jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That this is a question in the "What time of the day do you beat your wife?" class.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Maybe I've been lucky, but I bought a second hand Leica M9 around 4 years ago and, except for the rangefinder going out of alignment after I dropped the camera, I have had ZERO problems with the camera. I have received a TON of pleasure, and great quality photos, from the camera.
For me, getting the M9 was a no-brainer because I have been a long-time Leica M film body user, and I already owned perhaps 10 lenses for my M3 and M4-P bodies. I love the simplicity of the M9, all other digital cameras I have used have too many controls and options for my taste. And for quick moving subjects, for me, no autofocus works as well as manual focusing with the rangefinder.
But I am a little old-fashioned, and also a little old.
For me, getting the M9 was a no-brainer because I have been a long-time Leica M film body user, and I already owned perhaps 10 lenses for my M3 and M4-P bodies. I love the simplicity of the M9, all other digital cameras I have used have too many controls and options for my taste. And for quick moving subjects, for me, no autofocus works as well as manual focusing with the rangefinder.
But I am a little old-fashioned, and also a little old.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have had no negative experiences with my Leica M digital cameras. I wasn't particularly fond of the M9, thought it a bit slow and unresponsive (never mind the weird colors in the JPEG engine) but it worked perfectly the entire time I owned it, even despite the sensor corrosion issue which motivated me to trade it for the M-P. I liked the M-P, and I like the M-D even more: never had a moment's problem with either.
But then I have no absurd expectation that Leica is some divine entity that wants to personally guarantee me exhilaration and ecstasy when I touch one of their products. Leica Camera GmBH makes good cameras and excellent lenses whose design and performance is pleasing to me, that's all. So does Hasselblad, Olympus, and (sometimes) Nikon. None of them are perfect: they're just camera manufacturers. Most of their products work well most of the time.
But then I have no absurd expectation that Leica is some divine entity that wants to personally guarantee me exhilaration and ecstasy when I touch one of their products. Leica Camera GmBH makes good cameras and excellent lenses whose design and performance is pleasing to me, that's all. So does Hasselblad, Olympus, and (sometimes) Nikon. None of them are perfect: they're just camera manufacturers. Most of their products work well most of the time.
grduser
Member
I've had an m10 for the last month or so. This is the first time I've had a digital M and while its nice and fun to have pictures instantly developed, the novelty is wearing off for me. I find myself shooting exactly like i did with film, fully manual and with a handheld meter. Each outing (2-3 hours) I might take only 10 exposures. And while the M10, I've heard, is the fastest operating digital M, I've still lost a few shots waiting for the camera to wake up.
However, that said, I don't regret trying digital. It brought me out of a long break away from photography. Digital allows you to play more and experiment. Sometimes with film I take myself too seriously and try to only get good shots. With digital you can just try techniques out without worrying about burning film. Any leica will teach you how to shoot, but while an analog M is like a year long semester, the digital M is like a condensed 3 month course.
I've decided to use both film and digital, I believe they can co exist!
However, that said, I don't regret trying digital. It brought me out of a long break away from photography. Digital allows you to play more and experiment. Sometimes with film I take myself too seriously and try to only get good shots. With digital you can just try techniques out without worrying about burning film. Any leica will teach you how to shoot, but while an analog M is like a year long semester, the digital M is like a condensed 3 month course.
I've decided to use both film and digital, I believe they can co exist!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
No regrets buying a MM and SL, both new.
I was told a 10 week turnaround for my sensor replacement on my MM last December and actually got my camera back in 12 weeks. This is not really a complaint because I got a new sensor, new firmware, a new electronic circuit board, and an overhauled camera after almost five years of heavy use without any problems.
The corrosion was only visible in some very large prints (20x30), but always in the same locations.
Took a while to get the 50 Lux SL, and initially it was a bit of a dog, but with the new firmware that is no longer the case. Now it is an exceptional lens.
Cal
I was told a 10 week turnaround for my sensor replacement on my MM last December and actually got my camera back in 12 weeks. This is not really a complaint because I got a new sensor, new firmware, a new electronic circuit board, and an overhauled camera after almost five years of heavy use without any problems.
The corrosion was only visible in some very large prints (20x30), but always in the same locations.
Took a while to get the 50 Lux SL, and initially it was a bit of a dog, but with the new firmware that is no longer the case. Now it is an exceptional lens.
Cal
:: Mark
Well-known
I am still very ambivalent about my M typ 262, and recently wrote up my thoughts on that in a review of the camera.
I think the main issue for me is that the M 262 neither replicates the process of shooting film, nor does it provide the expected convenience of shooting digital. In particular, the problems that it has with sensor dust and poor viewfinder eye relief should simply not exist in any contemporary camera, let alone at the Leica price point. As a glasses wearer, my 1980 Minolta XDs has a better viewfinder than the 2016 state-of-the-art Leica. Maybe the M10 addresses some of the issues, but I have yet to see one outside of a display case.
In retrospect, I would have been better off buying a second M7 to allow two bodies with different films, while relying entirely to Olympus (m4/3) for digital. I know that a lot of people hate the complexity of Olympus, but once set up to taste it is faster and more fluid in use than the Leica - and often with better image quality. But then I do not care if a camera is made from plastic or milled brass.
I think the main issue for me is that the M 262 neither replicates the process of shooting film, nor does it provide the expected convenience of shooting digital. In particular, the problems that it has with sensor dust and poor viewfinder eye relief should simply not exist in any contemporary camera, let alone at the Leica price point. As a glasses wearer, my 1980 Minolta XDs has a better viewfinder than the 2016 state-of-the-art Leica. Maybe the M10 addresses some of the issues, but I have yet to see one outside of a display case.
In retrospect, I would have been better off buying a second M7 to allow two bodies with different films, while relying entirely to Olympus (m4/3) for digital. I know that a lot of people hate the complexity of Olympus, but once set up to taste it is faster and more fluid in use than the Leica - and often with better image quality. But then I do not care if a camera is made from plastic or milled brass.
traveler_101
American abroad
Never bought one. I am not a professional photographer and I could never justify the cost. Besides, I am with Ko-Fe: I don't see Leica as digital. I am also ambivalent about digital so perhaps I am attracted to the idea of Leica as above the current digital craze.