Why did you decide to buy a digital Leica M.

[chaospress]

It started with Winogrand and Friedlander- Leicas were what they used and I wanted to shoot like them. I spent $500 for a beat up M2 with a 35mm Summaron attached to it, in 1979 or '80. I upgraded to a new M4-p when I sold an article I wrote on the photographer Muybridge. Got an M6 when they put a meter in the camera and noticed my exposures got better. Bought an M7 when they added aperture priority. Picked up an M8 when they installed a sensor. Sold it after a year or so and only shot the M7 along with a Canon 5D. Decided I'd finally go for the M9 early this year, loved it, then thought why not get an M240? Glad I made that choice because it's opened up new avenues in my shooting. I've shot with other cameras and like what they can do, but I always come back to the Leica, and I guess I figure I need the latest, greatest, most capable one.

 

[uhoh7]

Sony A7 crappy with all my nice wides.

 

[raid]

I was very much against anything digital in photography, but then I gave up, and I got a used M8.

 

[Alberti]

When Leica created the Monochrom it seemed that Leica had me in mind. I was a B&W only shooter so buying a digital with a color sensor was not in the picture for me. Leica in a way kinda made me a dream camera that did not offer features I did not need. The only improvements I would want is a bigger buffer and the bigger screen of the M-240. If Leica makes a MM-240 I will surely buy one, and I will also keep my MM. I don not want video capabilities.

I also bought the Monochrom to become more Leica-centric and concentrated on getting more ASPH glass. Also I bought more film M-bodies that could share the glass.

Before I was a B&W film only die-hard, but a Leica body with a monochrome sensor took away my last compelling reason to avoid digital. It been almost two years and I can say that my Monochrom has made me into a better photographer. Likely the best money I ever spent.

Cal

well said, back this up 100%;
now adding that the sexy feeling of MM1 files is maybe different from MM246 files that - if I get it right - arrived after your posting.

 

[35photo]

Size, and image quality

 

[DanielDuarte]

I'm personally torn.

I migrated to digital this year after years of large and medium format film usage.

I picked up an MP 240 (I get a HEALTHY BH student discount as I am an MFA Photo student) and I'm still within my 30 day return period at BH.

I have existing Leica lenses:

35mm Cron ASPH
90 Elmarit e46

Saving / Selling extra stuff to buy a 50 Lux.

My personal dilemma, the SL. The price difference is marginal, actually a bit more than the 240 since my discount was greater on that copy.

I've found myself just having a lower than expected focus hit rate, which is expected given how new it is to me. I've used RF's before but in larger cameras, ala Mamiya 7 etc.

I want to take advantage of the M glass and its characteristics, period. I tried the cron on an A7RII, woof... what a DOG.

SL with EVF for focusing on complicated scenes / the dark... vs the purity of optical RF set up.

 

[raid]

Both can be done, Daniel.
I just finalized my camera choices for an upcoming trip, and I packed into the same small camera bag my M9 with 35mm Summilux, plus a Hasselblad SWC. There is no need to give one up for the other.

 

[robert blu]

I'm not going to buy one of these cameras but if I had to decide I would really be interested in evaluating the SL with M lenses (lenses I have) ...a little bit more expensive, slightly larger body, not RF of course but a more flexible tool ...just my idea...
robert

 

[_goodtimez]

Since I am bored here, I am starting a counter thread ....
Why did you buy a digital Leica M (M8, M9, ...)?

I bought a digital M just to verify that I prefer film :bang: Hahaha
No, in reality, I love my M8/.2s. I'm not sure I would be happier with any other digital M though.

 

[Ruffmeister]

I bought a digital M just to verify that I prefer film :bang: Hahaha
No, in reality, I love my M8/.2s. I'm not sure I would be happier with any other digital M though.

May I ask why you feel like that?

I didn't used to "get" the idea of a digital M. I liked using film M's however and ended up getting an M8. I figured I have 14 days to return if it wasn't for me and I was getting an itch to try one for a few month. I did/do however really enjoy using it, more so than my Fuji X, and it's made me crave going for an M9 for FF. :bang:

 

[taomei]

I went with a digital M because the Sony's buttons and menu interface were getting on my nerves more often than not. I prefer the simplicity of a clean shooting experience without obsessively magnifying the EVF to check for focus using peaking. There is simply no other full-frame option on the market that handles the way the Leica does :-\

 

[Analogue Student]

Mechanical and optical build quality, compactness and pride of ownership. I love my Leicas!

 

[Archiver]

My photographic journey really began years ago, with small sensor Canon cameras, and moved into a combination of film compacts and DSLR's. During this period, I often shot with a Zeiss Ikon ZM and a Canon compact in lieu of a large and heavy DSLR, so I wanted a way to shoot full frame digital without a DSLR's weight and bulk.

The M9 had recently been announced, and the timing was right. The money was available for me to use on cameras and I loved shooting with the Zeiss Ikon, so the M9 seemed like the right move to make.

Now that I think about it, had I entered the camera market at a different time, I may have gone with one of the Sony A7 variants and bypassed digital rangefinders altogether. This may have been an alternative course because since buying the M9, I've gone on to buy a number of micro four thirds cameras, and often shoot with them instead of the M9. If I didn't buy the M9 and its many lenses, I may very well have gone to the Sony side instead.

But I'm glad I didn't, because the M9 and subsequent M7 have given me thousands of cherished images and deeply thrilling joy.

 

[zerobuttons]

I wanted to feel the same sensations that my MP gave (and still gives) to me.
And it worked.

I can agree with that.

 

[jsrockit]

Leica, the anti-thesis of Sony.

 

[uhoh7]

Sony A7 crappy with all my nice wides.

Now that guy gets right to the point, 😉

Of course, about 6 months later I sent the A7 to Kolari for a thin filter mod, and since it has seen plenty of use as a second body to M9, and with lenses longer than 135. It shoots M wides 90% as well as M9.

The A7x is more fragile and more tedious to use than Mx, however my next camera, when I get my $ straight, will be A7r2 Kolari. I'll keep M9.

Why? I'm using the r2 sensor in a loaner RX1r2, and it's astounding. 80mb uncompressed RAWs which can be hammered in LR with little new noise, better at ISO 6400 than M9 at 800, 42mp which allows very large prints and great crop flexibility (i shoot wildlife also), and the techart pro will autofoucs M glass very well. AF and the silent shutter on the r2 will allow more flexibility at events.

In daylight the camera "with me" will still be the M9. 🙂


L1046305 by unoh7, on Flickr

I'm excited to see the M10, and frankly, M10/A7r2.mod would be even better 🙂

 

[Ronald M]

My son bought a used M8 before the 9 was out . You can not let your kids get better toy than you have.

I bought the last of the M9P`s . Good Camera.

Not unhappy with M8.

 

[Pete B]

I had my M for nearly a year before I started using it. I don't know why. Maybe it was because I wasn't keen on digital. I used it in anger for the first time on a recent trip to Nepal following a trip where a lab made a mess of developing my Portra. Presently, I can't see myself using my film Ms on future trips. This M-P 240 is the only digital camera I've enjoyed using. I feel like I've taken back control. A pro photographer I was trekking with couldn't stop asking to see my LCD screen - he was so impressed by the imaging of my 50mm Summicron, particularly on portraits. He felt his Canon whatever with his pro zooms was harsh in comparison.
Pete

 

[rodinal]

I bought an used M8.2 (at a very convenient price) for two reasons: to quickly test the behavior of my M and S lenses at different apertures and distances, and to take souvenir family/party color photographs.

Later, I discovered it performs very well with the Visoflex II (and 65mm Elmar lens plus short bellows) to do macro shots of my watch collection.

 

[raid]

I wonder if the introduction of the M10 will cause a radical change in how people view buying a Leica or not.