Worth it????

As the motivation to use M/LTM lenses increases, the value proposition of Leica digital M cameras increases. In other words, digital Leica M's are an extreme example of a value-added product. People pay for value(s) unique to the digital M platform. The market has spoken. Digital M cameras are worth it.

Objective technical performance (analog and raw file signal-to-noise ratio) is a limited metric. For instance, camera SNR comparisons ignore the role of lenses. But they are useful since aesthetic (subjective) image rendering depends on SNR.[1] This becomes relevant when sensor underexposure is unavoidable. Hand-held usage in low light or shadow region rendering in bright or normal light are the most common situations where SNR becomes important.

In terms of objective technical performance, I consider the M10 to have no disadvantages compared to its most recent 24 X 36 mm sensor competitors. For many people the M-240 platform's performance level is sufficient. It is only about 2/3 EV below the M10 and about 1 EV below the M-246. The M-246 out performs almost all other 24 X 36 sensor cameras and is not bested by the others.

1. Subjective, perceived image rendering preferences are obvious when the SNR is very high. But when the SNR is low those same characteristics are compromised by noise. An extreme example would be a low SNR of 2:1. Compared to a SNR of 200:1, differences in lens resolution, micro-contrast, file curvature, etc. are obscured by the a 100-fold increase in the uncertainty of the data (raw-file, photon-count estimates for each pixel).
 
willie_901 said:
In terms of objective technical performance, I consider the M10 to have no disadvantages compared to its most recent 24 X 36 mm sensor competitors. For many people the M-240 platform's performance level is sufficient. It is only about 2/3 EV below the M10 and about 1 EV below the M-246. The M-246 out performs almost all other 24 X 36 sensor cameras and is not bested by the others.
Click to expand...

Err ... No! I've no idea where this oft-repeated myth comes from. According to DXO Mark the Leica M-240 is outperformed by nearly every other full-frame camera - it lies in 49th position, and is nearly 3 EV below the best - a massive 25% difference (12 EV vs 15 EV).

That said, whether the Leica M-240 is sufficiently good is a different kettle of fish...
 
I"ve used them for personal projects and work since the early 1970s. They won't do everything I need - football, etc., for work - but once you've learned them, they are as automatic as any do-everythig autofocus. As others have moved forward, I've gone back to a a pair of IIIa's and period lenses. Ultimately, they're worth it if they do what you want, help you get the photos you like, and you can afford them. Answer 'no' to any of those questions and they're not.
 
A friend (Nikon shooter) asked me to show him how my Leica digital rangefinder worked last week. I handed it to him and showed him the focus lever and let him look through the viewfinder. After about 10s he 'got' it. Another few seconds and he'd have got exposure too. Can you have a more simple to use camera than that?
 
pgk said:
A friend (Nikon shooter) asked me to show him how my Leica digital rangefinder worked last week. I handed it to him and showed him the focus lever and let him look through the viewfinder. After about 10s he 'got' it. Another few seconds and he'd have got exposure too. Can you have a more simple to use camera than that?
Click to expand...
Any autofocus film or digital. You just press the shutter release.
 
It is but in the same way that applying paint to paper with a paintbrush is the essence of painting - but nothing to do with art.

Photography like painting requires understanding. The Leica M distills this into the photographer who, if he/she understands technique, has all the relevant parameters in the simplest of controls. Pressing the shutter on an AF camera all too often permits decisions to be taken away from the photographer.
 
pgk said:
The Leica M distills this into the photographer who, if he/she understands technique, has all the relevant parameters in the simplest of controls. Pressing the shutter on an AF camera all too often permits decisions to be taken away from the photographer.
Click to expand...

Huh? You act like AF doesn't allow you to choose where to focus.
 
Sorry. Pointless discussion. If you can't see the difference between a simplistic and and automated camera then so be it.
 
pgk said:
Sorry. Pointless discussion. If you can't see the difference between a simplistic and and automated camera then so be it.
Click to expand...

I've used them all in small format, Leica M (film and digital), film SLRs, mirrorless, and DSLRs...

Sure, on one hand they are mechanical cameras vs. computers. The Digital Leica M is the closest we have to a film camera. However, when it comes to other digital cameras... you decide how simple or how complex you want them to be. AF and the ability for a camera to be auto everything does not mean it is always. I know how to focus a RF and an auto-focus camera... it's surprisingly similar if you use one central focus point (focus/recompose). Digital camera still only have the same old combinations of framing device, shutter button, shutter speed dial, aperture, and ISO. Film cameras and digital cameras are really more similar than different outside of emotional factors.
 
pgk said:
It is but in the same way that applying paint to paper with a paintbrush is the essence of painting - but nothing to do with art.

Photography like painting requires understanding. The Leica M distills this into the photographer who, if he/she understands technique, has all the relevant parameters in the simplest of controls. Pressing the shutter on an AF camera all too often permits decisions to be taken away from the photographer.
Click to expand...

What can`t you understand when you use an automated camera ?
What decision is taken away when using AF ?
For the record I use both types but my understanding and decision making seemingly remains intact when I use an automated camera.
 
pgk said:
It is but in the same way that applying paint to paper with a paintbrush is the essence of painting - but nothing to do with art.

Photography like painting requires understanding. The Leica M distills this into the photographer who, if he/she understands technique, has all the relevant parameters in the simplest of controls. Pressing the shutter on an AF camera all too often permits decisions to be taken away from the photographer.
Click to expand...
Yes to the first sentence. A huge no to the rest.

Philip-Lorca diCorcia is an outstanding photographer whose cinematic images are characterised by drama and contrast. A well-known project is “Heads” (link), taken in a New York street by a camera triggered automatically as a person passed by.

Automatic or manual - the camera doesn’t matter. Photography is seeing the kind of image you want in your head, then capturing it. In “Heads”, diCorcia knew exactly what he wanted, so he didn’t need to touch or see his camera, let alone press the shutter button.
 
Anything is worth it... worthwhile
If it Stirs the Imagination. Makes You Creative, & brings Joy

A film Rangefinder...preferably Leica, does Me & my subject well
For Digi ,I LOVE fixed compacts... be it Ricoh, leica, fuji, sony, merrills
 
My own Leica MP was worth it (the lens too).
But I used it alongside Nikon SLR's FM3a and FM2n (also worth it).
12 years on - stilll have all 3 but used less often now.
While it was worth getting the MP in 2006 not sure if it's still worth it going forward - then again I can't see myself parting with it, (so still worth it)!

John
 
Last edited:
Most of my photo-heroes are Leica shooters (including you, Bill Pierce), and I longed, oh, how I longed, to be able to see the world through the viewfinder of a Leica as they did. I struggled with this for more than 40 years.

My first Leica was a IIIc with an f2 Summitar that I bought for $40 at the Bird Road Drive-In flea market in Miami in 1969. I owned many Leicas over the intervening years, but always wound up selling them. As hard as I tried, and I did try very hard, I simply could not attain real proficiency with rangefinder cameras. I made a few good pictures with them, but ultimately, they just did not work for me. I sadly sold my last Leica, an M3, in 2010. Leicas (and rangefinders in general) are wonderful, but they're not for everyone.

In my heart I’m a globe-trotting, black&white film, Leica-shooting photojournalist in the mold of Elliott Erwitt, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Josef Koudelka. But the bitter truth is that I am an autofocus, SLR, zoom lens, color photographer. That’s what I am, and I just have to deal with it.
 
I have a IIIf and an M4-P, both inherited, and like them for their compact size and quick focusing. The quality of construction makes them a pleasure to use, like driving an old sports car. The CV lenses that fit both an LTM and an M (with adapter) are a great bargain.
I find manual film cameras simpler to use than automatic-everything cameras, but that might just be a sign of old age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom