roscoetuff
Well-known
Curious how those new to Leica M's decided to make the transition from whatever you'd been shooting - especially if you've been shooting digital. Why? Did you think about a film Leica first, or had you had a film M before hand so that it was natural? Were rangefinders new to you? What's your primary camera? The Leica M or some DSLR or mirrorless? The pickle of the expense makes the whole a bit of a wonder for me, but I hear the story of "buy, try, and sell off if you don't like it... 'cause the re-sale value seems to hold." I'm likely to buy used btw... as I increasingly do in this pursuit.
If there's something written on this you'd recommend, that'd be great, too. I'm especially keen less on the lore, and more on the data... if there is any and whatever we can consider it to be. Yes, much is subjective, and my transition from one camera to another has been narrowing down what I like and how I like to shoot... so I recognize ergonomics / working style... and that makes a lot of sense to me. Hard to articulate sometimes, too.
I'm not an AF guy... and though I like to have it somewhere, don't actually have any AF lenses any more. Yes, I miss some shots, but it's not a heartbreak (mostly) because the ones I get... make me happy. I have a Sony A7II and lot of Zeiss Loxia and old Contax CY. Zeiss and it satisfaction here that is actually a large part of what piques my interest in Leica. And I like to print 17 X 25... so quality images are sweet. I've had an X-PRO2 and loved it, but used the EVF more than the hybrid simply because it was there and easy. Since I know we mostly will use what's there unless we don't like it for some reason, what drove me out of Fuji were the size of the lenses as they seemed to "grow" larger and larger. Tried Olympus and liked the size but switched to Zeiss for the handling, sharpness and color. Leica's that appeal intellectually are actually those like the MD and Monochrom that force a way of thinking and style of shooting... since I like manual and use my LCD screen mostly for menus and data on the camera set-up. Odd and quirky as I am... that's a draw. Thanks for whatever you care to share.
If there's something written on this you'd recommend, that'd be great, too. I'm especially keen less on the lore, and more on the data... if there is any and whatever we can consider it to be. Yes, much is subjective, and my transition from one camera to another has been narrowing down what I like and how I like to shoot... so I recognize ergonomics / working style... and that makes a lot of sense to me. Hard to articulate sometimes, too.
I'm not an AF guy... and though I like to have it somewhere, don't actually have any AF lenses any more. Yes, I miss some shots, but it's not a heartbreak (mostly) because the ones I get... make me happy. I have a Sony A7II and lot of Zeiss Loxia and old Contax CY. Zeiss and it satisfaction here that is actually a large part of what piques my interest in Leica. And I like to print 17 X 25... so quality images are sweet. I've had an X-PRO2 and loved it, but used the EVF more than the hybrid simply because it was there and easy. Since I know we mostly will use what's there unless we don't like it for some reason, what drove me out of Fuji were the size of the lenses as they seemed to "grow" larger and larger. Tried Olympus and liked the size but switched to Zeiss for the handling, sharpness and color. Leica's that appeal intellectually are actually those like the MD and Monochrom that force a way of thinking and style of shooting... since I like manual and use my LCD screen mostly for menus and data on the camera set-up. Odd and quirky as I am... that's a draw. Thanks for whatever you care to share.
______
-
I know I'll get a lot of push back on this, but Leica Ms are, in essence, three lens cameras: 28-35-50mm. Sure, you can use wider lenses with external viewfinders, and longer lenses if you don't mind framing with an area the size of the microprism dot on an SLR, but it is not exactly optimal. I run hot and cold on getting an M2/M4/M6 and 35mm Summicron. It is perfect for street photography. But I always back away. For the $2500-$3000 it would cost, I just don't do enough street photography. Just can't justify it. That kind of money buys a lot of film for me in all formats, and chemicals and paper.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I jumped back to film for my own photography in 2012. Got family FED-2 working and have tried almost everything on film. From Minox to 4x5. Leica was beating all of it. FED-2, Smena-8m or Leica on film to me.
On digital I was very happy with Canon 5D, but it started to act up just after Canon stopped supporting it. Canon 5D MKII was non working with 50L lens (known issue) and 50L itself became loose just after use. Canon took money, but never repaired to be as it was. I get frustrated with this and ditched the Canon FF DSLR line and L lenses.
