New Leica M Shooters: About the Transition?

[______]

While Sony cameras are technically fine to excellent, they lack soul.

I would think that "soul", which is unique to each photographer, would be better addressed in post processing, rather than baked in the RAW files.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well, Winogrand used both a Leica M and a Nikon F so he's got you covered both ways in the honor department. Take your pick. Meyerowitz is a great photographer, but he is also a paid shill for Leica, so I always take what he says with a grain of salt. He photographed using all formats during his long career.

I have seen many Winogrand photos of him with Leicas, all videos with him are Leicas. And just one photo in Arizona archive with SLR in his hands. Where are two M4 of his as iconic picture. No Nikons of his used so much I have seen.
I have no idea what Meyerowitz has on official level with Leica. I just have seen his pictures taken with RF, pictures speaks louder. I have also seen documentary about him, using Leica and LF camera. I went to see his actual prints from both. I like more those taken with RF.

Vivian Mayer was using Leica, but I'm not going to speculate on this🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ms are big and heavy and clumsy compared with proper Leicas -- I came to an M3 from a IIIa in the 1970s -- but the convenience of lever wind and the projected-frame viewfinder make up for the drawbacks. Pretty much, anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I would think that "soul", which is unique to each photographer, would be better addressed in post processing, rather than baked in the RAW files.

Real cameras don't deliver RAW files. They use film.

Cheers,

R.

 

[______]

Here's a Gary Winogrand selfie with a Nikon F. He could just as easily taken it with a Leica.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here's a Gary Winogrand selfie with a Nikon F. He could just as easily taken it with a Leica.

Is it the one and only one I already mentioned? My browser is refusing to show it. 😀

... I run hot and cold on getting an M2/M4/M6 and 35mm Summicron. It is perfect for street photography. But I always back away. For the $2500-$3000 it would cost, I just don't do enough street photography. Just can't justify it. That kind of money buys a lot of film for me in all formats, and chemicals and paper.

Actually, I used M4-2 (700) and Color Skopar 35 2.5 (300) street, which is 1000$, not 2500$. But I do feel limited on the street with another formats. 🙂

 

[______]

Actually, I used M4-2 (700) and Color Skopar 35 2.5 (300) street, which is 1000$, not 2500$. But I do feel limited on the street with another formats. 🙂

Why buy a Leica and shoot with a non-Leica lens? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? I thought the magic was in the Leica lenses.

Is it the one and only one I already mentioned?

Yes. You are right. I am wrong. Gary Winogrand only took one photo with a Nikon. All the rest of the eight gazillion rolls of film he shot during his lifetime he ran through a Leica M4. So if you ever again shoot with an SLR, you will not have the honor of following his mental process, and the resulting photos will be completely unredeeming.

 

[gdi]

Real cameras don't deliver RAW files. They use film.

Cheers,

R.

Very true, Roger, at least for Leica in my view.

I tried a few digital Leicas and they just don't do it for me because - 1) the great handling is spoiled by the overstuffed body and 2) the results of the Leica sensors (at least the M8 and M9) are just middle of the road.

But my old film M's and other rangefinders really handle better than anything else in my opinion, and when loaded with B&W the whole process is immensely enjoyable.

So, OP, in my view, get a film M, if you see that as an option, and get the traditional experience and then decide if you want to try the digital version.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why buy a Leica and shoot with a non-Leica lens? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? I thought the magic was in the Leica lenses.



Yes. You are right. I am wrong. Gary Winogrand only took one photo with a Nikon. All the rest of the eight gazillion rolls of film he shot during his lifetime he ran through a Leica M4. So if you ever again shoot with an SLR, you will not have the honor of following his mental process, and the resulting photos will be completely unredeeming.

For street the fiddling is more important than brand. Leica M camera gives it for camera and Color Skopar 35 2.5 is good for quick handling.
Not as good as Leica on images, but nothing to call as bad.

Here is one video with Winogrand were he explains why Leica is better than SLR, not so much explaining, but more like declaring it to one of the students. I have tried classic SLR on the street. For how I shot it is safety issue. Ditched it after first try.

 

[______]

I have tried classic SLR on the street. For how I shot it is safety issue. Ditched it after first try.

Safety issue?

 

[mdarnton]

James Ravilious felt so strongly about the compositional disadvantage of RF, of having to inevitably deal with non-compositional clutter in the finder, that he used Imarect finders with his M Leicas, to get the framing compositional advantage of the SLR while still being able to use RF cameras.
https://goo.gl/images/Z2wdGa

 

[roscoetuff]

As a fan of Kevin Mullins and one-time fan of Fuji, that's a real interesting bit of trivia. Tends to argue: "Keep shooting Sony and move along."

