Tim Murphy
Well-known
The longest and fastest telephoto I can find
The longest and fastest telephoto I can find
Dear Raid,
I'll be honest and say that I visit this site to read and learn.
I shoot wildlife and nature. I'm as big as a moose so stealth is not my strong suit. I'd drop the coin on something long and bright, and probably white too.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
The longest and fastest telephoto I can find
Dear Raid,
I'll be honest and say that I visit this site to read and learn.
I shoot wildlife and nature. I'm as big as a moose so stealth is not my strong suit. I'd drop the coin on something long and bright, and probably white too.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Out of your options... the Q. However, I think I'd buy a used Sony A7R II w/ a used 55mm 1.8. The CL is nice, but not for the price.
Are the end results great? Yes.
raid
Dad Photographer
The end results are most important. I agree.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Getting back to the original "gearhead" focus of the thread:
Raid, you listed an M9 as one of your options. But you already have an M9, no? I have one myself (or will have, if it ever comes back from N.J.) and it seems to meet all my needs or wants. Still, I think I would like an M9P. I think I would keep the M9 and just have two bodies. So that's one idea.
Another idea: I miss my M8.2. What I don't miss is that it didn't let me enter my lens manually, like I can on the M9. That way, I don't have to get my lenses coded. Buy I might like to use some of the money to get them coded, which would be convenient (though not necessary) when using them on the M9.
As to the M240: I'm sure it's a great camera. I don't seem to want one, though. Isn't it even thicker front to back than the M9? And the electronic framelines. I don't know it would feel Leica-like enough for me.
OK, I know. I would inherit $6000 or $8000 and get an M10. That should do it.
Raid, you listed an M9 as one of your options. But you already have an M9, no? I have one myself (or will have, if it ever comes back from N.J.) and it seems to meet all my needs or wants. Still, I think I would like an M9P. I think I would keep the M9 and just have two bodies. So that's one idea.
Another idea: I miss my M8.2. What I don't miss is that it didn't let me enter my lens manually, like I can on the M9. That way, I don't have to get my lenses coded. Buy I might like to use some of the money to get them coded, which would be convenient (though not necessary) when using them on the M9.
As to the M240: I'm sure it's a great camera. I don't seem to want one, though. Isn't it even thicker front to back than the M9? And the electronic framelines. I don't know it would feel Leica-like enough for me.
OK, I know. I would inherit $6000 or $8000 and get an M10. That should do it.
raid
Dad Photographer
Rob: I never claimed that this post was about my quest to spend $3000. I meant it to be addressed to anyone here at RFF.
The M8 does surprisingly well after all these years.
Yes, the M240 appears to be thicker than the M9, and I feel it to be heavier too. The extra thickness caused one of my fingers to get hurt in my first use of the M240. My hand did not hold the camera correctly, I think.
The M10 would be nice ....
The M8 does surprisingly well after all these years.
Yes, the M240 appears to be thicker than the M9, and I feel it to be heavier too. The extra thickness caused one of my fingers to get hurt in my first use of the M240. My hand did not hold the camera correctly, I think.
The M10 would be nice ....
Godfrey
somewhat colored
hmm. I could have sworn I posted a response to this thread while I was in London the other night, but I don't see it here. In brief:
Yes, I'd get a CL body for that money, if I wanted to spend money on another camera. I wouldn't buy any M8-M9 camera for any money at this point, the Q without interchangeable lenses is not appealing to me at all.
The CL works well with all my current M, R, and SL lenses; it is small and light weight; the sensor performance seems fine; the smaller format nets a difference in what I can do with it compared to the SL or M-D. I don't need any other lenses for it since I'm happy with manual focus and have all the right focal lengths already.
... All that said, I'm not really itching to buy another camera unless I were to do it to replace the SL with something significantly smaller and lighter to carry. The CL would then be the correct choice again, since I could sell the SL plus SL24-90 lens, buy the CL body, and net a $4000-5000 credit back into my bank account.
G
Yes, I'd get a CL body for that money, if I wanted to spend money on another camera. I wouldn't buy any M8-M9 camera for any money at this point, the Q without interchangeable lenses is not appealing to me at all.
The CL works well with all my current M, R, and SL lenses; it is small and light weight; the sensor performance seems fine; the smaller format nets a difference in what I can do with it compared to the SL or M-D. I don't need any other lenses for it since I'm happy with manual focus and have all the right focal lengths already.
... All that said, I'm not really itching to buy another camera unless I were to do it to replace the SL with something significantly smaller and lighter to carry. The CL would then be the correct choice again, since I could sell the SL plus SL24-90 lens, buy the CL body, and net a $4000-5000 credit back into my bank account.
G
raid
Dad Photographer
What about the crop factor with the CL, Godfrey? Doesn't this part annoy you somewhat? Are there adapters for "any lens mount" for the CL?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I planned on using my manual lenses with my APS-C Fuji, but it doesn't make much sense. I have manual lenses from 18mm-90mm which corresponds to 28-135 on APS-C. Except for the 90mm, all those focal lengths are covered by the little 18-55mm zoom, so I only use my manual macro lenses with the Fuji. It's the same issue with the Leica CL. Using Leica's little 18-56 (28-85) CL zoom sure beats carrying around a bag full of lenses. To appropriate a little Leica marketing, I am sure that is what Oskar Barnack would do if he were alive today. Now, there may be an advantage if you want to shoot just 50mm to putting on a 35mm. Since you are only using the center of the image circle, it should be very sharp, though I would probably trust the auto focus of the dedicated lens over focus peaking for sharpness. YMMV.
raid
Dad Photographer
A 50mm SLR lens will be a very good 100mm lens on a M 4/3 and it would be a 66mm lens on the APS-C, I think.It is more difficult to find a suitable wide angle lens here that works well.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The crop factor is actually an advantage for what I would have the CL for, Raid. I'd keep the SL90-280mm lens, which with the crop factor nets a 135 to 420mm FoV, image stabilized super-telezoom. I have the right lenses in my more usual focal length range to get the right FoVs too: 35 for normal, 50-60 for 75-90mm, WATE for 24 to 30mm wide, and a few more beyond that. And of course my R lenses would all be fine, including the macro setup for film copying; I'd just be using 1:2 instead of 1:1 as the reference magnification to obtain FF negative copies at 24 Pixel.
So it would be a good choice that doesn't compete directly with either the SL or M-D for lens choices, etc.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
A 50mm lens on the CL's APS-C sensor nets the FoV of a 75mm lens; 60mm goes to 90mm. I have the WATE for the wide end, which nets 24 to 31 mm FoVs, and a Color-Skopar 28mm that nets an old favorite 43mm approximately.
The only 'missing' focal length for me would be the 16mm FF FoV to crop to square for the Hasselblad SWC simulation I like ... for that I'd need to buy a Voigtländer 10mm lens. If I decided it was important: I can always put the WATE on the M-D and crop it to square for that simulation.
I spent an extensive ten years shooting with FourThirds and APS-C format cameras so I'm very familiar with the FoV and DoF characteristics of these two formats.
G
raid
Dad Photographer
Yes, you are right. The APS-C has a crop that is equivalent to 1.5x of the focal length of the lens.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
OK..it's decided then...CL..and take your wife out to dinner...done deal..
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Dave Burnett used to shoot a Ricoh GXR with Leica glass (we wrote about how to set that camera up) but now has also gone the way of the Sony A9, with a Rokkor 58mm 1.2 lens... Just saying...
creenus
Established
A view camera, lens, film holders, developing tank, etc., because I haven't tortured myself enough yet with 35mm and 4.5x6cm gear.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I love David Burnett.Dave Burnett used to shoot a Ricoh GXR with Leica glass (we wrote about how to set that camera up) but now has also gone the way of the Sony A9, with a Rokkor 58mm 1.2 lens... Just saying...
He is the ultimate Hero for Am/ProAm photographers.
Always working a lot! Always hacking gear together to get a special look.
He shows that good work and optical “gimmicks” really can bring great results.
benlees
Well-known
Agreed. For $3000 I would choose something else. But when the Qii arrives in a year or two... and used prices keep going down then maybe...
raid
Dad Photographer
He is obviously enjoying photography.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Raid,
None of the poll options thrill me too much, honestly. For digital, my phone and the Fuji X20 serve me plenty well.
That said, $3k would be interesting to spend on gear and I think it would be, for me, something like this:
I have a small (7 1/2' by 10') room in my basement I want to set up as a darkroom and 3k would make that a rather faster project. I can do the basic carpentry aspects of this, the plumbing and wiring, not so much.
IF there were anything left over after that, then a 4x5 enlarger.
Rob
None of the poll options thrill me too much, honestly. For digital, my phone and the Fuji X20 serve me plenty well.
That said, $3k would be interesting to spend on gear and I think it would be, for me, something like this:
I have a small (7 1/2' by 10') room in my basement I want to set up as a darkroom and 3k would make that a rather faster project. I can do the basic carpentry aspects of this, the plumbing and wiring, not so much.
IF there were anything left over after that, then a 4x5 enlarger.
Rob