Why did you decide to buy a digital Leica M.

[Dervla]

I do both... film & digi
but as of Late digi is becoming more the way for Me to create
understanding it's uses and 'look' to fit my way of 'seeing'

I have crossed over to the darker side... giggles

Dear Helen,

It is so nice to see the posts by you.

Sincerely,
Dervla/Thomas

 

[muser53]

Why a digital M? For me it was a simple decision. I've used Leica's since my dad gifted me his well used 111F sometime around
1965. Over the years I've acquired a few M bodies and many lenses and they have become an extension of how I see the world. When a very lightly used M10 became available last month it was a no brainer. Gear wise I am especially happy my (Canadian) 35 pre-asph Summilux fits the camera as well as my well used 35 2.8 Summaron.
Without getting into the (boring) debate about the pros and cons of digital vs film I will say the one thing I enjoy about digital is the ability
to see your images when you return home from a day of shooting. As I typically don't make a lot of images on any given day I appreciate not having to wait until I shoot out a roll of 36 exposures.

 

[jsrockit]

Sometimes, as a RFF user, you just need to use a rangefinder... even if they aren't best suited to your photography. I just like them. The M240 with the CV 50mm 3.5 has been very fun to use. I prefer digital to film.

 

[d_c]

The 1972 Summilux 35mm I bought in 2011(?) or so had already been modified for use on the digital bodies. I had it CLA'ed and further modified so that it now has the correct six bit code and mates up with the digital Ms' EXIF and such automatically. It's worth doing that ... and definitely one of my favorite lenses. 🙂

G

I found the digital sensor in my M262 to be quite unforgiving about any collimation errors in my old lenses, so IMHO it's definitely worth getting your lenses serviced and the collimation checked, at which point they can also be upgraded to a 6-bit mount.

 

[Godfrey]

I found the digital sensor in my M262 to be quite unforgiving about any collimation errors in my old lenses, so IMHO it's definitely worth getting your lenses serviced and the collimation checked, at which point they can also be upgraded to a 6-bit mount.

Collimation in a Leica M body is the alignment of the RF optical patch between the stationary and moving components in the viewfinder, and has nothing to do with a lens's RF calibration. Two of my bodies, the M4-2 and M10-R ... both bought used, have had both collimation errors and distance calibration errors which require a service to correct.

I have used the same set of lenses, including the 'Lux 35, on M9, M-P240, M-D262, and M10-M. RF distance calibration is the first thing I check whenever I buy a body or a lens. The RF distance calibration in the body is a separate thing from the RF calibration of the lens, which has to do with the positioning of the RF actuating cam in the lens rather than the calibration of the RF mechanism's moving mirror in the body. None of my lenses have shown any RF calibration errors.

G

 

[d_c]

Collimation in a Leica M body is the alignment of the RF optical patch between the stationary and moving components in the viewfinder, and has nothing to do with a lens's RF calibration. Two of my bodies, the M4-2 and M10-R ... both bought used, have had both collimation errors and distance calibration errors which require a service to correct.

I have used the same set of lenses, including the 'Lux 35, on M9, M-P240, M-D262, and M10-M. RF distance calibration is the first thing I check whenever I buy a body or a lens. The RF distance calibration in the body is a separate thing from the RF calibration of the lens, which has to do with the positioning of the RF actuating cam in the lens rather than the calibration of the RF mechanism's moving mirror in the body. None of my lenses have shown any RF calibration errors.

G

I appreciate the distinction, but collimation of lenses is also a thing, i.e. ensuring that a lens which is scale focussed to infinity, and which shows in a properly calibrated rangefinder as being set to focus at infinity, will correctly image something at infinity on the sensor plane.

A number of my older lenses showed some degree of focussing error with my digital body that wasn't down to the calibration of the rangefinder in the camera, but was instead due to back focussing issues. I even had one lens returned from Wetzlar which still didn't correctly image a point source when both rangefinder and lens scale said the lens was correctly focussed at infinity. Our local Leica store replicated the issue on a new camera, by comparison to a couple of new lenses, and so the lens was returned to Germany for the issue to be resolved.

 

[Godfrey]

Collimation in terms of a lens means aligning the optical centers of the lens elements, not adjustment of the rangefinder-focusing mount cam.

As I said, none of my lenses have shown any mis-adjustment of the rangefinder cam requiring re-calibration, even back to my oldest (a 1960 Hektor 135/4.5). I think you would find such mis-adjustments primarily on lenses that have been disassembled and reassembled for service somewhat sloppily in the past, since Leica would not ship a new lens with such a mis-adjustments except in the rare instance of a defect in quality control. (I suspect most instances of de-collimated lenses are due to similar sloppy re-assembly...)

Whatever. If you find a lot of your older lenses have such issues, then it's wise that you have them properly checked and adjusted on an optical bench. I have not found any such issues with my lenses, only rangefinder/viewfinder collimation and rangefinder distance calibration, and those only on two bodies out of all the Ms I've owned.

G

 

[IanForber]

I bought a digital Leica because I always wanted a Leica. I was saving for an M7 but in a moment of madness decided to get a Mamiya 7 instead. Then I went over to digital with Nikon and Olympus. When I tired of their complicated menus, I came back to Leica. Why digital? Partly because of ease of use given that I already had the software etc, partly because film Leicas are so popular with the young ‘hipster’ crowd that I didn’t want to look like I was trying too hard to be trendy.

 

[robert blu]

Today I went through this many years old thread and realized I never answered the question!

The main reason for which I bought my M10 is I wanted a digital camera very similar to my M7 in use, size, controls. And of course where to use my M lenses, Leica or CV.

A few years ago I was in Wetzlar and when I had the M10 in my hands I realized it was the camera I was looking for. My wife asked me if I was sure and to my affirmative answer she said then go for it, now.

