Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

[brusby]

Guess I'll be the lone voice speaking up for the little 28mm Summicron. I'm very fond of it's size and handling, and I have no complaints about the tones or resolution I get when using it.

28mm Summicron (1st gen), M240
white canoe by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Freakscene]

Guess I'll be the lone voice speaking up for the little 28mm Summicron. I'm very fond of it's size and handling, and I have no complaints about the tones or resolution I get when using it.

28mm Summicron (1st gen), M240
white canoe by Brusby, on Flickr

I like it just fine, the v1 more than the v2, but the Summilux is, to me, just better.

 

[brusby]

I like it just fine, the v1 more than the v2, but the Summilux is, to me, just better.

I don't doubt your assessment. But since we're on a thread discussing why we did not buy certain things, I'll address that topic a bit.

What I have been avoiding buying recently is faster lenses -- fewer f1.0, 1.2 and 1.4 versions. I own quite a few of them and still love -- and frequently use -- them when I want shallow depth of field for things like portraits. But, I've gotten kinda tired of images with just the thinest slice in focus and everything else blurred out.

As a general rule it's much more difficult for lens designers to make faster lenses perform as well as their slower brethren. Not impossible, but more difficult and therefore more expensive to correct all those anomalies, sometimes exponentially so.

As a great added benefit and what is so appealing to me, slower versions often have a nice pop to the image quality that the faster ones sometimes lack. Not always true, but often so.

Hard to describe in words, but images produced by these slower, smaller lenses can seem more coherent to me with enhanced clarity and impact. They appear somehow a bit less diffuse and with a more precisely focused feel. I notice this with the venerable Leica 50mm Elmar f3.5 -- a positively ancient design that can produce absolutely stunning images from a nice clean copy.

For these reasons, I just bought an f2 version of a post war Zeiss 50mm Sonnar from a forum member and am waiting for it to be delivered, choosing it over f1.4 or 1.5 versions because of image quality considerations. Also, I've recently picked up two versions of the nice little Voigtlander APO 50mm f3.5. And my favorite slightly longer lens for landscapes and such is the very slow but beautifully detailed three element 90mm Elmar f4.

I'm not denigrating the faster lenses at all. Just making the case for why I sometimes avoid them in favor of their slower, smaller and typically cheaper alternatives.

 

[Freakscene]

I don't doubt your assessment. But since we're on a thread discussing why we did not buy certain things, I'll address that topic a bit.

I love trying things*. This means that I am a terrible example for not buying anything.

I gots to know.



*Except raw converters and image processing software. I hate trying them.

 

[brusby]

Just for illustrative purposes for anyone who might be interested, image from another relatively slow lens. It's the tones that I find appealing.

35mm Summaron f2.8

 

[sojournerphoto]

With a much higher miss rate than using live view or a mirrorless camera that can magnify the focus view. At 60mp the circle of confusion is much smaller than for 35mm film so you need much greater accuracy. I love my Leica M film cameras, but if you actually measure it, Leicas are essentially never accurate over the full range of focusing distances. And that is before you get into focus discrimination, which is a human factor. I love my digital Ms as well, but my hit rate will go way up if they install an evf, particularly if it has a sensible magnification implementation.

The way Nikon allows auto detect of eyes in manual focus mode sounds perfect. Something I wish my evf bodies had. Perhaps it will come to a Leica near you soon!

 

[Freakscene]

The way Nikon allows auto detect of eyes in manual focus mode sounds perfect. Something I wish my evf bodies had. Perhaps it will come to a Leica near you soon!

The Nikon eye and face auto detect in manual focus mode is really amazing. I am truly hopeful that Leica may do this, and in computational terms they don't even need to make it very fast. But I have learned that my hopes are often dashed by reality. I'm going to be particularly disappointed if the M11-V is slow. Leicas are for things that happen fast, and film Leicas have among the shortest lag time of any film camera. They can do it - the CL and TL are fast. For me, they should get back to that. My subjects don't tend to wait around.

