raid
Dad Photographer
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.
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.
tomtofa
Well-known
Combination of reasons. Cost, yes - especially the cost of chasing lenses.
Also too limited a platform, compared to other options. I shoot landscapes, grandkids, various odd projects, low light, travel. Other than travel, the M platform would get in my way more than help.
Had an M8 a few years ago; that was my experience. Now that some used Ms are more affordable, I'd still not go back. Unless I won the lottery and could build a wide-ranging kit - an M might fit in there . . .
Also too limited a platform, compared to other options. I shoot landscapes, grandkids, various odd projects, low light, travel. Other than travel, the M platform would get in my way more than help.
Had an M8 a few years ago; that was my experience. Now that some used Ms are more affordable, I'd still not go back. Unless I won the lottery and could build a wide-ranging kit - an M might fit in there . . .
VTHokiEE
Well-known
Cost is the only one... But I don't have a full frame DSLR at the moment for the same reason...
danielsterno
making soup from mud
$ + Other digital options (that give more for the money, IMO)….
pete hogan
Well-known
My photography interests are film and Barnacks and similar 1-level FSU. Also don't require CFO approval.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
For digital shots, my Nikon D700 does all I want or need. I like shooting film with my Leicas.
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
I actually DID buy an M9. However, I would definitely NOT have purchased it were it not for a great opportunity. An M9 was in the classifieds here on RFF and it was right here in Portland. The price was great so I went for it.
Contributing factors were:
1. I already have a good complement of Leica lenses, so no need to buy any glass.
2. I was planning on selling my RD-1 (which I will put up in the classifieds very soon) that the M9 would replace. That way, the net hit to my pocketbook would be less.
3. I already own the D700, which is great for my needs, but I wanted something smaller and lighter to carry around.
So, in the end, I decided to buy it. But if I hadn't come across a good price here locally, I wouldn't have done it.
Ellen
Contributing factors were:
1. I already have a good complement of Leica lenses, so no need to buy any glass.
2. I was planning on selling my RD-1 (which I will put up in the classifieds very soon) that the M9 would replace. That way, the net hit to my pocketbook would be less.
3. I already own the D700, which is great for my needs, but I wanted something smaller and lighter to carry around.
So, in the end, I decided to buy it. But if I hadn't come across a good price here locally, I wouldn't have done it.
Ellen
raid
Dad Photographer
How can I correct the typos in the poll title?
Livesteamer
Well-known
Long term viability. I'm not a pro, rangefinders work for me. Over the years I have accumulated a nice bunch of Leica bodies and lenses on the understanding that I can use them and get most of my money back out of them someday. That assumption does not seem to work with digital Leica. I'm not wealthy but not weeping so I want to be sensible where the money goes. 2015 will be 25 years with Leica for me. Joe
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
I can not justify 7k+ + special computer equipment, storage, & programs for the number of photos that I take. Barely, get to use the film cameras that I own.
What Livesteamer said.
Gear turnover is a given for me, so depreciation is a big factor.
I did own an M8 and was lucky to get it sold before they took a big hit.
Other factors against, even if gear turnover was minimal...spotty reliability record, significant repair turn-around time.
Gear turnover is a given for me, so depreciation is a big factor.
I did own an M8 and was lucky to get it sold before they took a big hit.
Other factors against, even if gear turnover was minimal...spotty reliability record, significant repair turn-around time.
daveleo
what?
I didn't cast a vote, the choices were ambiguous to me, so, let me explain. I gave up Leica digital cameras based on my Digilux2 experience.
* I LOVE the D2 for what it is.* Let's leave it at that - I have no functional or quality or asthetic (sp?) complaints about the D2. It resides, under a new skin of Red Leather in my glass cabinet and shall stay there until my wife sells it away after I am gone.
Chapter 2: Never buy a toy that you cannot afford to throw away. I can't afford to throw away a $$$$ Leica digital setup. I can take a $1000 hit for dropping / destroying / loosing a Fuji/Nikon/whatever .... but a $7000-$10,000 hit is not my game.
Chapter 3: As I have said often on this forum ..... the output from modern digital equipment is not my problem. A $10,000 Leica setup is not going to make my final prints one molecule better than my Fujis make them. And ... hoping not to throw gasoline on the topic .... from what I have seen around the internet, that's pretty much true for most other people.
* I LOVE the D2 for what it is.* Let's leave it at that - I have no functional or quality or asthetic (sp?) complaints about the D2. It resides, under a new skin of Red Leather in my glass cabinet and shall stay there until my wife sells it away after I am gone.
Chapter 2: Never buy a toy that you cannot afford to throw away. I can't afford to throw away a $$$$ Leica digital setup. I can take a $1000 hit for dropping / destroying / loosing a Fuji/Nikon/whatever .... but a $7000-$10,000 hit is not my game.
Chapter 3: As I have said often on this forum ..... the output from modern digital equipment is not my problem. A $10,000 Leica setup is not going to make my final prints one molecule better than my Fujis make them. And ... hoping not to throw gasoline on the topic .... from what I have seen around the internet, that's pretty much true for most other people.
nlubis
Well-known
Had an M8. Sold it about a year ago.
Could not justify any of the other digital Ms. And I'd love to get the MM.
Could not justify any of the other digital Ms. And I'd love to get the MM.
raid
Dad Photographer
I first got the M8, followed with a partial trade/cash for the M9. I bought both cameras used, and the total cash amount for both cameras was less than $5000. I tried to plan ahead for depreciation.
rbelyell
Well-known
my rd1 has a 1:1 viewfinder that tremendously enhances my user experience. it produces beautiful images up to iso1600, which btw, seems to equal iso3200 + in aperture/ss on many other digicams i use ( wonder why...). it has been around since before the m8, needs no uv filters, doesnt have focus issues, doesnt have color cast issues, the sensor doesnt degrade over time because of an engineering flaw, it is still serviced by epson although they didnt make any more advanced cameras, it costs a fraction of a digital m, it IS a digital rf, actually the first digital rf! oh yeah, and epson never kept defects from me nor lied about them to me. i do not think i will gain anything from an m but heartache and money outflow on the onehand and i lose all of the above on the other. hmmm....tough choice. what isnt a tough choice is buying beautiful and superbly made and excellent-reputation-deserving leica m39 and m mount lenses to use with my rd1
burancap
Veteran
Had them, have been considering another for about the last month. In fact, I came this >< close to buying one yesterday. But, something is holding me back -and, no, it has not really been the rocky history. While I find film M's immensely engaging, I find the digitals, well, a bit boring I guess. In other words, I am not running to buy one.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
This thread has been fascinating reading. I haven't participated in the poll because I did buy a digital M, like it, still have it, and shoot with it regularly. But these last two comments have been the most interesting. I had to think about them for a bit.
I find all cameras immensely interesting, but only a few engaging after the first blush of learning them. In fact, once I know how a camera works and whether I like it or not, I don't really find the cameras engaging at all: I just use them. It's the photography I find engaging. The camera becomes my vehicle to do the photography, and the more it gets out of my way and lets me concentrate on the photography, the less I think about it and the more I like it at the same time. So perhaps the word "engaging" isn't the right word for what I feel about a camera that I want to use.
I like my film and digital Ms for the same reasons: They're easy to learn, they "just work," and they get out of my way almost immediately. The same is true of a few other cameras I've owned, notably the new Leica X I bought recently, the Nikon F that I had 45 years ago, and a dribble of others through the years in between.
I don't really know what's more engaging about a film M vs a digital M. With the same lenses on either, the difference in images is down to how a film records the image differently from a digital sensor, but how does that make the camera more or less engaging? The digital models are a bit bulkier and a bit heavier than the film models, true, but is it bulk and weight that is affecting your sense of engaging? or what?
It would be great if either of you could expand on these notions a bit more.
G
stnolan
Established
Had an M8 but couldn't deal with the necessary filters, crop factor , terrible high ISO performance and obnoxiously loud shutter and cocking mechanism. Nowadays with the M9 et al I just don't get the feeling they are durable or reliable relative to the price. I like my film rangefinder, M6, and my x100T. That being said if M digital bodies were in the $3k range I would probably bite.
burancap
Veteran
I will add more later, but real quick: A film M is almost gun-like if you will. Loading an IXMOO is like pressing your own rounds. The loading ritual, the advancing -sometimes with a trigger. The meterless exposure thoughts. Protecting the shutter from the sun, rolls in your pocket. Mixing the chems, hanging to dry, scanning -the whole thing! It is so intimate. You, the camera, the process. It is engaging. Enthralling. Intoxicating. At least more so to me than charging batteries and formatting cards.
But now, to not digress into another film vs. digital debate, I was talking about digital M's. I do find many other digital cameras to be a great deal more engaging and fun, but still nothing like a film M.