Spend money from sale on Leica M glass and film M bodies.
In October 2016 I have free choice to make which camera to get for three thousands dollars. I went with new M-E. I didn't wanted another FF DSLR to haul it on me even at home and Sony FF is making me dizzy if using EVF and their lenses are something utterish.
With M-E all lenses perform fine, way better comparing to how lenses do on DSLRs. I have used old SLR lenses on Canon 5D and it was so-so. On M-E even old FSU lenses are good.
Every time I need AF and ISO 6400, I have Canon Rebel 500D consumer DLSR, btw.
About half hour ago we went with my wife through pictures taken in different time with different camera. M-E files are not always great, but they are standing out!
If you want to read more about people switching to digital M, it is often mentioned at http://blog.leica-camera.com/
Right now they have perfect example: http://blog.leica-camera.com/2017/01/14/camera-improved-outcome-veins-god/
On digital I was very happy with Canon 5D, but it started to act up just after Canon stopped supporting it. Canon 5D MKII was non working with 50L lens (known issue) and 50L itself became loose just after use. Canon took money, but never repaired to be as it was. I get frustrated with this and ditched the Canon FF DSLR line and L lenses.
Spend money from sale on Leica M glass and film M bodies.
In October 2016 I have free choice to make which camera to get for three thousands dollars. I went with new M-E. I didn't wanted another FF DSLR to haul it on me even at home and Sony FF is making me dizzy if using EVF and their lenses are something utterish.
With M-E all lenses perform fine, way better comparing to how lenses do on DSLRs. I have used old SLR lenses on Canon 5D and it was so-so. On M-E even old FSU lenses are good.
Every time I need AF and ISO 6400, I have Canon Rebel 500D consumer DLSR, btw.
About half hour ago we went with my wife through pictures taken in different time with different camera. M-E files are not always great, but they are standing out!
If you want to read more about people switching to digital M, it is often mentioned at http://blog.leica-camera.com/
Right now they have perfect example: http://blog.leica-camera.com/2017/01/14/camera-improved-outcome-veins-god/
My move to the digital M was sudden and irreversible! With a used M8 I intended to use for black & white only, I discovered I was basically a color shooter, and the B&W interest was mainly due to the B&W darkroom and the difficulty of dealing with color in the darkroom. Digital color offered so much more control in post that it just took over!
At the time I already had a digital p&s for business documentation, jpeg output was simply utilitarian. And I already had an unused Pentax dSLR that finally got used after the M8 came along. After a long history of film (including an M2) in all formats from 16mm up to 6x7, there was no looking back... At this point I am using digital M along with Pentax dSLR and Leica S system.
At the time I already had a digital p&s for business documentation, jpeg output was simply utilitarian. And I already had an unused Pentax dSLR that finally got used after the M8 came along. After a long history of film (including an M2) in all formats from 16mm up to 6x7, there was no looking back... At this point I am using digital M along with Pentax dSLR and Leica S system.
I didn't abandon my other kits, just added an M8 as another tool.
narsuitus
Well-known
The Nikon SLR is my primary 35mm camera. However, when I need to shoot quietly with a small number of lenses, the Leica M6 is my camera of choice. Wedding ceremonies, funerals, theatre, and recording studios are examples of places where I need to shoot quietly. The 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss (left), the 90mm f/2 Leitz (right), and the 18mm f/3.5 adapted Nikon (not shown) are the only lenses I need to use my Leica rangefinder.
Rangefinder by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Frontman
Well-known
I tried it, but I didn't like it. I decided on an MP to satisfy my Leica lust, and to do digital with my Nikon.
uhoh7
Mentor
I bought an M9 as a last resort, especially for this lens:
L1000152 by unoh7, ZM 18/4
That was on the first day I owned the camera. This structure appeared in the movie "Bus Stop" BTW.
I found the Rangefinder absurd, the files sublime. But gradually I began to learn and love the OVF.
Steep Slope at Sundown by unoh7, ZM18
For the UWAs, which the camera shoots superbly, first I tried the frankenfinder. It was useless. I don't think I ever took a level shot with it, despite the internal level. But the ZI 18 and 21 finders are even better than the OVF.
Eventually I found a 135 APO:
Boulder Knob by unoh7, on Flickr
Yellow by unoh7, on Flickr
My M9 has seen 250,000 frames now. Been though 1 shutter. I have dragged it all over the mountains and shot it in every light indoors and out. Landscape, sweet, sports, events, birds, wildlife, portraits, pets, fashion, candid and canned. I've shot 18/21/28/35/40/50/75/85/90/100/105/135 Fls from 1937 to 2011 DOM.
I crave a DSLR like a toothache. I help people use them, but you could not give me one. Fujis, sorry I know many love them, no interest here. My 2013 A7 is still in one piece because the M9 has done all the heavy lifting and the A7 was unusable for me until thin-filter mods became possible. Now it's a good 2nd back and nice for the longer glass.
The nasty little TV they call a EVF I tolerate often at the expense of Ibuprofen.
Today I skied from 8:30am to 4:30pm in soft conditions, much of it off-piste, with the M9 and three lenses, as I do much of the winter.
I don't crave a 240, MM, 262 or M10, though I would certainly put any of those to use if one fell into my hands.
My other favorite 135:
Take My Hand by unoh7, 135/2.8 Elmarit.
The M9 will out focus anything if you know the lens. That has been a pleasant surpise to me. I can't say what will be the best camera for anyone else. Certainly this one is not perfect. The shutter noise is preposterous. It should be smaller and lighter. But to my view there is no camera which can shoot a sweeter lens set better, even if I must use the Sony for my 180/300/500 favorites.
Images under the gun for money, sure those fast zooms deliver. But that's a compromise of bulk and quality I am fortunate not to endure.
The M9 is such a simple, fundamental tool, true to the heart of photography, so much more forgiving than the M6. But the ultimate value of digital M for me is clear channeling of optical masterpieces like the SEM 21, 28cron, CV35/1.2, 50 cron v4, 75 lux, and the great classics: sonnars, elmars, Drs, 8-elements, plus those exotics, the .95 which I will never own.
Great shooters may plan and realize their shots with precision. I don't pretend to be one or aspire to be one. The magic of my camera is it's ability to surprise me. A twinkle imparted to dusty reality. I see some shot two years later and I can't stop a smile. Moments in precious life otherwise washed over, lost in the sound and fury, but caught in a diary, which more often than not mean nothing to anyone else.
I'm not writing the journal for posterity. It's to make the most of my life now. Pen and ink are M and lens.
L1000152 by unoh7, ZM 18/4
That was on the first day I owned the camera. This structure appeared in the movie "Bus Stop" BTW.
I found the Rangefinder absurd, the files sublime. But gradually I began to learn and love the OVF.
Steep Slope at Sundown by unoh7, ZM18
For the UWAs, which the camera shoots superbly, first I tried the frankenfinder. It was useless. I don't think I ever took a level shot with it, despite the internal level. But the ZI 18 and 21 finders are even better than the OVF.
Eventually I found a 135 APO:
Boulder Knob by unoh7, on Flickr
Yellow by unoh7, on Flickr
My M9 has seen 250,000 frames now. Been though 1 shutter. I have dragged it all over the mountains and shot it in every light indoors and out. Landscape, sweet, sports, events, birds, wildlife, portraits, pets, fashion, candid and canned. I've shot 18/21/28/35/40/50/75/85/90/100/105/135 Fls from 1937 to 2011 DOM.
I crave a DSLR like a toothache. I help people use them, but you could not give me one. Fujis, sorry I know many love them, no interest here. My 2013 A7 is still in one piece because the M9 has done all the heavy lifting and the A7 was unusable for me until thin-filter mods became possible. Now it's a good 2nd back and nice for the longer glass.
The nasty little TV they call a EVF I tolerate often at the expense of Ibuprofen.
Today I skied from 8:30am to 4:30pm in soft conditions, much of it off-piste, with the M9 and three lenses, as I do much of the winter.