 

[aoresteen]

I bought a Sony A7 III instead. I have adapters for my Leica lenses, Olympus OM lenses, M52 lenses, ect. It cost less and does more.

 

[Godfrey]

Had a Sony A7. Sensor was okay, body was crappy. Sold it when I bought my M9, which made better photos.

Now have M10-M, M10-R which make better photos yet. The only camera I've used that outperforms the M10-M and M10-R so far, at least for the things that matter to me, has been the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c Moon edition. The Leicas get used more as they are more handy to carry about.

Having adapted Leica M and R lenses to many different cameras, I'd say in the end that the best reason to want a digital Leica M is to get the most out of your Leica lenses. Leica lenses are amongst the best, and Leica's lens profiles maintain that quality as designed regardless which Leica body you use them on.

But if you like something else, well, go buy it and enjoy it. The important thing is to make photos that satisfy you and/or your clients if you shoot professionally.

G

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I bought a Sony A7 III instead. I have adapters for my Leica lenses, Olympus OM lenses, M52 lenses, ect. It cost less and does more.

I'm a big fan of the Sony A7III camera; I have two of them. I use them with M-mount lenses all the time... always a satisfying experience!

All the best,
Mike

 

[Rayt]

I have around 30 Leica/Leitz and other M lenses from 25 years of film photography so it was worth it for me to stick with M digital. I know what each lens can do and they perform the same way on film or M9, M10, M11. If I wanted autofocus I would buy another camera with native lenses. I have the SL2 and Sigma for that.

 

[Godfrey]

I had the Leica SL and three native lenses for it, for a time. Superb stuff, but it and the lenses in that system are all heavy ... When I retired, I realized that I didn't want to carry such heavy gear very much and sold all of it in favor of the CL and another M. Had the CL a couple of years. When I bought the M10 Monochrom I liked it so much that I decided to sell the CL and buy the M10-R as its complement.

For a dedicated TTL camera, I've kept my ancient Olympus E-1 and my somewhat less ancient Olympus E-M1, a nice kit of Olympus "middle grade" lenses for them, as well as two or three lenses that I've adapted from other systems. As long as I don't try to push the ISO too high, the quality is super (and modern raw conversion with today's Lightroom Classic actually improves upon the native Olympus raw conversion by a substantial bit). I had Panasonic L1 and then G1 in this system as well, all long gone now (although I still feel that the L1 was one of the nicest cameras of that time, I wish they'd have put a higher rez sensor into it rather than discontinuing it so quickly).

Ach, the equipment dance ... It's fun. But I try to always force myself to look outside the fun of it and keep my focus on the photographs I make. 🙂

G

 

[JeffS7444]

One reason I wouldn't buy an M11 is called Fujifilm GFX100RF: I got my first hands-on demo this afternoon, and came away favorably impressed, ho-hum autofocus notwithstanding.

Leica optics: I've seem some very good ones, and some less-awesome ones, but IMO, no single manufacturer these days has a monopoly on The Best That Money Can Buy.

But I like M- and L39 mount because they (usually) make for small lenses, and they're super-easy to adapt. Although mostly specializing in vintage homages rather than SOTA designs, Light Lens Lab has been doing interesting stuff, and I'd like to sample their wares.

 

[aoresteen]

.......

For a dedicated TTL camera, I've kept my ancient Olympus E-1 and my somewhat less ancient Olympus E-M1, a nice kit of Olympus "middle grade" lenses for them, .....

......

G

I still use my E5, E3, & E1 Olympus DSLR bodies. They are too heavy for travel. The Olympus C7070 with it's 28mm to 110mm equivalent SEALED sensor works great for travel. I can make a great 16x20 from it's files.