Were I to pick up a Leica, it'd increasingly look to be digital and an M 262. Much as I like the MD idea and the Monochrom idea as well, restriction to one half the spectrum by the camera makes no sense to me. This is where film beats digital. Want to be restricted to B&W? Buy Tri-X and you've a 24 or 36 frame restriction. Ditto if you buy Fuji color. I can see an MD or Monochrom if you already have an M... but not necessarily as your one and only. Thoughts?

Yes, I'm still waiting for the Bayside home someone was supposed to give me in Annapolis... but apparently forgot to back in 2009. Ah but what to do?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Safety issue?

Yep. Walking with head turned to the side, one eye closed and dull image in another eye was disorienting. This is what I have with SLR. For those who don't walk while framing and taking it is not safety issue, but I walk.

 

[uhoh7]

Nice post!
I notice looking at your flickr you have a picture of M9 with 5cm elmar f3.5, i've just got one of these tiny lenses and even though I originally bought it for my M2 seems perfect for a nice compact lens on my M9 when collapsing the lens on the m9 does it ever worry you/have you put any spacers in to stop it going in so far?
Thanks.

TY for kind words, Fraser.

I did a bunch of research before I pushed that Red Scale in, I'll tell you that 😀

You mount it extended, and then mine is fine pushed in, though officially it's a no-no.

I learned these are assembled to incredible tolerances because that's what the very simple formula needs to work properly. One of the reasons for going to more complex designs like D-Gauss was they could be looser and thus easier to assemble. Apparently nothing today is so tight as a good elmar. They go for a song, as I'm sure you know and some have soft coatings. I was looking for samples with the M9, but I don't think I tagged them, however here two shots with the Kolari A7 which is modded to shoot RF glass decently:


Baroque by unoh7, Elmar WO


Confluence by unoh7, Elmar F/8

Why buy a Leica and shoot with a non-Leica lens? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? I thought the magic was in the Leica lenses

It truly is possible to know less than nothing, but it takes hubris 😉

1954 Canon 100/3.5 WO on M9:

New Fall by unoh7, on Flickr

these can be had for 100 bucks even. They are so tiny and so light and so sharp, also very easy to clean.


photo (2) by unoh7, on Flickr

When it comes to shooting the biggest number of interesting prime lenses as they were intended nothing can match the M on film or digital. Yes, there are a few wides which don't quite work on the digital Ms but not that many. People try to pidgeonhole the older lenses, "low contrast" or other generalizations. The really fun to shoot and popular Sonnar 5cm lenses are actually quite high contrast, but they are not so strong on the edge as other designs. However many lenses of the 50s were VERY strong all over, like the Nikkor 8.5cm or Canon 50/1.4 LTM. It did take a long time to make a 28 that just rips technically, like the cron, but there have been many sweet attempts along the way 🙂


Centerpiece by unoh7, 1952 Nikkor 8.5cm WO

This classic Nikkor portrait lens is completely off the hook by any standard and defined the Nikkor name--to this day they have not made a lens I like better. No german lens could match it in performance or build quality as was proved in tests at Eastern Optical in 1950. LIFE switched to Nikkor because of their Leica mount lenses. Mine is contax mount, but I want one in LTM. Very hard glass, and really well made. The 75 Lux is wonderful and a real titan by f/4, but really overall this lens is sweeter to my eye and strong right to the edges at f/2. By f/8 it does infinity to any landscape standard.

With mythic meters like DXO making numbers it is hard for some to just LOOK at the raw clarity of an M9 at base ISO with a mere .8mm of IR coverglass between the CCD and the rear element of a nice M/LTM lens or adapted Nikkor/Contax.

Catharsis for those who do. 🙂

With a weapon like this you don't have to be HCB. You just point it at parts of your life and they become extraordinary. That's the magic of great design. :angel:

 

[:: Mark]

Why buy a Leica and shoot with a non-Leica lens? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? I thought the magic was in the Leica lenses.

I think that it would be more accurate to say that the magic lies in Leica M-System lenses. For example, to my eye the ZM 1,4/35 has better sharpness and bokeh than the Summilux, and even if it is a big lens in Leica terms, it is still ~half the size/weight of comparable DSLR or mirrorless lenses.

There is also an amazing range of current and old glass that gives unique rendering, such as the various Sonnars or pre-ASPH 35mm and 50mm Leica lenses. These are difficult to emulate with classic lenses on other digital cameras, in part because of the filter stack thicknesses.

I am not a great fan of current Leica digital bodies, which I think manage to lose much of the magic of older film bodies while simultaneously failing to deliver the features and performance to match contemporary digital rivals. However, they are the only (digital) game in town if you want to get the best out of the lenses or if you want a manual-focus range-finder based user interface.