I don't crave a 240, MM, 262 or M10, though I would certainly put any of those to use if one fell into my hands.
My other favorite 135:
Take My Hand by unoh7, 135/2.8 Elmarit.
The M9 will out focus anything if you know the lens. That has been a pleasant surpise to me. I can't say what will be the best camera for anyone else. Certainly this one is not perfect. The shutter noise is preposterous. It should be smaller and lighter. But to my view there is no camera which can shoot a sweeter lens set better, even if I must use the Sony for my 180/300/500 favorites.
Images under the gun for money, sure those fast zooms deliver. But that's a compromise of bulk and quality I am fortunate not to endure.
The M9 is such a simple, fundamental tool, true to the heart of photography, so much more forgiving than the M6. But the ultimate value of digital M for me is clear channeling of optical masterpieces like the SEM 21, 28cron, CV35/1.2, 50 cron v4, 75 lux, and the great classics: sonnars, elmars, Drs, 8-elements, plus those exotics, the .95 which I will never own.
Great shooters may plan and realize their shots with precision. I don't pretend to be one or aspire to be one. The magic of my camera is it's ability to surprise me. A twinkle imparted to dusty reality. I see some shot two years later and I can't stop a smile. Moments in precious life otherwise washed over, lost in the sound and fury, but caught in a diary, which more often than not mean nothing to anyone else.
I'm not writing the journal for posterity. It's to make the most of my life now. Pen and ink are M and lens.
roscoetuff
Well-known
UHOH: Beautiful shots! Nice work! Like: "Great shooters may plan and realize their shots with precision. I don't pretend to be one... the magic of my camera is its ability to surprise me." Thanks for sharing these! Challenge for me lies in doing a fair amount of indoor shooting.
Last edited:
mdarnton
Well-known
I have always thought of it as the difference between knowing the picture in my eye and mind, ahead of time, and finding the picture using the camera as a compositional framing device.
With an SLR the view looks like a picture already, which encourages composition by moving the view around within the finder until something good clicks. Zoom lenses reinforce this behavior. RFs don't present the same kind of finished-looking view, so you need to know what the picture is before you put the camera into it, and having the camera at your eye doesn't make anything more obvious--you really do need to know what the picture is rather than "feel" it.
This isn't a diss of either style, and I flip back and forth between the two systems easily and depending on the mood I am in. Often I will use one or the other for months at a time, but I always end up switching at some point, perhaps to get a new take on things that have become stale.
I am comfortable with any focal length that will fit either system. Unlike the popular perception, I think long lenses and narrow DOF lenses focus better with RF systems, and prefer to use wide wides, where focus matters less but near-far compositional issues are more fragile, with SLRs
With an SLR the view looks like a picture already, which encourages composition by moving the view around within the finder until something good clicks. Zoom lenses reinforce this behavior. RFs don't present the same kind of finished-looking view, so you need to know what the picture is before you put the camera into it, and having the camera at your eye doesn't make anything more obvious--you really do need to know what the picture is rather than "feel" it.
This isn't a diss of either style, and I flip back and forth between the two systems easily and depending on the mood I am in. Often I will use one or the other for months at a time, but I always end up switching at some point, perhaps to get a new take on things that have become stale.
I am comfortable with any focal length that will fit either system. Unlike the popular perception, I think long lenses and narrow DOF lenses focus better with RF systems, and prefer to use wide wides, where focus matters less but near-far compositional issues are more fragile, with SLRs
Fraser
Well-known
I bought an M9 as a last resort, especially for this lens:
L1000152 by unoh7, ZM 18/4
That was on the first day I owned the camera. This structure appeared in the movie "Bus Stop" BTW.
I found the Rangefinder absurd, the files sublime. But gradually I began to learn and love the OVF.
Steep Slope at Sundown by unoh7, ZM18
For the UWAs, which the camera shoots superbly, first I tried the frankenfinder. It was useless. I don't think I ever took a level shot with it, despite the internal level. But the ZI 18 and 21 finders are even better than the OVF.
