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
Another reason for not going with the digital M's is the same one I have with all digital cameras, depreciation. Even though the M's do not depreciate at the same rate as other digital cameras (the Leica mystic working in their favor??) they none the less do shed hundreds of $'s the moment you pay for it.. I prefer to not start at such a high water mark. ;)

p.s. Now Leica glass & a analog cameras are a different story altogether.
 
jaapv said:
Because it is....If you dislike critique you should not post on the Internet and point as a paragon of quality...
Click to expand...

Or you could just make "stuff" up, correct? The only thing worse than FUD, typically perceived, accurate or otherwise ... is ANTIFUD, typically contrived, inaccurate or otherwise.

There are lots of reasons to NOT buy a digital M, but I find it difficult to believe that a fault with another manufacturer's product is a reason to NOT buy one.
 
mynikonf2 said:
Another reason for not going with the digital M's is the same one I have with all digital cameras, depreciation.
Click to expand...

I've never purchased a camera with depreciation in mind. I always purchase hoping that it is the last photographic "tool" I'll ever buy. I purchased the M8.2 and M9 (but quickly sold them) with "It'll do until something more adequate comes along". Unfortunately, they weren't fulfilling enough for me to wait any longer. I'm very content with my film Ms.
I'd like to see Leica put their mind to a superb film scanner which exceeds the convenience of the Pakon 135+ and the performance of a Hasselblad X1. What are the chances? :(. But, my goodness, with the right price tag, that thing would sell!
Pete
 
burancap said:
There are lots of reasons to NOT buy a digital M, but I find it difficult to believe that a fault with another manufacturer's product is a reason to NOT buy one.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is not - actually I bought five digital M s in all over the years...
 
i would never buy a digital leica camera again. almost bought an m9 recently but came to in the morning.

that said, the M design continues to be my favourite camera in hard use.
 
I would buy another M9 in a heartbeat if something happens to this one. Someday there may be a true alternative, but today there is not, from my perspective.

I won't live forever, and prefer to wait on buying a new car or motorbike or deck or bathroom, than forgo M9 with M glass.
 
uhoh7 said:
I would buy another M9 in a heartbeat if something happens to this one. Someday there may be a true alternative, but today there is not, from my perspective.

I won't live forever, and prefer to wait on buying a new car or motorbike or deck or bathroom, than forgo M9 with M glass.
Click to expand...

That's just it. There is no true alternative. If you want rangefinder camera. This is it. If you want a Digital Camera with a proper manual focus mechnism, this is it.

We can talk about X100, A7 but none of them are in my opinion as intuitive to use as a rangefinder. They are both great cameras btw.(X100t's new hybrid VF I have not used. very intrigued and might just be an alternative?)

Many have talked about how much they love their film M but in the digital side of things, Digital M is really the only thing closest to that experience. IMHO.
 
rogazilla said:
That's just it. There is no true alternative. If you want rangefinder camera. This is it. If you want a Digital Camera with a proper manual focus mechnism, this is it.

We can talk about X100, A7 but none of them are in my opinion as intuitive to use as a rangefinder. They are both great cameras btw.(X100t's new hybrid VF I have not used. very intrigued and might just be an alternative?)

Many have talked about how much they love their film M but in the digital side of things, Digital M is really the only thing closest to that experience. IMHO.
Click to expand...

This is very true. I primarily shoot film, but I actually enjoy working with digital when I am shooting with the M9 or Monochrom. I'm sure I would probably feel the same with the M. I have tried many others, still own some. But they rarely get used. I just don't feel the same enjoyment.

So it is either step away from digital all together, or come to grips with the issues involving the digital M cameras. Tough choice. I just wish Leica hadn't forced the choice on me.
 
Just voted other and my other is unreliability. I don't have the time or the patience for something that might not work and I prefer B&W film anyway. I don't think I'll ever buy one, and if on the rare occasion I need to use color a Sony mirrorless works just fine with my Leica lenses.
 
The M240 is only for a.) professional photographers that can amortize the cost in a short period of time and b.) rich amateurs.

For me as an amateur it would be rediculous to spend that amount of money for a camera given the fact that results that suffice my purposes can be obtained by a fraction of that cost or even for free.
 
I have RF lenses that I now use on my a6000 and one day I will likely buy an M6 so I may apply them to film. Digital M's however do not bring enough to the plate to justify the cost of use and they may not be as reliable or as wise an investment as the film M's.
 
Four main reasons:

(1) I prefer MF film cameras for image quality
(2) Smaller format cameras are just "walking around" cameras
(2) Olympus 35SP is simpler and quicker in hand.
(3) Carry a multi-opportunity walk bag - Oly 35SP,XPan,Widelux,m43 with legacy macro,low light f0.95 and tele lenses.
(4) CineStill 50D and 800T films.

Texsport
 
I prefer film (using the Leica M system). That said, I think that the Fuji X100 and X-Pro 1 are a better digital implementation of the rangefinder-style camera than the digital Leicas.

The way a camera measures distance to focus is irrelevant (to me), so I don't care they're not "true rangefinders", whatever that often-stated phrase really means. What's important about the rangefinder camera is the clear, always in-focus, and larger-than the lens' field of view viewfinder.

- N.
 
I decided not to buy an M9 after reading all the anxiety about the sensor problem. I would be fine with one that had had its sensor replaced, if it meant that there should be no more problems. But evidently that is not the case, if the replacement is the same as the one that failed.

I do have an M8.2. For a while I thought I might upgrade to the M9, but now I'm glad to keep the M8.2, which is apparently less trouble-prone (if not trouble-free).

Actually, I think the M8.2 is a better camera for me, anyway. The finder frames are more accurate at my usual shooting distances. I can use my 28mm lens on it, and I can see the 28mm framelines (37mm equivalent) with my glasses on. If I tried to use my 28mm on an M9, I wouldn't be able to see the full-size 28mm framelines. And I can get the 28mm FOV by using my 21mm lens and a 28mm auxiliary finder.

Then again, I wish my M8.2 let me enter the focal length manually, as I've been resisting paying to have my lenses coded. And they are up to what, now, $300 for this? And my M-coder doesn't work too well on many lenses. The 28mm Summicron takes the coding very well, but that's an exception. The 21mm tends to read out wrong when coded. My 15mm CV reads out as 18mm. And my 35mm version IV can't be coded at all, there's a screw in the way.

I like my D700 better. No frustrations at all. Same goes for the X-100, X-10, D-Lux 6.
 
I am using a M9 now and quite happy with it.You must know it's limitation and what you should expect.

It's a real rangefinder and I can use it in the same style as my film leicas --- that's the most important thing.
 
ndnik said:
I prefer film (using the Leica M system). That said, I think that the Fuji X100 and X-Pro 1 are a better digital implementation of the rangefinder-style camera than the digital Leicas. ...
Click to expand...

The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G
 
Godfrey said:
The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G
Click to expand...


I remember when the X100 came out we were all stunned at how much the styling copied the Leica M and I think at the time Fuji admiitted that was their aim. :)
 
Godfrey said:
The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G
Click to expand...


Indeed so ...this confusion (about what constitutes a rangefinder ) seems to crop up here all the time.
Its clear that to many the term Rangefinder has come to simply denote a shape of camera rather than an method of focusing.

I can only conclude that to some (many) the method of composing and focusing using a co incident rangefinder has now ceased to become important and its only the style of the camera which is the attraction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom