reaperman
Established
I think you should heading for the Sony. If you couldn't bond with the M6 you'll never ever get attached to any other M.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
I think you misstated what the OP said about the M6, it was that film was not his cup of tea. Made no mention on how he got along with the M6 otherwise.
thegman
Veteran
If you like the Sony, I'd sell the Leica glass and get the Sony. The Leica M is obviously far more expensive than the Sony, although you seem to prefer the idea of the RX1. Some of your lenses are worth a lot of money, and would likely cover most of the cost of an RX-1.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
As others have already said, using RF M-mount lenses on sensors not designed to work with them does not produce optimal results. Micro-FourThirds (mFT) sensors have not been designed for RF mount lenses. The Leica lenses designed for mFT are optimized to work with the sensor ... both optically and via lens correction metadata which is automatically applied during raw conversion.
At present, there are only a few cameras on the market which have been intentionally optimized for RF mount lenses:
- Ricoh GXR fitted with A12 Camera Mount
- Leica M(240)
- Leica M-E
- Leica M Monochrom
- used Leica M8, M8.2, M9, and M9-P
The NEX 5n and NEX 6 sensor is also compatible to a high degree, although it has not been intentionally optimized for these lenses.
So ... It all depends on what you want. If you want to use those Leica lenses, you need to buy a body that was designed to work with them properly. Or you could decide to stick with mFT, buy the latest Olympus E-M5, E-P5 or Panasonic G6, GH3, or GX7 bodies, sell the RF lenses, and buy the excellent Olympus, Panasonic/Leica, and Voigtländer lenses designed for these bodies.
Personally, although I have an M9, I don't really know why everyone feels they MUST have a full frame camera. I wanted an M9 because I had all these nice M-mount lenses I used with my Leica film cameras and the GXR, wanted the M9 so I'd have digitally exactly what I had with a film Leica in terms of format. But I've worked with FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds cameras extensively in my photo business of a few years back, which produced a lot of very satisfying and lucrative photo sales. I would spend some time examining why you feel you must have a full frame camera before spending any additional money.
You can also rent the Leica M9 and M bodies from a few places and test your lenses with them to see if they give you the quality you're after. If not, then the answer will be clearer.
G
(I was curious just what the correction parameters for the Macro-Elmar 45mm f/2.8 DG OIS looked like, so I decomposed a DNG v1.3 spec file converted from the original Panasonic raw file to look at them. Yes, the metadata is there, but to my surprise all the image correction parameters were set to null ... In other words, Leica's optical design in fact required NO software corrections at all to meet their image quality goals. I verified this by processing the original raw file and the DNG file in both the open source dcraw, no metadata corrections supported, and in Lightroom, all metadata corrections supported. They matched with respect to image corrections.)
At present, there are only a few cameras on the market which have been intentionally optimized for RF mount lenses:
- Ricoh GXR fitted with A12 Camera Mount
- Leica M(240)
- Leica M-E
- Leica M Monochrom
- used Leica M8, M8.2, M9, and M9-P
The NEX 5n and NEX 6 sensor is also compatible to a high degree, although it has not been intentionally optimized for these lenses.
So ... It all depends on what you want. If you want to use those Leica lenses, you need to buy a body that was designed to work with them properly. Or you could decide to stick with mFT, buy the latest Olympus E-M5, E-P5 or Panasonic G6, GH3, or GX7 bodies, sell the RF lenses, and buy the excellent Olympus, Panasonic/Leica, and Voigtländer lenses designed for these bodies.
Personally, although I have an M9, I don't really know why everyone feels they MUST have a full frame camera. I wanted an M9 because I had all these nice M-mount lenses I used with my Leica film cameras and the GXR, wanted the M9 so I'd have digitally exactly what I had with a film Leica in terms of format. But I've worked with FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds cameras extensively in my photo business of a few years back, which produced a lot of very satisfying and lucrative photo sales. I would spend some time examining why you feel you must have a full frame camera before spending any additional money.