But I am only 1 Lotto ticket away from a digital Leica system 🙂

 

[rfaspen]

But I DID I buy a digital Leica! In fact I bought 4 of them. Why did I do that? Well, not because I like spending more $$$ than I should, but because I also dearly love my film Leica's. How many of those did I buy? Well, I bought 4 of them. It has been nice to have such a similar experience in handling the film vs digital cameras. Not unusual at all to carry one (or more) of each when I head out. I can flip between them easily, and only manage one lens mount system....but yeah I need to keep track of which is in my hand at any given time. For me, film speed is a limitation. At ISO 400, I miss opportunities and most of the digital Leica's can give me good images up to ISO 1600 without fuss. That's kind of nice.

But. Why did I really think hard about not buying a digital Leica? The universal answer: cost. I feel very fortunate to have been able to purchase even one of my digi Leicas, let alone four (!) of them. Same for the lenses (the Leica ones). Very difficult to spend that much money when I'm not a wealthy person.

 

[chuckroast]

I still use my E5, E3, & E1 Olympus DSLR bodies. They are too heavy for travel. The Olympus C7070 with it's 28mm to 110mm equivalent SEALED sensor works great for travel. I can make a great 16x20 from it's files.

But I am only 1 Lotto ticket away from a digital Leica system 🙂

For much the same reason, I don't always like lugging around my Nikon D750 with my film gear.

Last year, I got a very old but almost perfect Leica D-Lux Type 109. At only 12mpix I was suspicious of what it could do, but it has exceeded my every expectation. The color rendering is beautiful and the monochrome is just stunning.

I was in Greece earlier this year and carried with an M2 and a few lenses. The D750 was in the bag but I used it on exactly one occasion. The only downside to the Typ 109 is it only has about a 3:1 zoom ratio.

 

[Godfrey]

... Why did I really think hard about not buying a digital Leica? The universal answer: cost. I feel very fortunate to have been able to purchase even one of my digi Leicas, let alone four (!) of them. Same for the lenses (the Leica ones). Very difficult to spend that much money when I'm not a wealthy person.

Yes. I agree; I know what you mean.

G

 

[qqphotos]

I'm probably late to the show, but the terrible service turnaround times and limited lifespan due to locking against 3rd party batteries (though this latter may be changed since apparently some company recently defeated the check for M10?)

 

[Godfrey]

I'm probably late to the show, but the terrible service turnaround times and limited lifespan due to locking against 3rd party batteries (though this latter may be changed since apparently some company recently defeated the check for M10?)

I have been using Leica gear since the 1970s, as well as Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Hasselblad, and a few others. I've had various and sundry cameras from all of them need service from time to time. Without being part of any professional association with any of the manufacturers, I have seen very very little different in terms of service turnaround for all of them. Leica USA, unlike any of the others, has done me a favor or two now and then (like grandfathering in a warranty service to my first X2 when the four-way controller got flakey two months past warranty...). Only two of my digital Leica cameras have ever required a service ... that X2 and the refurbished M10-R that had definitely been knocked or dropped when I bought it, throwing the rangefinder off.

Over the past 15 years, I've owned digital Leica cameras (various Ms, SL, CL, X2, etc), most bought with a spare OEM battery. Despite at least 50,000 exposures between them, I've never once had a bad battery or seen battery performance drop to the "must replace battery" point.

I think there is way too much entitlement going on with most of the complaints I see on these various camera forums. These are robust, durable cameras with very low percentage numbers showing problems requiring service or repair. I've had more issues with other camera brands, several cameras of which required more than one trip to service to have a problem taken care of. That's not happened with Leica cameras, for me anyway...

G

 

[DownUnder]

Most of us have no complaints about Leica quality. For the most part the cameras do what they are meant to, and they do it well. German made means quality, if today's (mostly made in other places) Weztlar products may not be not quite up to that - or the longevity - of my 1950s Leica iig and the 'period' lenses for it, but this camera is now 70 years old and for film and is no longer manufactured, so it's a dinosaur.

There's Leica, and there's the rest. Happily for me, I can afford the rest. For those who can afford it and who want to pay extra for a Leica, good on you!!