Eventually I found a 135 APO:
Boulder Knob by unoh7, on Flickr
Yellow by unoh7, on Flickr
My M9 has seen 250,000 frames now. Been though 1 shutter. I have dragged it all over the mountains and shot it in every light indoors and out. Landscape, sweet, sports, events, birds, wildlife, portraits, pets, fashion, candid and canned. I've shot 18/21/28/35/40/50/75/85/90/100/105/135 Fls from 1937 to 2011 DOM.
I crave a DSLR like a toothache. I help people use them, but you could not give me one. Fujis, sorry I know many love them, no interest here. My 2013 A7 is still in one piece because the M9 has done all the heavy lifting and the A7 was unusable for me until thin-filter mods became possible. Now it's a good 2nd back and nice for the longer glass.
The nasty little TV they call a EVF I tolerate often at the expense of Ibuprofen.
Today I skied from 8:30am to 4:30pm in soft conditions, much of it off-piste, with the M9 and three lenses, as I do much of the winter.
I don't crave a 240, MM, 262 or M10, though I would certainly put any of those to use if one fell into my hands.
My other favorite 135:
Take My Hand by unoh7, 135/2.8 Elmarit.
The M9 will out focus anything if you know the lens. That has been a pleasant surpise to me. I can't say what will be the best camera for anyone else. Certainly this one is not perfect. The shutter noise is preposterous. It should be smaller and lighter. But to my view there is no camera which can shoot a sweeter lens set better, even if I must use the Sony for my 180/300/500 favorites.
Images under the gun for money, sure those fast zooms deliver. But that's a compromise of bulk and quality I am fortunate not to endure.
The M9 is such a simple, fundamental tool, true to the heart of photography, so much more forgiving than the M6. But the ultimate value of digital M for me is clear channeling of optical masterpieces like the SEM 21, 28cron, CV35/1.2, 50 cron v4, 75 lux, and the great classics: sonnars, elmars, Drs, 8-elements, plus those exotics, the .95 which I will never own.
Great shooters may plan and realize their shots with precision. I don't pretend to be one or aspire to be one. The magic of my camera is it's ability to surprise me. A twinkle imparted to dusty reality. I see some shot two years later and I can't stop a smile. Moments in precious life otherwise washed over, lost in the sound and fury, but caught in a diary, which more often than not mean nothing to anyone else.
I'm not writing the journal for posterity. It's to make the most of my life now. Pen and ink are M and lens.
Nice post!
I notice looking at your flickr you have a picture of M9 with 5cm elmar f3.5, i've just got one of these tiny lenses and even though I originally bought it for my M2 seems perfect for a nice compact lens on my M9 when collapsing the lens on the m9 does it ever worry you/have you put any spacers in to stop it going in so far?
Thanks.
______
-
I don't find that to be true at all. Perhaps that is just your personal mental approach when you use an RF and an SLR.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
As uhoh7 I also love the Zeiss Distagon 4/18. My introduction to a Leica M came by way of an Epson R-D1, a camera I still use today.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Some of us using flash for clean looking indoor color shots for CCD M9 sensor and low ISO, others using M240 for higher ISO, no flash. I'm happy with M-E bw SOOC JPEG1 files at ISO1600-2500 which is enough for indoors often without flash.
Just from what I actually see I'm finding it to be true about finishing-looking view in SLR VF.
Winogrand and Meyerowitz have spoken about similar thing.
______
-
It's a mental approach. You can pre-visualize the image or not, and move your camera around to frame an image, with either type of camera.
The advantage of the rangefinder is that you can see outside the frame lines which may make composition or anticipating action easier. The disadvantage is that you are dealing with a smaller viewfinder area for framing. For example, with the .72 viewfinder and a 50mm lens, you are using the center 50% of the viewfinder to frame, so it is, in SLR terms, a .36 viewfinder. It's larger with wider lenses and smaller with longer images. That's why Leica came out with .58, .72 and .85 viewfinder options.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
To me is equal to
And it is honor to have same mental approach with Winogrand and Meyerowitz. Personally, to me
______
-
And it is honor to have same mental approach with Winogrand and Meyerowitz. Personally, to me
Well, Winogrand used both a Leica M and a Nikon F so he's got you covered both ways in the honor department. Take your pick. Meyerowitz is a great photographer, but he is also a paid shill for Leica, so I always take what he says with a grain of salt. He photographed using all formats during his long career.