You can also rent the Leica M9 and M bodies from a few places and test your lenses with them to see if they give you the quality you're after. If not, then the answer will be clearer.
G
raid
Dad Photographer
I am very happy with the M8 and the M9 with my Leica lenses.
There is so much more to the joy of photography than having the very latest models of any system. As long as you are very satisfied with the images that you get, I would not worry about getting conflicting advices here.
There is so much more to the joy of photography than having the very latest models of any system. As long as you are very satisfied with the images that you get, I would not worry about getting conflicting advices here.
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.
Personally I would buy a used M9. Full frame for a lot less $
Stephen
raid
Dad Photographer
The M9 is a superb camera for most applications. This is something that some people seem to forget.
pelpa
Member
For answering to both, I would like to get a FF camere just for having better image quality, better dynamic range, better colors, shallower depth of field and better details.
I never owned a FF camera but as far as I know about sensor, correct me if I am wrong, bigger is better, size matters...
Ok, got it, but now my question is: will my old Summicron 35mm shoot better pics with a Leica M than my M43 summilux on a OM-D E-M5? In a nutshell, does the potential image quality cron+Leica M justify spending 7000 dollars rather than spending 900 dollars on a Oly camera?
I know that this could sound like a stupid question because nobody is buying a Leica thinking about the price... but on the other hand it is difficult not think about the expenses...
For those who suggested me to look for a M9/M-E, I have to say that I love shooting in low light and the average performance of the M9 in low light is the reason why I did not take into account the M9.
Moreover I had some issue with the rangefinder in my now-sold M6. I mean: the rangefinder was ok but, when I was shooting with my 35mm 'Cron, I could barely see the framing lines. I wear glasses so having them on my nose was reducing the visibility of 35mm framing lines, because of the augmented distance between my eye and the OVF lens wearing my glasses.
If I put down my glasses, I cannot see very well so I would have to buy a diopter correction lens, and this could be annoying. With the M Typ 240 I have the rangefinder but I have also the Live View with focus peaking and finally I can buy also an EVF.
These are basically my main two reason for not choosing a M9/M-E.
I like the rangefinder but honestly this is not something I cannot live without. That's why I like the idea that I could use the live view with the Leica M.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes and no. It depends on what you're doing and what's important to the photograph. With today's sensors, even Micro-FourThirds format cameras return superb results and net you two stops more DoF for the same FoV and lens opening typically in a lighter, smaller package—that's often a handier advantage than extremely shallow DoF with a larger format camera.
This is why it's important to think carefully about what specific advantages you are trying to obtain from a new camera.
G
pelpa
Member
Yes, this is the reason why I excluded every bulky DSLR Sony/Canon/Nikon.
But Leica M and RX1 seem to me different. Leica could be a bit bigger than a GF1 but a Leica M with my Summicron 35 could be very handy, maybe a bit heavier but not too much heavier.
The Sony RX1 is too small. Ok, the lens is too much large to be pocketable, but it is not different than using my current GF1+Leica M43 Summilux.
In terms of handling nothing is better than my GF1+Lumix 20mm 1.7, that's why I'll never sell them
raid
Dad Photographer
I have to admit that I very much like the 10x magnification in the E P2 with my 85/1.4 that must be used wide open due to broken aperture blades. I focus on the eyes at such a magnification and then take the photo.
The M4/3 has its place. In my case, it is the lens rear cover for my Rollei mount Zeiss 85/1.4.
The M4/3 has its place. In my case, it is the lens rear cover for my Rollei mount Zeiss 85/1.4.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
I would suggest like I believe someone else on this thread is if there was some way to shoot with the M240 to see if it worked for you with focusing issues you had with the M6. I'd also shoot it in low light and take those images home to see how they compare to whatever system you maybe considering.
I think that's the only way to really have it settled in your mind as to what is the right decision for you.
ricnak
Well-known
I had a look at a Sony RX1 a while back. It is a nice little camera. I took a SD card along and took some test shots in the shop. Also had my M9 and 35lux. I compared the shots at home and much preferred the M9. I am not one for technical terms but the sony files were quite murky in colour and sharpness. I think it is one of those first world problems. If you have not used an M9 you would probably be happy with the Sony files.
pelpa
Member
I wasn't aware about this; in fact I just did a test with the elmarit and its results was better than with the Cron. I'll be at the beach two days so I'll take with me the 50mm 'Cron to test it.
