce full frame nex at the end of september.

 

[Joakim Målare]

Since there will most likely be a lot of contradictory responses to your post, I'll just give you my point of view, with some explanation.

I very much like the feel of the traditional Leica M film camera, but I want to do larger prints, so the negative format doesn't hold up anymore. I tested shooting with a M9 in a store and was immediately put off by its size and noise and general "modern" feeling. It didn't feel at all like the old ones. So I lost interest in that too.

I went for medium format and have two fixed lens cameras, a 75 mm Rolleiflex and the GF670W at 55 mm. I mostly use the GF670W which is about 28 mm in 135. I really don't have a problem with fixed lens cameras. Less to carry, less to worry about, less to be bothered about. Helps me to concentrate on looking rather than messing with gear all the time.

So, if I was into digital photography like you, I would get the Sony and an external viewfinder from Zeiss. Sell the lenses you have and get a nice monitor, a Wacom tablet and a good printer.

 

[NeeZee]

Leitz lenses are infamous for their softness. Just send them to me and buy that Sony thing...

Seriously though, use lenses created for the mount of your camera for the best results. So the M would make sense if you got these lenses already. On the other hand you could just sell them and use the money for the Sony. To me, the greatest advantage of FF digital would be using different lenses at their intended focal length without the crop factor - that's why I don't really get the fixed lens Sony camera.

off topic: just buy an M4 for the lenses if you wanna have fun 😉

 

[Hosermage]

Honestly, I don't see much differences with the low res. images except one seems to have a more shallow DOF. I don't sharpen my images, and it's not something I look for. If you are price-conscious and expecting the Leica M to take pictures worth its retail cost, then I think you'll be disappointed. It cannot be rated by the image output alone, as there are many other factors that goes into the decision of buying a Leica M.

If you think the only reason of not going with RX1 is the lenses, then I wouldn't let them hold you back. You could sell them to fund the camera plus some m43 lenses to cover other focal lengths. You maybe much happier. However, if you loved the RF experience while shooting the M6 and now want a digital body, then I'm afraid there isn't much choice out there to satisfy that itch.

 

[redisburning]

a 35mm sensor has 4 times the area of a 4/3rd sensor; ie twice the size on both sides.

in order for the m4/3rds camera to give you equivalent output to a full frame camera of the same pixel density, the lens would have to have a 40 lp/mm contrast level HIGHER than the 10 lp/mm level of your Leica lenses. that's simply not possible, and is part of why even marginal medium format systems can produce results so much better than even the best 35mm when it comes to line pairs / image height (ie holding image size constant).

your lenses ARE less sharp than the m4/3rds lenses. they cover a considerably smaller image circle but for equivalent output sizes the M will be better unless you've broken the point where size is so small that the contrast levels are indistinguishable.

if you want the RX1, rent an M240 first. If you don't love the results so much you change your mind, sell your lenses and get one. You seem to be OK with AF so there's that.

the Zeiss sonnar is better than the v4 35mm cron in most areas, although it has significant distortion that the camera fixes. Zeiss knows what they are doing though and the results are impressive even if the camera, at least to me, isn't.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Honestly, I don't see much differences with the low res. images except one seems to have a more shallow DOF. I don't sharpen my images, and it's not something I look for. If you are price-conscious and expecting the Leica M to take pictures worth its retail cost, then I think you'll be disappointed. It cannot be rated by the image output alone, as there are many other factors that goes into the decision of buying a Leica M.

If you think the only reason of not going with RX1 is the lenses, then I wouldn't let them hold you back. You could sell them to fund the camera plus some m43 lenses to cover other focal lengths. You maybe much happier. However, if you loved the RF experience while shooting the M6 and now want a digital body, then I'm afraid there isn't much choice out there to satisfy that itch.

Well said....

 

[pelpa]

if you want the RX1, rent an M240 first. If you don't love the results so much you change your mind, sell your lenses and get one. You seem to be OK with AF so there's that.

This would be the "bestest" solution, but unfortunately where I live it is not possible to rent a camera. It is so difficult just buying a Leica, rent is almost impossible. I have no chance to hold it one.

So it would be just a leap of faith in the Red Dot 🙂

Anyway I want to underline that I am not a "pro", just an "enthusiast".

Thanks everybody so far

 

[Duane Pandorf]

The Leica digital FF is going to give you the most options to shoot with a small format FF camera. Whether its a used M9, M-E or the new M (if you can find one).

IMO the high ISO is a non issue as I would much prefer ISO 25 or 64 camera to 3200.