Years later I'm still very satisfied and have no plan to upgrade to any other digital.
I still use the M7 for specific project which I want to develop on film. Sometimes film, sometimes digital, life is nice 😉

 

[Whitten]

I used an M6 (film) for many years. I prefer to focus with rangefinder, even more than auto focus. I like the size factor, both body and lens.
If a company brought out a digital rangefinder with full frame sensor (at least 24mp) I would consider it over Leica as Leicas are very expensive.
I currently own an M240, which I was lucky to get at a lower price.

 

[LCT]

Why did you buy a digital Leica M (M8, M9, ...)?

Too boring an answer to interest anybody i fear but i bought digital Ms because they were and still are the best digital cameras for M lenses.

 

[CP93]

I’ve wanted a Leica since 1977. Finally went for it a month ago. No regrets.

 

[WoodallP]

I had a silver M4 and lenses which I loved using and wanted the nearest experience. When the M10 came out and as it was the same size it was a deciding factor. Plus, as it was also silver and looked the same I figured “no one” would notice the extra camera 😂

 

[boojum]

I "knew" about Leicas from about '53. In HS, '58, I got to shoot with a IIIf a bit and liked it. And in the last few years I got into taking pictures after a long absence from active shooting. I picked up a Sony A7 and then decided to try a Leica and shopped eBay and got an M8.2, then an M9, the an M240 and then another M240. I like them because they are fun to use.

I do not know how other folks feel but I feel a little bit cooler lifting an M body and a little bit more sure doing it. Yes, it is self-seduction, but OTOH it is my money and my time and I am not putting that money up my nose and once in a while I have something from it that I like, think is pretty good and can show others without shame. So while it is self-indulgent it also produces some good things now and again. That's my rationalization and I'm sticking to it. ;o)

 

[Richard G]

I had a silver M4 and lenses which I loved using and wanted the nearest experience. When the M10 came out and as it was the same size it was a deciding factor. Plus, as it was also silver and looked the same I figured “no one” would notice the extra camera 😂

And did she?

 

[WoodallP]

And did she?

No but my son did 😊 it’s easier when adding Barnacks. Seriously it wasn’t really an issue.

But I meant what I said about how it felt. I’m sure many of us have digital and analogue M’s and the fact that they feel largely the same is a real advantage.

 

[Richard G]

No but my son did 😊 it’s easier when adding Barnacks. Seriously it wasn’t really an issue.

But I meant what I said about how it felt. I’m sure many of us have digital and analogue M’s and the fact that they feel largely the same is a real advantage.

It is the key factor. The M body over a whole lifetime of photography. Procedural familiarity. Only the quirks of metering requiring more thought than the M6 or M5, and often shooting manual anyway.

 

[Mute-on]

My only incentive to buy a Digital M was the introduction of airport CT scanners and the apparent disinclination of Melbourne’s security to facilitate hand film inspection on a consistent basis. I used to travel overseas with two film Ms. The experience of film M photography was integral to my holiday experience, and made up a large part of the pleasure I derived from travel with my family. Ultimately I wasn’t prepared to risk ruined film to record my family’s travel experience, so I sought out the cheapest (relative term) alternative that would most closely match my film M experience. Cue almost unused Leica M262 that was available at a local dealer for beaucoup $$$.

Now that I have a digital M I’m really enjoying the experience, not to mention the excellent results. It doesn’t have the tactile, physical satisfaction of my film Ms, but makes up for that with the convenience of being, well, digital. Now I’m considering an M246 Monochrom to use along side the M262. They’re still ridiculously expensive for my taste (my last film M acquisition was a BP M4 for $3k AUD), but do provide immense pleasure.

 

[Godfrey]

Amazing resuscitation of a very old thread! A lot has changed since I commented in 2014...

But a lot has stayed the same. I wanted a Leica from a very young age since my father, my grandfather, and both my father's brothers had Leicas. My father's uncle also had a Nikon ... And as it ended up I had Nikons and Leicas (amongst many other cameras) from when I was about 19 on. I was early on the digital imaging front (starting at NASA/JPL in 1984... first personal digital camera in the middle 1990s...) and of course wanted a digital version of my Nikon F3 and Leica M4-P. My track through DSLRs went strange ways due to cost and availability, and when the first digital M came out I couldn't afford it, bought in finally with the M9. Never loved the M9 much: although it was a Leica M, it never felt as 'right' or responsive as my film Ms. When the dreaded sensor corrosion took it and Leica offered a full used value discount on the M-P 240, I went for that and was much happier. That led to the M-D 262 (should never have sold it...) and then to the M10 Monochrom and M10-R which I have now. All the other digital cameras (aside from the Hasselblad 907x) have fallen by the wayside compared to these two. (Still have a few of the others and am too lazy, it seems, to put them on the market and sell 'em...)

But I have to say in the past year, and with my Catastrophe event, I've been shooting more film than I have in a decade. And my current shooting darling is the 1946 Leica IIIc that I picked up a few weeks ago. Rebuilding my eye and mind after the mess of that Catastrophe is a long and slow process... My old, old practices with film and manual cameras help me touch places in my head that have been behind closed doors, hiding from the horrific onslaughts of trying to come back to life. B&W film in a Minox B, a Retina IIc, a Leica M or III, processing on the kitchen counter, scanning with the M10-M ... It pulls things back into a perspective that I almost lost forever.

I'll get creative with the M10-M and M10-R again soon. I see things beginning to surface in my negatives that I can explore more opportunistically with digital capture, and the digital Ms will do very well. 🙂

Onwards, always onwards!
G

 

[raid]

I was initially very much against getting a digital Leica, but the quality of the sensors improved over the years, and I am now in 2024 mainly using a Leica M10. I don't need a scanner. It made things simpler for me.