I tried also to play with a 35mm Cron files with Lightroom and I got some good result after some post processing session. Not bad, now Leica M is rising up again in my list...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The digital Ms are a noticeable amount bulkier/heavier than the M6.
The M+Summicron 35/2 is quite a lot larger and heavier than the GF1+20/1.7. Just looking at the bodies, the M is nearly twice the weight and thirty-five percent bigger by volume. The Summicron is about twice the length and at least twice the weight of the 20/1.7.
You can see representations of the two bodies at: http://camerasize.com/compare/#323,355
You should probably find a camera shop that has at least an M9 or M-E (very similar in size/weight to the M, which is a couple of ounces heavier still) in stock so you can handle it compared to your GF1/20. The M feels compact if you've been toting about a pro DSLR, but is not itself a particularly small camera.
G
pelpa
Member
Really useful tool, thank you, I'll check it carefully
pelpa
Member
Think the Elmarit passed the test very well...
http://f-number.tumblr.com/post/58369575581/elmarit-test-film-look-alike
http://f-number.tumblr.com/post/58369575581/elmarit-test-film-look-alike
Ben Z
Veteran
People have different criteria for the gear they choose. I do not like shooting with a camera held out in front of me. It's a matter of personal preference, that's all. Same with EVF. Maybe in the future they will be indistinguishable from reflex or direct viewfinding, but I can only go by what's currently out there, and I just don't care for them. For certain purposes I still vastly prefer an SLR. We recently had our first grandchild, and I like a camera where I can use a fast medium telephoto without flash, wide open for shallow DOF. To save my life I can't get as decent a hit rate with manual focus as with AF. Alhough I prefer the size and ergonomics of my M9 over my 5D, my family is depending on me to get as many stunning images as possible. I really don't need or want to get into a discussion with them over why I spent $7K on a camera that can't get as many in-focus shots as their cellphones can. The M9 is my travel photography camera, where the lion's share of what I shoot can be zone-focused and I can take time to second-guess the arbitrary frame lines for composition. I also have a Panny LX5 with the accessory EVF, which I love for party photography which is by and large posed and "say cheese on the count of three". Even in the days of film, and I've been shooting 45+ years, I never found a single camera system that was universally perfect. If the cost of owning a Leica system meant divesting myself of all others, I would not own one. Again, it's a personal choice based on personal criteria.
__--
Well-known
I would prefer a new M-E, which has a two-year warranty. That is what i was going to get at the end of February, but the dealer had a new M9-P that was still at the Leica promotional price that had ended on December 31, and which ended up, after the VAT rebate in Paris, costing only a few hundred dollars more than an M-E.
For me, the reason get an M9/M-E is the color rensition, which has a look that is more like color slide film than other cameras, including the new M240. Also, I found that using the technique discussed here the M9 is a great camera for high-ISO, contrary to the convential wisdom, because of fantastic color rendition.
—Mitch/Bangkok
Surabaya-Johnny
furbs
Well-known
To be completely honest...if i were you I would sell all the Leica gear and get a FF DSLR. 5D mkI's aren't too pricey now. If you care about high ISO, shallow DOF, high DR, low noise, all that stuff, just accept that you will probably need a bit more heft to your camera. They tend to work better for eyeglass wearers as well.
Note that this year I sold my entire FF digital Nikon kit and converted to shooting a film M. I am not interested in selling you a DSLR, though I think they have the most of what you want from a camera. I do think what I value in cameras is almost diametrically opposed from what you want, though.
Note that this year I sold my entire FF digital Nikon kit and converted to shooting a film M. I am not interested in selling you a DSLR, though I think they have the most of what you want from a camera. I do think what I value in cameras is almost diametrically opposed from what you want, though.