LCT
ex-newbie
Not sure if the M240 is made for you then as it is mediocre in LV/EVF mode and its strength are its rangefinder in the first place and its rendition with 16 to 28mm wides from Leica.
Your Leica lenses are not wide enough to pose a problem to any modern sensor.
I would wait for the next FF Sony if you're not in a hurry or purchase an APS cam and a couple of wides from the same maker to avoid vignetting and color shift issues.
YYV_146
Well-known
Previous posters covered things up pretty well, thought I'd just clarify a few points.
1. Your legacy lenses are great, but from a past era. Their coatings are designed to work with different film types, not the modern day sensor. Much of today's lens technology - aspherical elements, floating elements, apochromatic correction.etc, has not been around for so long.
2. They are designed with a much greater coverage at lower resolution. This is unavoidable, and one of the reasons that it is never a good idea to put MF glass onto 135 cameras. I also use a very pixel-dense APS-C camera (NEX-7), but I make sure that the lenses I use are modern Leica and Zeiss designs, should I want to print a certain picture.
3. If you can afford it, I can't see why not to get an M. FF will handily outperform M43, even if it is a bit old (M9). You will get a camera optimized for Leica glass, with superb build quality and operations.
4. Cheaper alternatives...there's the Fuji X-e1 and X-pro1, which IMO can retain lens character better than the Sonys. I love shooting mine with the 35mm Summilux and 28mm elmarit. Then of course there is the GXR, also a bit outdated, but a very fine body for M lenses.
5. RX1...I don't like the handling, and I don't like f2. The EVF is more expensive than an entry-level NEX5. You can put an OVF on it, but then you'll be at the total mercy of the AF system, which isn't perfect from time to time.
1. Your legacy lenses are great, but from a past era. Their coatings are designed to work with different film types, not the modern day sensor. Much of today's lens technology - aspherical elements, floating elements, apochromatic correction.etc, has not been around for so long.
2. They are designed with a much greater coverage at lower resolution. This is unavoidable, and one of the reasons that it is never a good idea to put MF glass onto 135 cameras. I also use a very pixel-dense APS-C camera (NEX-7), but I make sure that the lenses I use are modern Leica and Zeiss designs, should I want to print a certain picture.
3. If you can afford it, I can't see why not to get an M. FF will handily outperform M43, even if it is a bit old (M9). You will get a camera optimized for Leica glass, with superb build quality and operations.
4. Cheaper alternatives...there's the Fuji X-e1 and X-pro1, which IMO can retain lens character better than the Sonys. I love shooting mine with the 35mm Summilux and 28mm elmarit. Then of course there is the GXR, also a bit outdated, but a very fine body for M lenses.
5. RX1...I don't like the handling, and I don't like f2. The EVF is more expensive than an entry-level NEX5. You can put an OVF on it, but then you'll be at the total mercy of the AF system, which isn't perfect from time to time.
EvilTed
Member
It all depends upon the type of photography you are interested in and whether a point and shoot is the type of camera you want to use or not.
I personally will never buy a camera with only an EVF again.
I just sold a Fuji X-E1 and replaced it with a X100s.
I also have a Leica M 240, 50 Cron, 50 Lux ASPH, 35 Lux FLE and 90 Elmarit and I'm going to complete the set next with the 21mm SEM.
I also have a mint 1959 M3 with 1964 Lux 50.
I love that I can use all the Leica lenses interchangeably on the M3 and the 240.
I can use external viewfinders on the M240 and the M3 and if I want critical focus when I have time or a tripod, I can use the EVF with the M 240.
I also have a Fuji M adapter so when the X-Pro 2 comes out, I can use my Leica glass with it too.
I too went through the dilemma but I bought a "system" with the Leica.
I can get close to the performance of the RX-1 with the X100s but I also gain an OVF, faster and better AF and I don't have to wear my reading glasses to use it.
This was something that ruled out the Sony for me straight away
HTH
ET
I personally will never buy a camera with only an EVF again.
I just sold a Fuji X-E1 and replaced it with a X100s.
I also have a Leica M 240, 50 Cron, 50 Lux ASPH, 35 Lux FLE and 90 Elmarit and I'm going to complete the set next with the 21mm SEM.
I also have a mint 1959 M3 with 1964 Lux 50.
I love that I can use all the Leica lenses interchangeably on the M3 and the 240.
I can use external viewfinders on the M240 and the M3 and if I want critical focus when I have time or a tripod, I can use the EVF with the M 240.
I also have a Fuji M adapter so when the X-Pro 2 comes out, I can use my Leica glass with it too.
I too went through the dilemma but I bought a "system" with the Leica.
I can get close to the performance of the RX-1 with the X100s but I also gain an OVF, faster and better AF and I don't have to wear my reading glasses to use it.
This was something that ruled out the Sony for me straight away
HTH
ET
LCT
ex-newbie
I would not call the OP's lenses legacy lenses in that their level of contrast and resolution is comparable to modern ones but this comes perhaps from the fact that those lenses are younger than me.
Now legacy lenses, in general, have a character that modern "asph" and "apo" lenses don't have any more, reason why they are still demanded by digital photographers.
A good sensor is supposed to reproduce this character accurately. This is the case with digital Ms but also with the R-D1 and 5D as far as my cams are concerned so i don't see why a modern Sony or whatever sensor could not do the same as long as it has not to fit M wides needing special microlenses a la Leica.
Also legacy lenses are less contrasty than modern ones which is an advantage in digital photography since we have less blowing highlights issues in PP.
Now shooting jpegs with default camera settings is not the best way to do justice to those lenses needless to say.
YYV_146
Well-known
I would not call the OP's lenses legacy lenses in that their level of contrast and resolution is comparable to modern ones but this comes perhaps from the fact that those lenses are younger than me.
Now legacy lenses, in general, have a character that modern "asph" and "apo" lenses don't have any more, reason why they are still demanded by digital photographers.
A good sensor is supposed to reproduce this character accurately. This is the case with digital Ms but also with the R-D1 and 5D as far as my cams are concerned so i don't see why a modern Sony or whatever sensor could not do the same as long as it has not to fit M wides needing special microlenses a la Leica.
Also legacy lenses are less contrasty than modern ones which is an advantage in digital photography since we have less blowing highlights issues in PP.
Now shooting jpegs with default camera settings is not the best way to do justice to those lenses needless to say.
Let's just say imperfection can be as beautiful as perfection.
I like my pre-asph 50lux and pre-apo 90cron, but they do have some issues with higher pixel densities. I believe the benchmark resolution for film glass is around 20mp (which is roughly the resolution of decent, low iso film). However, a 12mp M43 sensor, being less than a third of the area of 135 film, has a pixel density closer to 35mp. An 24mp APS-C sensor, such as the one on the A77 and NEX7, has a pixel density equal to a 55mp FF. That is where the problem is. Modern Leica glass is designed to such incredible standards, they can still outperform these sensors. My 50lux asph can make out single-pixel lines on the NEX7 wide open, but older lenses cannot do this. The pre-A may have more character, but it won't work as well as M43 lenses on an GF body, simple because of the sensor density.
The problems with the Sony sensor is that it has an AA filter, which takes out micro contrast and thus much of what makes a lens special. This is more problematic with certain cameras than others, but overall NEX bodies are not as good with legacy glass as the Fuji's or the GXR. Maybe that's why those aren't as popular around RFF.
pelpa
Member
Sorry but I really do not like DSLR. I owned in the past a Sony Alpha (do not remember the exact model, maybe a A300). It was my first "good" camera, I had a very good Minolta lens and the kit lens, but I hate the DSLR form factor, too big, really ugly (personal taste). So as soon as Panasonic came out with the first G1, I sold my Sony Alpha to get the G1, even though - I have to admit - the Sony was better in terms of IQ. Then I sold the G1 for buying the GF1. I do not like big gears: I own a Panasonic telephoto zoom but I nearly never use it because it is too big, too much things to carry.
That's why I took into consideration only Leica M and Sony RX1. Ok Leica M is a bit bigger than the Sony RX1, but never as big as a DSLR.
MichaelToye
Well-known
All this gear talk is all very well, but we each come to the M decision subjectively.
If you are umm'ing and arr'ing about lens quality and sensor size and then comparing sub $1000 with $7000 equipment, then
- you either don't have the money and want us to admit that the M is not that great and to validate/justify your purchase of a u43/Nex/etc
or
- you are too gear oriented to appreciate the eco system and life choice that is the M system.
In all seriousness, go and try one out in a store. take your own SD card to examine the images you take. It's an expensive camera to make a decision just based on our input. More than any system, you need to feel the camera and try it out.
Personally, I think if your photography needs more than good shoes, a finger to focus and a shutter button, you might look to micro 4/3 or DSLR. Both are extremely capable systems and offer a multitude of functionality.
Oh, and I wear glasses and have no trouble framing.
Good luck and remember to have fun and take photos!
Michael
If you are umm'ing and arr'ing about lens quality and sensor size and then comparing sub $1000 with $7000 equipment, then
- you either don't have the money and want us to admit that the M is not that great and to validate/justify your purchase of a u43/Nex/etc
or
- you are too gear oriented to appreciate the eco system and life choice that is the M system.
In all seriousness, go and try one out in a store. take your own SD card to examine the images you take. It's an expensive camera to make a decision just based on our input. More than any system, you need to feel the camera and try it out.
Personally, I think if your photography needs more than good shoes, a finger to focus and a shutter button, you might look to micro 4/3 or DSLR. Both are extremely capable systems and offer a multitude of functionality.
Oh, and I wear glasses and have no trouble framing.
Good luck and remember to have fun and take photos!
Michael
pelpa
Member
This is definitely not the case: as I wrote, I saved for several month to have those money, selling things to reach the right amount. But I thing that, even though someone have money ready to spend, there is nothing wrong in comparing sub $1000 with $7000 equipment.
I am a Mac user so in the past I had to discuss a lot of times with people telling me that they can buy a more performing PC at the same cost I spent for my Mac and honestly, I could not tell them that they were wrong because, well... they were right: you can by a more powerful and equipped PC.
But I think everything depends on several factors and It is important to understand where is going to be the $6000 difference, if it is worth or not (for me), and so on.
Obviously if I decide to buy a OM-D and sell my Leica lenses, with the remaining budget I can buy a new Mac, some new lenses for my new M43, have and epic dinner and buy a new smartphone and maybe have a trip wherever I would like to go with my wife.
But... would it be the right decision? Or I will keep on thinking about the past as "what if..."
Unfortunately I cannot try a Leica M, I live in a very small city in Italy and also big cities near do not have Leica M in stock, they are all backordered.
MichaelToye
Well-known
There's a store in Rome and I cannot believe they do not have models in their windows to handle?
I am lucky I could visit a store in London but, after spending €10K, I would have travelled from further and stayed over night to visit the store.
Rome is a beautiful weekend away
I am lucky I could visit a store in London but, after spending €10K, I would have travelled from further and stayed over night to visit the store.
Rome is a beautiful weekend away
LCT
ex-newbie
I hear you about 4/3 cameras that i don't know well but i've used too many AA and sans AA filter cams to believe that the presence or absence of those filters makes a significant difference in the perception of the character of a lens if you ask me. Actual differences are hardy visible at a lower level than billboard printing with a bit of sharpening. Now i have nothing against Ricoh and Fuji of course but they will hardly help the OP if he's after an FF body to fit his M lenses, unless he can wait that pigs can fly.
leicapixie
Well-known
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.
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.
Last edited:
flyalf
Well-known
Hi,
I have used and "tested" different M lenses on mirrorless (GH-2, NEX-5n and NEX-7). The general conclusion is that the combination of the M lenses and mirrorless does not do the M lenses full justice. Of these the 5n was the best. I have the 50mm Summicron Pre ASPH, and this is perhaps one of the better. IMO this lens in combination with an M-series will beat any mirrorless- / built-for-camera lens combination on most parameters.
I have compared the low-ligh capabilities from GH-2, NEX-5n and currently trying Fuji ProX-1. I have to say that I'm really disappointed by real-life IQ in low light by all these compared to M9. My opinion for what its worth is that people have so high expectations to Leicas that they tend to over-exaggerate the small downsides of the Ms.
Personally I am having a very, very hard time living with all sort of auto-focus camera's (as I do believe your Sony option is): I mean the life is to short to press the button and then have to wait, wait, and wait for an exposure to happen and photograph something that happened some time ago
. But thats a personal thing. So my advice would be for you to borrow a M9 and try. You will be surprised by the results.
Ronald M
Veteran
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
Lens rental.com
I never tell people to buy Leica without a previous experience.
there are no ASPH 50 Summicrons, therefore no pre asph
Leica is a nice travel camera, small but not light. They are expensive and not the most reliable machines in digital format. And then very expensive to repair.
icebear
Veteran
There is a 50 'cron asph, even apo since last year :
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/8884.html
pelpa
Member
At the end I made my decision and I ordered a Leica M
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Bravo on making your decision!
And I wish you great times and experiences with your new M! Use it with joy and heart.
G
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Yes congrats and enjoy when it arrives.
crispy12
Well-known
It's an expensive camera, no doubt. I gave up trying to justify buying one as there's other cameras that offer better IQ for less.
Fortunately I have the means to afford one, so I sold my M-E and got the 240. I've been really happy since, it's a near perfect camera for me. I do tend to bring my film Leica instead though if going to the shadier parts of town...
Congrats and hope you enjoy your new camera as much as I'm enjoying mine!
Fortunately I have the means to afford one, so I sold my M-E and got the 240. I've been really happy since, it's a near perfect camera for me. I do tend to bring my film Leica instead though if going to the shadier parts of town...
Congrats and hope you enjoy your new camera as much as I'm enjoying mine!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
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".
Addendum: if image quality were the sole criterion, we'd probably all shoot 4x5 inch. But there's also ease of use, convenience, size, speed of use, cost (including running cost), ergonomics... Above quite a low "quality plateau", almost any camera delivers image quality sufficient for most purposes, and the other factors come more and more into play.
Cheers,
R.
thompsonks
Well-known
That was a nice choice. I happen to like M9 color better than M240 color, but the point is you can use your 'classic' Leica lenses.
Image quality doesn't depend on maximum contrast and resolution. The lenses you collected for your M6 are outstanding for the way they 'draw.' The older lenses yield a more 3D look; the newer 'clinical' ones tend to force the viewer to focus on surface details (like pores and nose hairs) more than on the shape of things. From this standpoint, the 35 Cron v4 remains my lens of choice for digital Leica.
Have a good time with your body of choice and your fine lenses!
Image quality doesn't depend on maximum contrast and resolution. The lenses you collected for your M6 are outstanding for the way they 'draw.' The older lenses yield a more 3D look; the newer 'clinical' ones tend to force the viewer to focus on surface details (like pores and nose hairs) more than on the shape of things. From this standpoint, the 35 Cron v4 remains my lens of choice for digital Leica.
Have a good time with your body of choice and your fine lenses!