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

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

  • Total voters
    613
When first read the pull I thought it was specific to the M (240) so I was going to give my reason, which I guess is what I'm doing now. I just don't think I'd get my money's worth out of an M (240) based on the limited amount of frames I shoot each month, especially considering I'm try to find opportunities to use both my M8 and shoot 4x5 film so about 1/2 the time the M8 gets left at home. With a M (240) I just think I'd feel pressured to use it all the time, given the cost and all. Yes realize that statement is completely illogical, but can't help thinking/feeling that at this time getting a M (240) would meaning having to give up shooting 4x5 film, yes complete illogical. I've spent more then a few minutes thinking about what I'll do if my M8 stops working before prices for a used M (240) have reached a level I'm comfortable with, buy a film M and scanner, not really looking forward to scanning and removing dust from 35mm film, buy a Sony A7 prices sure are great but to me its like the broccoli of cameras, yes I know its a great camera but just have no desire to own/use one.
 
raid said:
Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?


I am curious to see why so many RFF members did not buy a digital Leica M (M8, M9, M240, ...). The obvious reason we can just state and that is the cost.
If you bought a digital M, then the poll will not show this option.
Click to expand...

I never buy any camera costing more than €2,000 since I tend to drop things a lot and this is the level I can safely drop without hurting too much financially.

However, the m8 used has been in this area for a long time used and I was close to buying more than once.

But the Leicas simply are not good enough production wise. Too many problems arise during a reasonable life time.

Resolution-wise the M cameras clearly beat the original rangefinder, but the R-D1 and family sport a 1:1 finder, a wind on lever and a lovely sensor and at least with the R-D1s and R-D1x do not have any generic problems. I have never had any card problems, colour photography is wonderful without adding filters, and the sensor has not cracked or corroded.

Once the R-D1s cannot produce pictures any more a Sony A7-something camera will be the new host to my pictures and not a used Leica. Sadly, but true.

Xpanded
 
while the m9 and above certainly out-IQ the rd1, i think the m8 output is not so clearly and discernibly better. put side by side RAW photos and i pretty much dont think 90% of us could tell the difference--except at 1600 where the rd1 produces a darn good image. add in the 1:1 vf, no focus shift, no color cast, no lens issues, no filter requirements, that its still serviced, and the ledger looks somewhat unbalanced, nes`pas`? and even on IQ, unless we're really doing large prints, as i review my rd1/leica lens results i constantly think to myself 'what more do i need from a camera'? when i want that modern hairsplitting resolution, i'm really not looking to an m9, am i? i'm more looking to my 24mp rx1 or thereabouts.
 
I took one of my Epson's out this afternoon and put the Voigtlander Nokton 1.2/35 lens on it. The results are great. The three Epson's I bought over the years still cost less than one Leica M 240. For the time being, I don't need a digital Leica. I do own an M6 and an M7 but that's a different story.
 
Because its digital and doesnt hold its value... simple
Click to expand...


Keith said:
I don't think I've ever bought a camera or anything else for that matter based on that train of thought.
Click to expand...

Resale value is a factor that many people deem important in an auto although not everyone, of course.

Since I know I'll always be trading gear, it's important to me.

I don't mind sinking a fair amount of cash into some exotic gear if I know I'll get nearly all of it back when I move to something else.

So for me with Leica digital t's not the price, it's the cost of ownership.
 
I had an M8.2 and while some aspects of it were nice, there were too many issues, it was too expensive, it lost its value too quickly, and it was a royal pain to get serviced when something was amiss.

The only real advantages IMHO of a digital Leica M is that it was more convenient than processing film, and it did better color than I've been getting with film.

But all the reasons listed in the first paragraph out weigh the convenience; and for personal work, I usually do Black & White.
 
jaapv said:
I have yet to read a complaint about battery life on the M240, nor corrosion.
Click to expand...

I admire your support of the brand and also your seemingly good luck with it!
Consistantly you have supported and excused their failings and I admire that considering how much cash you've paid them.
I'm amazed by others resolute support when the facts are laid out. I'm the same with a certain German sportscar manufacturer,
Regards John
 
yeah, thats true about difficulty of service. ya' know how easy it is to fix rf alignment in an rd1? get yourself a screwdriver, leave yourself about 1/2 hour and find out! ): compare and contrast to other well known brands and get back to me.

john, your post is a hoot!
 
daveleo said:
I am sincere - the technical output of even average digital cameras far exceeds the talent level of the average picture maker, IMO. (I include myself in that lot :) ). I simply came to that realization - most pictures made aren't worth $10,000 worth of gear.
Click to expand...

