Once again

This thread is why RFF is still relevant. A considered discussion with willingness to hear alternate points of view, and learning to be had from others’ deep and well reasoned experience.
Thank you.
 
The Leica M10 has the best 80-year-old focusing technology money can buy. How can that be called too expensive? And a near silent shutter to boot.
 
Eric T said:
The Leica M10 has the best 80-year-old focusing technology money can buy. How can that be called too expensive? And a near silent shutter to boot.
Click to expand...

Yeah there is nothing faster concerning focus than LEARNING how to use the DoF scales. And Leica lenses have good DoF scales that actual work. But it really takes some time and practice to get good with them. No autofocus in the world is faster than being prefocused or better than real experience. So if it ain't broke. And then there is the size difference.

The 35 1.4 Summilux FLE with hood and the 35L without the hood.
Guess which lens has a more pleasing rendering.
IMG_2320.jpg
 
It's like a sharpshooter who shoots coins out of the air. And all that practice can work for both framing shots extremely quickly and focus. Like you say approx focusing using the scales. With practice you can get really good at it. I learned shooting in dark venues with 500 C/Ms. Even with with the Minolta bright screens and an eye level finder you just couldn't focus so you learned how to use the DoF scales. The really works. Bresson talks about all this discipline and a developed instinct.
 
Hi Michael, I agree. I feel the same about the 35LII. I really like the Lux FLE. Some like the non asph some like the AA (never tried that one) and some prefer the rendering from Zeiss but I really like the rendering from the lux FLE. I know a lot of this is subjective but something about the files shot with the Lux FLE I just love.
 
Hi …. yes I`m not necessarily looking to get my socks knocked off .
I have the Canon 85/1.2 which I do like also the ubiquitous 70-200/2.8 which is a good workhorse.

That 34/1.4 though seems to be so bland ,at least to me , but I don`t really know why .

This thread has made me re evaluate my future direction.
 
Eric T said:
The Leica M10 has the best 80-year-old focusing technology money can buy. How can that be called too expensive? And a near silent shutter to boot.
Click to expand...

Id pay 6700 before Id pay 4000 or so for something else. That is sort of interesting to myself.
 
Hi Micheal,

I had an 85L In the late 1970s I picked up an 85 1.2 Aspherical and both were very good lenses. I still have my 55 1.2 Aspherical and I find that lens far more interesting than any of Canons current so called normal lenses.

I also had a 200 2L and that is one of Canons real gems. That is a F/L that i really don't miss though. My 90 Summicron APO is almost to long for most of what I shoot.
 
I miss my 35L. Back then, I never thought of it as large. It fact, on the 5D series it felt about perfect. Come to think of it, I miss big, beefy, large-grip bodies like that sometimes. Just something reassuring about holding them. As much as I enjoy Leicas, ergonomics is not among the reasons.

John
 
As one who owns both the X Pro 2 and a M240 this is an interesting thread.

As far as which is the better finder between the Fuji or Leica I tend to think differently. To me Fuji's finder is actually more usable. Only one pair of framelines at a time along with the option to preview all of them. The finder can show framelines for any focal length within its range and its range is wider and more usable than the Leica's due to the two different magnification levels that the camera will switch between depending upon the lens that is mounted. 28mm framing is much easier to see on the Fuji than it is on the Leica and that is without making longer lenses frames too small. With Fuji lenses the framelines not only adjust for parallax but also for frame sizing which the Leica doesn't do.

Along with the bright line preview you can use zoom lenses and the frame automatically adjust while zooming. This is actually an awesome way to shoot, you see the whole image and then just zoom to crop/frame the shot you really want and the framelines adjust real time. Very different than using a zoom on an SLR where your view is limited. Similar idea to looking at a frameline preview and then changing your lens but much much faster in operation.

As far as optics itself I think the Leica finder is a bit clearer edge to edge and it of course has rangefinder focusing.

For those wondering where Leica could go next this would be a really interesting direction if it could be integrated with their rangefinder focusing. Esp. if they could make dual magnification work. Think about a 1:1 viewfinder for 50mm but being able to change magnification to go down to 21mm or so framelines.

Definitely agree about differences in focusing. The Fuji can be zone focused (focus scale in VF or on a few lenses) and it has some interesting MF options (including MFs lenses while using the optical view finder) but I do tend to make sure I nail focus on the Fuji more than on the Leica.

You can configure the My Menu on the Fuji to have your most used options too. And most of the buttons on the body can be assigned to have no function if desired. But having fewer options also means less wanting to explore them and try them out. The Leica has a few interesting options that the Fuji doesn't have. For example, the ability to use Auto ISO when in aperture priority mode but to go back to fixed ISO if you switch to manual shooting.

Shawn
 
Baloney.
M-A + 50mm Summarit = US$6,490.00. A 35 Summicron pushes that up to only US$7,990.00. And you'd end up with a combo still actually worth something in, oh, ten or 20 years. You can even include the scanner and be well under your 10k.

You can't make an open statement like:
ptpdprinter said:
You simply can't get out of a Leica store for under $10,000.
Click to expand...

if you include a limiting statement like:
Still, if you want a digital rangefinder (and cachet), Leica is the only game in town.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not I get what you're saying. It's just that in the ongoing war between those who say Leica is the second coming and those who just want to piss on Wetzlar, it helps clarify things if one avoids broad brush fallacies. Whatever side you're on. And, don't forget the used market; digital takes a real beating there, which is good for the buyer.

Best,
s-a
 
Bill: Well written and the start of an interesting thread. Being not a "pro" and use M5/M6 with a few 35/50 lens and a x100f for my only digital(ex 0rig x100 user), I am very fortunate to have the best tool for me. Also enjoyed Shawns insight above, this is why I enjoy RFF for some Sunday reading with a good coffee.... peace to all!
 
airfrogusmc said:
Hi Micheal,

I had an 85L In the late 1970s I picked up an 85 1.2 Aspherical and both were very good lenses. I still have my 55 1.2 Aspherical and I find that lens far more interesting than any of Canons current so called normal lenses.

I also had a 200 2L and that is one of Canons real gems. That is a F/L that i really don't miss though. My 90 Summicron APO is almost to long for most of what I shoot.
Click to expand...

Hi I do a lot of distance horse stuff at shows and meets, so 90 and 135 are useful minimum lengths.

I`m always trying to reconcile the sports stuff with what I really like, i.e. the more compact M lenses and bodies.
This thread has made me rethink my strategy (again :))

I do like the big Canon 90/1.2 though and I have handled the 200/1.8 although never shot one.The motors on those seem to burn out.

I currently get my M body fix with an M3/2 and BP4.

Maybe it is time to try an digital Leica but it would have to have a usable EVF .

Currently use both the Canon and Leica glass on an A7S and A7R2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom