Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I'll give this a second. I have the Fuji adapter and all it does is make it quick to get in the menu so if you need to go to M lenses, just get a decent third party adapter. As jsrocket notes, the focus experience isn't the same. I'd love to use my M lenses on the Fuji but it just doesn't seem to work for me. Focus peaking isn't that good, it doesn't snap into focus and over all isn't an easy way to get the focus. As noted, an XE1 can be had pretty cheaply and the 35/2 is a reasonably priced lens. All this said, still keep the M4. You'll hate yourself for selling it.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I know where OP is in Russia. I was passing by local train his town twice few weeks ago. It isn't north of Iowa with high shipping costs. More like NJ...
But film is not cheap in Russia and the rest of bw components isn't cheap either.
Personally, I quit color film even from where I'm in Canada....
Mute-on
Well-known
Regardless of your choice of digital camera, keep the M4. They aren't making those any more, and they will never be superseded as film cameras.
I have an XE-1. It is very slow to AF with Fuji lenses, but I have no complaints about the IQ. I would look at an XE-2 at least, as you may end up with a Fuji lens or two in the future, even if you start with M mount lenses.
Cheers
J
I have an XE-1. It is very slow to AF with Fuji lenses, but I have no complaints about the IQ. I would look at an XE-2 at least, as you may end up with a Fuji lens or two in the future, even if you start with M mount lenses.
Cheers
J
emraphoto
Mentor
i started to formulate my response and shazam, you beat me to it.
squirrel$$$bandit
Mentor
Agreed!
In other words, the opposite of a paperweight? Rather, a highly capable camera at a very low price. It's only obsolete if you buy into the upgrade cycle, which seems increasingly unnecessary to me. Personally, my needs topped out at 16MP...I would love an XP2 and will probably get one when I can afford it, for its speed and ease of use. But I'll wince at every 24MP file.
From about four years ago and moving forward, used digital just seems like a better and better value to me.
squirrel$$$bandit
Mentor
This is not to say that the M4 isn't a fantastic camera!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Yes, paperweight from upgrade cycle and prestige POV. I have one DSLR from 2009, which is still hard to beat.
FrankS
Registered User
I wouldn't sell the Leica. You can save a lot of money by waiting for 2 or 3 year old used digital cameras. Get one or 2 Fuji lenses when you can but first an adaptor for your Leica lenses. (I just bought a $10 adaptor (shipped) for my Nikon lenses to Fuji X.
JHutchins
Well-known
As I read the original message you're mostly planning to keep the M4 but trying to decide whether to sell the Leica glass to fund a purchase of Fuji glass. Everything in me revolts at recommending you do that and I would try as hard as I could with selling as little as possible. They are wonderful lenses and can be used on whatever Fuji you buy.
But...
They won't have the field of view you're used to and that may become increasingly annoying over time. The wides also won't perform as well on the Fuji as they did on film. The problems are overstated online, I think, but they aren't non-existent.
So to the extent you're looking to economize on new lenses I'd think about buying a really wide Fuji lens and maybe fund it by selling your longest Leica lens (which is now effectively longer than you're used to using so maybe no longer quite so suited to your needs?)
But...
They won't have the field of view you're used to and that may become increasingly annoying over time. The wides also won't perform as well on the Fuji as they did on film. The problems are overstated online, I think, but they aren't non-existent.
So to the extent you're looking to economize on new lenses I'd think about buying a really wide Fuji lens and maybe fund it by selling your longest Leica lens (which is now effectively longer than you're used to using so maybe no longer quite so suited to your needs?)
Pablito
coco frío
Since I have no nostalgia about cameras, I would not hesitate to sell anything to get something else that was better for my work. I have sold most of my Leica stuff for that reason.
FrankS
Registered User
I've regretted selling every Leica lens I've ever sold. (Luckily there have not been too many.)
Georgiy Romanov
stray cat
Gentlemen! Well, I heard enough to make a good, as I think, decision. Will keep my Leica stuff and save some money for cheap body with lens like XE-1 or even X-Pro1. Added M-mount adaptor and figures out how it would working for me.
Thank you for your opinions!
Thank you for your opinions!
BillBingham2
Registered User
GR, great choice.
Please, please, please keep us in the loop on your journey. I'm very interested in how legacy glass works (e.g. focusing, brightness of view) works on mirrorless bodies.
Thanks.
B2 (;->
Please, please, please keep us in the loop on your journey. I'm very interested in how legacy glass works (e.g. focusing, brightness of view) works on mirrorless bodies.
Thanks.
B2 (;->
SaveKodak
Well-known
Skip the digital camera and get a Pacific Image XA.
Your Leica is now a 33mp camera that doesn't require batteries.
The XA is not perfect, but IMO it's the best desktop 35mm scanner available new. It scans full rolls, has autofocus, works well with Vuescan, and produces marvelous files that are on par with the Coolscan V I used to own.
Digital images don't last. You'll shoot a lot more but might not find that you have more keepers. Film is beautiful, archival (digital images are not archival at all no matter what anyone tells you), and the limits that film imposes generally are those that go to improve one's technique.
Your Leica is now a 33mp camera that doesn't require batteries.
The XA is not perfect, but IMO it's the best desktop 35mm scanner available new. It scans full rolls, has autofocus, works well with Vuescan, and produces marvelous files that are on par with the Coolscan V I used to own.
Digital images don't last. You'll shoot a lot more but might not find that you have more keepers. Film is beautiful, archival (digital images are not archival at all no matter what anyone tells you), and the limits that film imposes generally are those that go to improve one's technique.
GoodPhotos
Carpe lumen!
I've owned a lot of Leicas in my time and have sold them all. The only one I regret selling is the IIIf and that is because I mostly gave it (and several awesome LTM lenses) away because it was all only sitting on a shelf unused.
If I had kept those lenses they'd be PERFECT on my Fuji bodies now!
I have both X-E bodies and while both have excellent image quality, the X-E2 is far more responsive to my way of shooting. If Fuji makes an X-E3 with a flip LCD, I'll sell the Fujis I have now, get three of the new X-E3 bodies and it will be a very long time before I buy another body.
I don't know how easy it is to purchase, shoot, process film in Russia, but here it is annoyingly slow and costly. For me and my needs, film is dead. I'D sell your film body and pick up an X-E2 (or even an X-E1 if you aren't shooting action) and maybe a Fuji lens or two. If you can't swing the lenses right now, use the ones you have with an affordable M>XF adapter until you can.
If I had kept those lenses they'd be PERFECT on my Fuji bodies now!
I have both X-E bodies and while both have excellent image quality, the X-E2 is far more responsive to my way of shooting. If Fuji makes an X-E3 with a flip LCD, I'll sell the Fujis I have now, get three of the new X-E3 bodies and it will be a very long time before I buy another body.
I don't know how easy it is to purchase, shoot, process film in Russia, but here it is annoyingly slow and costly. For me and my needs, film is dead. I'D sell your film body and pick up an X-E2 (or even an X-E1 if you aren't shooting action) and maybe a Fuji lens or two. If you can't swing the lenses right now, use the ones you have with an affordable M>XF adapter until you can.
GoodPhotos
Carpe lumen!
Don't discount your X-20 either! It is capable of 'leaf shutter style' flash synch for daylight portraiture and at the lower ISOs produces really nice images!
Huss
Mentor
Hmm. You are in the USA. It's about a week -10 day turnaround at most mail in labs. Decent dev/scan can be about $10-$12 a roll.
It's a screaming deal seeing you get a fresh new sensor for every shot you take.
I guess it depends if you need the instant gratification. Or are a pro that needs to deliver results right now.
But the scans are complete crap...
willie_901
Mentor
Screams of fear and loathing
Screams of fear and loathing
People enjoy using film cameras. People prefer the aesthetics of film photographs. Obviously film is a viable option.
But the new "sensor for every shot" at 33 cents per frame or less is an incomplete description. Besides lab development and scanning costs. The film isn't free. The total cost per month can be high.
There's something to be said for being more purposeful when we press the shutter. It is too easy to make a lot photos with digital media. At the same time there's nothing whatsoever (except self-discipline) stopping anyone from using a digital camera exactly as they would use a film camera. So how many rolls a month would an serious amateur photographer shoot?
And I agree with JS... at $10-$12 per roll the scans are proofs at best. The good news is most of the time there's only 2-3 frames per roll worth re-scanning properly. So post-production workload rarely involves 36 careful scans and post-production renderings per roll. You still have to own an above average computer system and the same software you would use with a 100% digital workflow. These are not free either.
A pure analog workflow requires no involvement with the digital world. Wet chemistry equipment is extremely inexpensive too. Here the cost per frame is very low... even for color work.
Screams of fear and loathing
People enjoy using film cameras. People prefer the aesthetics of film photographs. Obviously film is a viable option.
But the new "sensor for every shot" at 33 cents per frame or less is an incomplete description. Besides lab development and scanning costs. The film isn't free. The total cost per month can be high.
There's something to be said for being more purposeful when we press the shutter. It is too easy to make a lot photos with digital media. At the same time there's nothing whatsoever (except self-discipline) stopping anyone from using a digital camera exactly as they would use a film camera. So how many rolls a month would an serious amateur photographer shoot?
And I agree with JS... at $10-$12 per roll the scans are proofs at best. The good news is most of the time there's only 2-3 frames per roll worth re-scanning properly. So post-production workload rarely involves 36 careful scans and post-production renderings per roll. You still have to own an above average computer system and the same software you would use with a 100% digital workflow. These are not free either.
A pure analog workflow requires no involvement with the digital world. Wet chemistry equipment is extremely inexpensive too. Here the cost per frame is very low... even for color work.