 

[ACullen]

I returned to film about 18 months ago. I'd used and still do a mix of Nikon and Fuji digital. It was the X100 which drew me to the world of rangefinders. On a whim I picked up a Leotax F and quite quickly after an M2. I just love the feel of the cameras and some how this helps my creative juices. In the last year I've shot more with the M2 than all my other cameras combined. I had fully intended to restart printing but I've had a lot of satisfaction scanning B&W negatives and then manipulating in LR. The best of both worlds,. I do want to get better at wet printing though and that's a plan for 2017

 

[airfrogusmc]

Curious how those new to Leica M's decided to make the transition from whatever you'd been shooting - especially if you've been shooting digital. Why? Did you think about a film Leica first, or had you had a film M before hand so that it was natural? Were rangefinders new to you? What's your primary camera? The Leica M or some DSLR or mirrorless? The pickle of the expense makes the whole a bit of a wonder for me, but I hear the story of "buy, try, and sell off if you don't like it... 'cause the re-sale value seems to hold." I'm likely to buy used btw... as I increasingly do in this pursuit.

If there's something written on this you'd recommend, that'd be great, too. I'm especially keen less on the lore, and more on the data... if there is any and whatever we can consider it to be. Yes, much is subjective, and my transition from one camera to another has been narrowing down what I like and how I like to shoot... so I recognize ergonomics / working style... and that makes a lot of sense to me. Hard to articulate sometimes, too.

I'm not an AF guy... and though I like to have it somewhere, don't actually have any AF lenses any more. Yes, I miss some shots, but it's not a heartbreak (mostly) because the ones I get... make me happy. I have a Sony A7II and lot of Zeiss Loxia and old Contax CY. Zeiss and it satisfaction here that is actually a large part of what piques my interest in Leica. And I like to print 17 X 25... so quality images are sweet. I've had an X-PRO2 and loved it, but used the EVF more than the hybrid simply because it was there and easy. Since I know we mostly will use what's there unless we don't like it for some reason, what drove me out of Fuji were the size of the lenses as they seemed to "grow" larger and larger. Tried Olympus and liked the size but switched to Zeiss for the handling, sharpness and color. Leica's that appeal intellectually are actually those like the MD and Monochrom that force a way of thinking and style of shooting... since I like manual and use my LCD screen mostly for menus and data on the camera set-up. Odd and quirky as I am... that's a draw. Thanks for whatever you care to share.

I picked up an MM and a 35 Summilux FLE little more than 4 years ago. I hadn't liked a camera as much as I do the MM since I bought my 500 C/Ms in the 1980s. My Canons (which I used for my commercial/advertising work) were really getting very long in the tooth (needed to be replaced) a little over a year ago so because of how well Ms seem to work with the way I see and work, I sold all the Canon gear and picked up a new M 262 and a used M-E and some Leica and Zeiss glass. I now have an M 262, M-E, 24 2.8 Elmarit ASPH, and 35 Summilux ASPH FLE, a Zeiss 35mm 2.8 Biogon C and a 75mm 2.5 Summarit.

Like you I am an all manual shooter and have been for decades. In my opinion the Leicas I now shoot with just get out of the way and they let me create. If you like a lot of the bells and whistles that dominate the DSLR and mirrorless world then this might not be the camera for you.

If you like simple menus then cameras like the original MM and the M 262 have very simple menus and they could be for you.

Also I prefer the Lux FLE over the Zeiss for both the way the lens renders and the overall look of the image but this is suggestive and i know other photographers that like the look of the Zeiss better. Some like the look of really old Leica glass. Nice to have choices. I feel in the auto feature crazy FPS world of digital photography today some Leica Ms are a REAL alternatives and reason why I choose Leica M.

I doubt I will ever go back to the DSLR world. Love my Ms because they fit perfectly with the way I see and work.

 

[roscoetuff]

Still thinking...

Still thinking...

If you like simple menus then cameras like the original MM and the M 262 have very simple menus and they could be for you. I feel in the auto feature crazy FPS world of digital photography today some Leica Ms are a REAL alternatives and reason why I choose Leica M.

Yeah... whether the switch for me may start with an M2 as an "inexpensive" forray into Leica M's or whether the orignal MM (cheaper than a 262 by some measure)... remains to be seen. It's a bit of a pickle to unravel at the moment. Likely a 2nd camera... and we can only do so much. I do a fair amount of Macro... and that's gotta run on the Sony. But for pushing toward simpler is just more fun. Pulling the trigger... is waaaaay harder than I thought.

 

[airfrogusmc]

If you pick up an M and you want to do macro with one, these can be had for pretty cheap. A friend of mine gave this to me a while back. It was his fathers. I don't do a lot of macro but this is perfect for it.

Results

 

[roscoetuff]

What do you call that thing?