Freakscene
Obscure member
The figures were given to me when I asked Leica staff in Wetzlar.
Last edited:
Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 527
- Views 22K
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
To answer the original question, I didn't not buy a digital Leica but I also didn't not buy a complimentary camera to fill the deficiencies of the Leica. !!
Dustfinder
Member
As someone who enjoys rangefinder photography, I find Leica M film cameras offer one of the most refined experiences available. Their mechanical shutters are exceptionally quiet, the bodies are compact and well-balanced, and manual focusing is intuitive thanks to the bright, high-contrast rangefinder patch. Combined with a wide selection of compact, high-quality M-mount lenses, they make for an ideal film setup.
However, when it comes to digital photography, Leica M cameras present some limitations—especially when compared to other digital systems. They’re not the quietest and manual focusing lacks the advanced assistive features found in the lastest mirrorless cameras. Ergonomically, they don't shine above the rest. M mount lenses are excellent, but they often perform better when adapted to digital bodies that offer stabilization and can even autofocus with the proper adapter.
However, when it comes to digital photography, Leica M cameras present some limitations—especially when compared to other digital systems. They’re not the quietest and manual focusing lacks the advanced assistive features found in the lastest mirrorless cameras. Ergonomically, they don't shine above the rest. M mount lenses are excellent, but they often perform better when adapted to digital bodies that offer stabilization and can even autofocus with the proper adapter.
JohnGellings
Well-known
I think Leica is going to cater to you very shortly, well except AF.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Does the SL2/3 already do this?
Or is this the rumoured ‘notM12’
Or is this the rumoured ‘notM12’
JohnGellings
Well-known
I´m not a fan of those SL monsters... I am talking about the M-11V. I mean, I´m not buying any of them, I´m done with Leica. However, the M-11V is what some people seem to want.
Freakscene
Obscure member
If it does eye and face focus autoidentification and zooming, and is a proper mirrorless implementation without the s l o w close shutter and reopen sequence to shoot, it will be perfect for me.
Peter_S
Peter_S
- Local time
- 6:50 PM
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 874
Reliability and weight. While I took several of my favourite images with either an M8.2, M6, or M Monochrom (M9M), the difficulty, costs, and duration for service in Norway made it just not feasible anymore to keep them. In Austria (Vienna) it was easier.
I still have VM lenses in case I return to the M Monochrom (but with live view in case calibration is off) but the price levels do not justify a purchase - especially since I make limited income from photography.
That said, the M246 (a loaner from Leica) was probably the best camera I have ever used.
I still have VM lenses in case I return to the M Monochrom (but with live view in case calibration is off) but the price levels do not justify a purchase - especially since I make limited income from photography.
That said, the M246 (a loaner from Leica) was probably the best camera I have ever used.
kxl
Social Documentary
My sentiment exactly. For me, shooting with a film RF is chicken soup for the soul, while digital is about utility, practicality and above all, versatility. So I opted for a Nikon Z6 iii instead of a DRF.
stephaneb
Established
For me, a digital M makes no sense. The M shape and size was designed around the 35mm film cartridge, with the goal of being as small as possible while hosting the rangefinder, a high quality viewfinder and an elaborate shutter. That's it. There is no reason for that shape to persist on a digital camera except branding and habits. A rangefinder like the one on the M is adequate for film, but does not offer the precision required to exploit f/1.4 super lenses on a 60 Mpix sensor. That is simply ridiculous.
Last edited:
Out to Lunch
Veteran
The latest digital Leica M is a Form over Function camera. Fuji with its GFX100 'RF' has moved in a similar direction.
JohnGellings
Well-known
How so? You cannot make high quality photos with them due to their designs? I don´t get it at all.
JohnGellings
Well-known
Yet, people use them all the time with these lenses.
Pioneer
Veteran
I tried one. The film didn't fit.
Freakscene
Obscure member
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.
stephaneb
Established
Big f/1.4 lenses also tend to obscure the viewfinder. There is a reason the M lenses were so small until the recent craziness. What is the purpose of a huge Summilux 28mm lens on an M, really? The old Summicron 28mm was simply perfect. I know, I used to use it, picture below.
That was on film, 20 years ago. No one ever, ever, mentioned a lack of resolution. And gaining resolution is the only benefit I can think of from digital.
That was on film, 20 years ago. No one ever, ever, mentioned a lack of resolution. And gaining resolution is the only benefit I can think of from digital.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The tonality of the 28 Summilux, without manipulation, is much nicer. The size is annoying.
stephaneb
Established
Right. Are you sure you're not confusing the tonality of the lens, whatever you mean by that, with the tonality of your sensor/software combination? Like with any lens on film, tonalities were due to film and film/developer combinations. And then what we did in the darkroom, the papers, the filtration, etc... Any of that has much, much more effect than any lens tonality, especially comparing two lenses of the same reputable brand.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
This is kind of any open ended question. Why did I not decide to buy a Leica digital M as opposed to what? I am not a big film shooter. I have a Contax II and III now and that will work for me. And while the Barnacks are nice they are an anachronism to me. They are beautiful machines, they have a storied past, you can see them in the hands pf any number of great photographers but film is so difficult. Just to load a Barnack can be a challenge. So I did not have any Barnacks to cling to.
Why did I not buy one as opposed to another digital? The other digital was the same price, had better lenses and better images. Case closed.
Why did I not buy one as opposed to another digital? The other digital was the same price, had better lenses and better images. Case closed.
Freakscene
Obscure member
No, I had the 28/2 and the 28/1.4 at the same time and tested them side by side on the same camera. The 28/2, moreso the new one, places the shadows darker for the same exposure and makes the shadows darker but lower contrast. Not as much as the 28/2.8 asph, which I also had, but the 28/1.4 produces the nicest out-of-the-camera photos I have seen for any 28mm apart from the Leica-R e55 28mm Elmarit, which is the best 28mm I have ever used, but it makes the 28/1.4 M lens look small.
And I bought (as opposed to did not) buy a digital M, so what the files look like out of the camera is important to me. I do quite a bit of work where I am at live events sending photos as I go.
Similar threads
- Article