Nyc Dito
Established
Well my transition was plainly because when I was younger I always wanted a Leica. I couldn't afford one at an earlier age and went to Nikon. Started with a used FM. Then went on to many, many bodies, FE, FE2, FG, FM2, FM10 then finally settled on a new FM3a when it was released, or a little after. I have also had a lot of cameras that I bought on a whim or on a good deal. OM1s, Canons. But deep within I still wanted a Leica. My thoughts were always towards an M6 but thankfully to this forum I was able to decide on and purchase an M2.
For me Leicas were the Porsche to get, although I was already driving a BMW hehe.
So, since I'm still a newbie to this system, I can see WHY people can stay within the brand. I really enjoy shooting with a rangefinder system. So light. I'm trying zone focusing for real with this camera as well.
I still have and plan to keep my Nikon F100, my Pentax 67, my Yashica TLR and other little gems I have aside from the Fuji X100 I just bought. And I do plan to pick up an FM/FM2 since I sold my FM3a.
So this was my transition, and I can say that for me it has been great =)
For me Leicas were the Porsche to get, although I was already driving a BMW hehe.
So, since I'm still a newbie to this system, I can see WHY people can stay within the brand. I really enjoy shooting with a rangefinder system. So light. I'm trying zone focusing for real with this camera as well.
I still have and plan to keep my Nikon F100, my Pentax 67, my Yashica TLR and other little gems I have aside from the Fuji X100 I just bought. And I do plan to pick up an FM/FM2 since I sold my FM3a.
So this was my transition, and I can say that for me it has been great =)
______
-
And this can only be accomplished with an M8? No other camera?
JonB
Member
I'm a writer, and have been since before I can remember when. Photography is my counterbalance to the whole-cloth de novo craft that is worthsmithing; my photography requires seeing things in the world, anticipating them, responding to them, and using those chaotic cues to tell an entire story without a single syllable of my own insertion. It wasn't until a few years after college that I came to appreciate the relief of photography, which I had the good fortune to enjoy with a Pentax K1000 during a high school course. Naturally, I turned to Pentax gear for not only familiarity but also its exceptional cost:benefit ratio.
After a while, I came to develop longitudinal chromatic aberration as a pet peeve, and classic Pentax lenses have green bokeh fringing in *****s. Not so much that anyone else saw it when I shared my images, but enough so that I couldn't see anything else when I viewed the same. I needed an upgrade. So I started pixel peeping all of the 100% crops I could find, and I found a friend in Leica. Of the samples I could find -- which, in retrospect, meant that I didn't give a fair shake for less popular makes such as Zeiss C/Y and Konica M-Hexanon -- Leica was the only brand that consistently delivered images that pleased me.
Mind, a crucial reason I was shooting Pentax was the affordability of Takumar and manual SMC lenses. So there was no way I could move over to the Leica M system. I simply couldn't comprehend those who could afford it. There was, however, the option of shooting the same Pentax camera, using Leitax adapters, and using Leica R lenses. I adopted this strategy tentatively with the cheapest 35mm f/2.8 lens I could find, looked at the results, and fell in love.
Over the next few years, gainful employment allowed me to collect more than a few R lenses. Having solved my longitudinal CA problem, the next hurdle became focusing. Simply, autofocus cameras don't manual-focus as well as I'd like. I practiced, I tried bracketing, I tried different screens; nothing satisfied. That's when I moved into the EVF world. I started shooting Sony NEX, then using a Speed Booster, then moving to an A7 II, All of these allowed me to focus and meter more reliably. Having solved focusing, the next hurdle became tonality. While Sony cameras are technically fine to excellent, they lack soul. I was shooting along my hometown riverside one morning, loving the sunrise and the scene it illuminated, but hating the way it looked every time I brought the camera to my eye -- and hating the way it looked every time I pulled up the resulting files on my computer later that week. What I needed was an optical finder.
I bought my first Leica M lens and camera as a leap of faith. I had never used a rangefinder before. I had never paid that much money for a camera before, much less one that was old and nominally obsolete. The first time I picked it up, though, the mechanical operation of the camera felt intuitively correct. It didn't take long to learn how to focus the system, and soon I was focusing more quickly and more accurately than I ever achieved with an SLR or EVF.
I've been shooting the M system almost exclusively for over a year now. It offers lenses that delight, both optically and haptically; it maintains predictable camera operation, avoiding automation surprises; and yields image files that I simply enjoy looking at. Even though I've enjoyed taking pictures for a while now, my Leica images are the first ones that I'll sit and stare at.
Leica certainly isn't for everyone. That's not a statement about cost; Leica equipment is particular, and some people don't get on well with its steep learning curves or its narrow niche benefits. But, for me, it has been a delight. Now my challenges are with Leica service: getting that M9's sensor replaced, figuring out timing on getting focusing issues calibrated, having common if not frequent electrical glitches, etc. But, none of that militates against my passion and presence when taking images. Leica M has been wonderful for me, and I honestly can't imagine finding a better photographic capture system for my needs and wants than this one that has been virtually unchanged for over 60 years.
Obligatory winter sample:
Cheers,
Jon
After a while, I came to develop longitudinal chromatic aberration as a pet peeve, and classic Pentax lenses have green bokeh fringing in *****s. Not so much that anyone else saw it when I shared my images, but enough so that I couldn't see anything else when I viewed the same. I needed an upgrade. So I started pixel peeping all of the 100% crops I could find, and I found a friend in Leica. Of the samples I could find -- which, in retrospect, meant that I didn't give a fair shake for less popular makes such as Zeiss C/Y and Konica M-Hexanon -- Leica was the only brand that consistently delivered images that pleased me.
Mind, a crucial reason I was shooting Pentax was the affordability of Takumar and manual SMC lenses. So there was no way I could move over to the Leica M system. I simply couldn't comprehend those who could afford it. There was, however, the option of shooting the same Pentax camera, using Leitax adapters, and using Leica R lenses. I adopted this strategy tentatively with the cheapest 35mm f/2.8 lens I could find, looked at the results, and fell in love.
Over the next few years, gainful employment allowed me to collect more than a few R lenses. Having solved my longitudinal CA problem, the next hurdle became focusing. Simply, autofocus cameras don't manual-focus as well as I'd like. I practiced, I tried bracketing, I tried different screens; nothing satisfied. That's when I moved into the EVF world. I started shooting Sony NEX, then using a Speed Booster, then moving to an A7 II, All of these allowed me to focus and meter more reliably. Having solved focusing, the next hurdle became tonality. While Sony cameras are technically fine to excellent, they lack soul. I was shooting along my hometown riverside one morning, loving the sunrise and the scene it illuminated, but hating the way it looked every time I brought the camera to my eye -- and hating the way it looked every time I pulled up the resulting files on my computer later that week. What I needed was an optical finder.
I bought my first Leica M lens and camera as a leap of faith. I had never used a rangefinder before. I had never paid that much money for a camera before, much less one that was old and nominally obsolete. The first time I picked it up, though, the mechanical operation of the camera felt intuitively correct. It didn't take long to learn how to focus the system, and soon I was focusing more quickly and more accurately than I ever achieved with an SLR or EVF.
I've been shooting the M system almost exclusively for over a year now. It offers lenses that delight, both optically and haptically; it maintains predictable camera operation, avoiding automation surprises; and yields image files that I simply enjoy looking at. Even though I've enjoyed taking pictures for a while now, my Leica images are the first ones that I'll sit and stare at.
Leica certainly isn't for everyone. That's not a statement about cost; Leica equipment is particular, and some people don't get on well with its steep learning curves or its narrow niche benefits. But, for me, it has been a delight. Now my challenges are with Leica service: getting that M9's sensor replaced, figuring out timing on getting focusing issues calibrated, having common if not frequent electrical glitches, etc. But, none of that militates against my passion and presence when taking images. Leica M has been wonderful for me, and I honestly can't imagine finding a better photographic capture system for my needs and wants than this one that has been virtually unchanged for over 60 years.
Obligatory winter sample:
Cheers,
Jon