Same was true in film days. All I can do is keep trying.....:bang:

As far as the question posed here, I would love to have given a Leica a go during my pro days but the cost and limited usability for shooting for a small newspaper just would not have worked. I shot Olympus for 20+ years before needing autofocus to increase usable image output and shifted to Nikon. Did quite well with a pair of Nikon D2H bodies for a decade before layoffs started in 2008 at the paper.
 
I currently use four digital compact cameras; none of which have all the features I desire. Some have some of the features but all lack certain features I need (such as rangefinder manual focusing).

The digital Leica M cameras also lack some of the features I need (such as dependability). Plus, the digital Leica M cameras cost a heck of a lot more than the four digital compacts I am using.

Therefore, I voted for "there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better."

https://flic.kr/p/m4M9Rd
 

Attachments

  • DSCF3638b sml.jpg
    DSCF3638b sml.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 0
I have bought and sold several (M8.2 x 2, M9 x 2, M9P, MM). Each time, I was buying one for convenience because I was "too busy to deal with film" or didn't want to deal with traveling with films.

Most recently I sold the Monochrom because I realized I was really shooting it like how I shoot film M. I didn't shoot any more than one or two rolls worth of frames at a time at most, and most often I didn't need the photos right away after the shoot. Then I realized I could easily do the same with a film M while making the package a little smaller, cheaper to maintain, and so on so the MM became a part of my motorcycle projects...

I'll see how I'd do travels, but I don't take large (relatively speaking) for business trips, and I use underwater setups for diving trips. I'm planning to fly without a film and then buy some in Shinjuku for my next Japan trip and see if that works.

I decided not to buy the M240 or its variants because I just personally didn't click with all things they've added.

Will I buy another digital M in the future, very likely yes. For now I'm happy with what I have, and I'd like to spend more time (and funds) in the darkroom, traveling and wrenching motorcycles...
 
Lots of interesting thoughts here, many are economic. If you agree shooting film costs $0.50 per shot 10k shots is an approximate break even cost of using a $5k M. Also while there is a fear of rapid depreciation, digital and film M's retain value better than just about anything out there, look at the incredible values out there on former pro Nikon/Canon gear. My experience with Leica started when I inherited my grandfather's 1959 era M3 and couldn't put it down leading to a M240.
 
I'm perfectly happy shooting film, and if I bought a digi Leica, I'd probably not make better pictures. Also, I find that digital electronics bore me.
 
M-M-M-M-M-M-M Maybe Not?

M-M-M-M-M-M-M Maybe Not?

My first M was a military M2 R I bought through a PX in Japan in 1966 (with my father's government connections).

Two years later I traded that for an M4 which I still have along with all my other Leicas; and now I have a Monochrom.

I didn't own my first SLR until 2008: an Olympus OM-1,
although I've borrowed and shot many SLRs.

From reading this blog I feel that experience is trumped by hearsay. All of my Leicas have been reliable and repairable.

Don't get me wrong, I now own Canon digital SLRs but they are for copy work, zoom, macro, flash and access to cheap glass.
In a word, one size fits all, but light and sporty they ain't.
That means, when it come to 90% of my shooting they sit in a bag on a shelf. I consider myself a quick draw master and damn proud of it. I can can compose and shoot on the fly because I shoot Ms. Leica Ms go where SLRs can't.

Full frame digital SLRs are just to damn big for what I do most of the time. And, because they don't hold their value, they are essentially throw a-ways, like out of date computers.

I am rangefinder shooter who likes to use the classic Leitz glass from the past, just for the look. I can see the romance in the pictures.

Leica Ms and glass are expensive even second hand, but they do what only Ms can do in the hands of an experienced shooter.
 
Dektol Dan said:
My first M was a military M2 R I bought through a PX in Japan in 1966 (with my father's government connections).

Two years later I traded that for an M4 which I still have along with all my other Leicas; and now I have a Monochrom.

I didn't own my first SLR until 2008: an Olympus OM-1,
although I've borrowed and shot many SLRs.

From reading this blog I feel that experience is trumped by hearsay. All of my Leicas have been reliable and repairable.

Don't get me wrong, I now own Canon digital SLRs but they are for copy work, zoom, macro, flash and access to cheap glass.
In a word, one size fits all, but light and sporty they ain't.
That means, when it come to 90% of my shooting they sit in a bag on a shelf. I consider myself a quick draw master and damn proud of it. I can can compose and shoot on the fly because I shoot Ms. Leica Ms go where SLRs can't.