You're limited to 35mm FOV with the Sony and I'm sorry but I'm not going to shoot with a camera with my arms outstretched in front of me. I've also shot with a camera that had the external EVF that made the camera much larger.

The M9 body with any if the compact M lenses is really not that bigger than the Sony camera.

 

[pelpa]

the Zeiss sonnar is better than the v4 35mm cron in most areas, although it has significant distortion that the camera fixes. Zeiss knows what they are doing though and the results are impressive even if the camera, at least to me, isn't.

Anyway this sentence is making me think: if Zeiss Sonnar is better the the cron, does it makes sense to spend 7000 dollars and eventually getting worst image quality due to my old lenses?

 

[pelpa]

If you think the only reason of not going with RX1 is the lenses, then I wouldn't let them hold you back.

This is someway what I think, but also for the future: going Leica means I can also buy a Voigtlander, a Zeiss or any other lenses I can mount on.

With the RX1 I will be forever stuck on it.

 

[Pioneer]

For most people a Leica camera is not really a good value, especially a digital Leica. The cost to own one is so high compared to most other systems that it only really makes sense if you like the cameras. Leica has always been more expensive then other cameras but during most of the film years the cost differential was not as high, and the durability and repair-ability of the Leica was oftentimes an advantage. However, there are a few who enjoy the unique operating characteristics of the Leica so we are willing to live with, and learn to work within, the limitations. But if you are trying to find the "value" in owning a Leica system compared to Sony or Fuji, you probably won't find it.

An M240 (if you can find one) will cost very close to $7,000. A Leica lens capable of putting a sharp, distortion free, image on that costly digital sensor (the APO Summicron 50/2 ASPH) will cost a little bit more then the camera. It is really hard to justify $14,000 for one digital full frame camera and one 50mm f2 prime lens unless money doesn't matter to you or the type of photography you do requires this type of equipment. Value really does not enter into the equation.

 

[Hosermage]

Since it's unlikely to get the new M anytime soon, might as well wait for the Sony FF Nex announcement before making your decision. On the other hand, you could be waiting forever since newer gear/tech is always just around the corner 😛

I know how you feel though... I took a leap with a used M9, and it paid off for me. But remember, the body is only the beginning... you'll end up spending more on lenses later!

 

[msbarnes]

Anyway this sentence is making me think: if Zeiss Sonnar is better the the cron, does it makes sense to spend 7000 dollars and eventually getting worst image quality due to my old lenses?

Yes, if camera ergonomics/handling, and interchangeable lenses is important to you. Nothing wrong with the Sony but they are two very different cameras.

I'd rather get the Sony because digital M's are too costly for me.

 

[ferider]

The m4/3 Summilux is an outstanding lens, it will be very hard to beat with any pre-asph Leica lens, even when comparing m4/3 to full frame.

Not clear to me what you expect from FF in the first place. And you have a lot of money in your legacy Leica glass ... OK to use the Leica lenses if you want special "rendering", etc., but they are old technology.

Maybe expand on your m4/3 setup instead ? Have you tried the 45mm f/2.8 Vario-Elmar, for instance ?

I still use film; however my better half has a m4/3 system (including two Panasonic bodies, Summilux and Vario Elmar, etc) - very hard to beat technically. That's what I would use if using digital.

Roland.

 

[IdealCamera]

Sony FF Solution

Sony FF Solution

Sony will launch a full frame mirrorless in the $3k range in a month. Why not wait a bit and see if that fits your needs better?

 

[louisb]

I thought it was well known that shooting anything below a 50mm lens on a m43rds camera would lead to bad smearing of edges. I believe this is due to the nearness of the rear element to the sensor and the lack of micro lenses tuned to correct the image circle.

I also base this on my experience. When I purchased my GF1 many moons ago I also bought a M adapter, tried it about 5 times, concluded it was a waste of time and then sold it.

I never found I could use anything less than a 50mm leica-mount lens on a m43rds body without compromising the image quality. In fact, in the end I gave up and just used Lumix lenses - for example the 20/1.7 which is a Summicron as far as I am concerned and the wonderful PanaLeica 45/2.8.

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.

You should either buy a Leica DRF body to get the best benefit of the Leica lenses or else sell them all and invest in a better m43rds body and lenses.

BTW, I agree with the above poster. The m43rds 50 Summilux is an outstanding lens. Sharper at 1.4 because of all the sophisticated image computing in-camera than a real Leica M 50/1.4 ASPH.

Just my two cents.

LouisB