lonemantis
Well-known
I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful responses here, it's given me a lot to think about. In theory, I fully understand that more expensive cameras do not make better pictures, and that the term "better" when it comes to gear is purely subjective. It's just a bit of cognitive dissonance that sometimes makes it difficult to put into practice!
After sleeping on it and giving it some thought, I am going to give the M3 a break for awhile. I will sell off some things I don't need as well, probably on RFF. I know some said I should keep it, but I've never been comfortable having a lot of money tied up in gear and I would feel more at ease without it. And after that, I'm staying away from gear forums for awhile to focus on composition, technique, and personal goals. Thanks for your help everyone!
After sleeping on it and giving it some thought, I am going to give the M3 a break for awhile. I will sell off some things I don't need as well, probably on RFF. I know some said I should keep it, but I've never been comfortable having a lot of money tied up in gear and I would feel more at ease without it. And after that, I'm staying away from gear forums for awhile to focus on composition, technique, and personal goals. Thanks for your help everyone!
cosmonaut
Well-known
Why do you say that? I've seen (and done) quite a bit of landscape work with RF cameras. Never found them particularly limiting for that, other than the usual limitations of any RF camera.
Leica M9 + Hektor 135mm f/4.5
click image for a larger display from flickr.com
Well for one using filters is harder, ND grads. Also I don't get a feel for the DOF with a rangefinder. Limited to primes only. Longer exposures greater than a second really is just a guess. Macro is hard to do. Having to use shoe finder when shooting wide and what to do if you need to shoot something at 200mm?
I wouldn't use my Leica M over an SLR for landscape work, exclusively.