Full frame digital SLRs are just to damn big for what I do most of the time. And, because they don't hold their value, they are essentially throw a-ways, like out of date computers.

I am rangefinder shooter who likes to use the classic Leitz glass from the past, just for the look. I can see the romance in the pictures.

Leica Ms and glass are expensive even second hand, but they do what only Ms can do in the hands of an experienced shooter.
Click to expand...

And my weather sealed Nikons can go where M's can't! Pouring rain, sandy beaches or deserts without fear of them packing up. shooting Holi in India with camera covered in paint powder and with a weather sealed 24-70 having someone point and spray water from a hose directly onto the front of the lens while I was shooting. No problem. I'd like to see a digital M pull that one off! I don't want to offend or argue but your point here is hardly why you did NOT buy a digital Leica. Resale? M8 prices are on the floor and I wager that once support for sensors in M9's is withdrawn residual value will also be silly money compaired to purchase price.
If it's the 'look' with vintage leitz glass then it's not only an M body that can produce the goods. I and many others manage to compose and shoot SLR's just as fast as we do M's IF indeed that is the goal. Personally I've never felt the need for speed when taking a photograph and so far have managed to get what pleases me during 40 years of photography.
I'm happy that you've had reliable Leicas but in reality the monochrom is still an infant when it comes to a track record for reliability and factory backup.
My Nikons are definately not throw aways and in 6 years of service my D700 and D3 have never had IR issues, cracked or corroded sensors, memory card problems, freeze ups, coffee stained rear view panels, dust on sensors, oil on sensors, need I continue? oh and they've never needed cla's or lens calibrations for focus errors either.
I really like using my M2 and M4 but seriously this Leica 'myth' is exactly that! In reality there is no one camera system to use in any given situation, there is a choice,
regards john
 
:confused:The M 240 is weathersealed and the prices of the M8 cameras I see in the shops are considerably higher than those of other digital cameras of the same vintage....
I am struggling to follow your argument, unless of course it is meant as a straightforward bash. I that case it is crystal clear :rolleyes:
 
Really?

Really?

nobbylon said:
And my weather sealed Nikons can go where M's can't! Pouring rain, sandy beaches or deserts without fear of them packing up. shooting Holi in India with camera covered in paint powder and with a weather sealed 24-70 having someone point and spray water from a hose directly onto the front of the lens while I was shooting. No problem. I'd like to see a digital M pull that one off! I don't want to offend or argue but your point here is hardly why you did NOT buy a digital Leica. Resale? M8 prices are on the floor and I wager that once support for sensors in M9's is withdrawn residual value will also be silly money compaired to purchase price.
If it's the 'look' with vintage leitz glass then it's not only an M body that can produce the goods. I and many others manage to compose and shoot SLR's just as fast as we do M's IF indeed that is the goal. Personally I've never felt the need for speed when taking a photograph and so far have managed to get what pleases me during 40 years of photography.
I'm happy that you've had reliable Leicas but in reality the monochrom is still an infant when it comes to a track record for reliability and factory backup.
My Nikons are definately not throw aways and in 6 years of service my D700 and D3 have never had IR issues, cracked or corroded sensors, memory card problems, freeze ups, coffee stained rear view panels, dust on sensors, oil on sensors, need I continue? oh and they've never needed cla's or lens calibrations for focus errors either.
I really like using my M2 and M4 but seriously this Leica 'myth' is exactly that! In reality there is no one camera system to use in any given situation, there is a choice,
regards john
Click to expand...

John:
Your Nikons have held their value? They shoot underwater?
They always are in focus? Perfection guaranteed? Oh please!!!??
You can put your zoomy Nikon in your pocket in India?
You've experienced all those Leica failures?
Yes there is a choice. For 90% of my shooting I've chosen my Leicas. You like Nikon. Fine. My experience is not yours, and my work speaks for me. I'm happy with my choice.
 
John. You certainly are upset at Leica. You were obviously not happy with what happened to you, and you have every right.

But...it was my money that purchased my digital Leica cameras, not yours. So far I have not experienced any of the terrible things that you and others have described. Maybe I've been lucky, maybe these problems have been blown way out of proportion by the internet.

I am certain they have happened to a few people, otherwise the experiences would not have been discussed on this site and others. But frequently problems that happen to a few sound like they have happened to a lot when a few people post a lot.

I am sorry that you had these problems, and I do hope that you enjoy your Nikons. But I should warn you, I have read similar tales of woe on Nikon forums as well.

Regardless, I appreciate you providing a heads up, but I think I'll make my own decisions on whether or not I have made a good choice. At this point I believe I have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom