Out to Lunch
Menteur
Sure thing, as long as you accept the numerous foibles that come with that camera which is basically Leica's rangefinder copy of a mirrorless camera without the specs and advantages the latter has on offer...for much less money. Cheers, OtL
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
LOL. Talk about damning with faint praise. Ok. So I accept the numerous foibles. Now what? Nothing to do but take more pictures, I guess. Look, I understand that a different guy might have just thrown the camera out as "ruined" and spent the money instead going in a different direction.
What would be your recommendation?
Edt: or put another way, what's the latest and greatest thinking on what to do with a decent selection of Leica glass in terms of an off-brand mirrorless host?
Richard G
Mentor
This thread very interesting including for that pure gold reminder from Brian re the compressed DNG. I could never get night shots as good as Icebear. Now I know why.
I guess I’ve been spoilt by Leica lenses. But to me it’s all about the body and the controls. Of all my lenses the loss of the Zeiss 50 C Sonnar and the Zeiss C Biogon 21 f4.5 would hurt the most. A whole new system, like Fuji X-Pro which I seriously considered in 2012, entailed a huge cost in mastering a new system, and although there were only two lenses then, the inevitable drip of new lenses I ought to get would add to the cost in dollars. I bought the M9-P that year and still use that as my main camera, two free sensor replacements later. It’s paid for itself in film not bought. That camera was enough of a miracle for me not to have needed to upgrade.
.
I guess I’ve been spoilt by Leica lenses. But to me it’s all about the body and the controls. Of all my lenses the loss of the Zeiss 50 C Sonnar and the Zeiss C Biogon 21 f4.5 would hurt the most. A whole new system, like Fuji X-Pro which I seriously considered in 2012, entailed a huge cost in mastering a new system, and although there were only two lenses then, the inevitable drip of new lenses I ought to get would add to the cost in dollars. I bought the M9-P that year and still use that as my main camera, two free sensor replacements later. It’s paid for itself in film not bought. That camera was enough of a miracle for me not to have needed to upgrade.
.
Richard G
Mentor
At this point in camera development we don’t need the latest model, even considering the flaws of the M9 which to me has only one major flaw and that is you can’t check focus on the inferior LCD. Lately I’m rarely shooting wider than f2.8. And if we were forced to change to Sony, Nikon or Pentax etc everyone here would manage just fine. It’s like modern cars. They’re all so much safer than thirty years ago, all more comfortable and reliable etc.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I have the Fuji XPro1 and I have used Leica lenses on it and also several Olympus bodies. But in general, I find it much easier to to use the Leica lenses on a Leica body, and the Fuji lenses on the Fuji and micro 4/3 etc. etc.. You can use the Leica lenses, but I find the process is fiddly and slow. Also, I am not nuts about a crop-factor. I have thought about a Sony, and am always susceptible to Nikon's offerings, including the M8 and M9. I like the wides, though, and haven't really heard of anyone getting great results out of the camera with, say a 21/2.8 wide open.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Leica SL2S. I'll come with the M adaptor. A beautiful camera with a big and bright viewfinder that will outspec the the M11.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
This thread is fascinating to me and reminds me first why I went with the M 240 instead of the M9 when I bought my Leica.
But really, if/when that 240 were to die (essentially something uneconomical to repair happened) I'd be inclined these days to use that as the final excuse to get an FX Nikon Z camera and FTZ & MTZ adapters even before getting any native Z lenses.
That said, I'd rather stick to my svelte Leica and my big Dragoon D810 for as long as possible
But really, if/when that 240 were to die (essentially something uneconomical to repair happened) I'd be inclined these days to use that as the final excuse to get an FX Nikon Z camera and FTZ & MTZ adapters even before getting any native Z lenses.
That said, I'd rather stick to my svelte Leica and my big Dragoon D810 for as long as possible
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I have an M10, I went back to the M camera because nothing else works good with M lenses. Well, the Epson does I suppose. My question to you is what does the M11 offer that the M10R doesn't? It's available used and should fill your needs for quite some time.
cboy
Well-known
Is there a third party that does senor replacements for any superseded models? This thread I'm reminded of the shelf life of Leica digitals vs film m which can be serviced so long as there's film technicians. Once Leica doesn't have more serviceable parts that can be swapped out then cherished Leicas become a brick once they clonk out...unless one goes on the upgrade bandwagon. Sad to see Leicas become replaceable as the ubiquitous phone.
Freakscene
Obscure member
No, third party operators are replacing the sensor covers only. The sensor can be replaced but they are not made anymore, so you need a working M9 to provide a sensor to fix an M9. And replacing a sensor is a lot of work.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Steve: That's a good question and I don't have a really good answer. The incremental extra resolution probably doesn't matter to me as much as low light performance. But then again, I have apparently been using my M9 in the worst mode for that (lossy compression), so what do I know?
Used M10R prices seem more or less the same as the M11 at this point. If I can get another three or four years out of the M9, perhaps those used prices will ooch down out of the stratosphere and I will make the judgment then.Oh, that's drool-worthy to be sure. One thing not addressed in this thread (b/c really germane to my decision to repair the M9) is that I already have a Nikon D3, with a lot of AIS lenses, a Pentax K-1 with a lot of SMC-A lenses, and an OM-D whatevertheheck with a good selection of micro 4/3 lenses. I am pretty sure my jump to FF mirrorless is going to be Nikon-based at this point, although I am open to arguments why sticking with Leica makes more sense. For instance, it sounds like Leica has the coding worked out for use of their M lenses (even the wides) on the mirrorless body. That's definitely something to consider. I also have the core of my favorite focal lengths in R-glass, so maybe that will figure into the decision as well. All of that is in the future, however.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
The M10 has "only" 24mp and thus should be better at low light. I'd like to give you a report on that but I just haven't taken any low light shots since getting the camera.Steve: That's a good question and I don't have a really good answer. The incremental extra resolution probably doesn't matter to me as much as low light performance. But then again, I have apparently been using my M9 in the worst mode for that (lossy compression), so what do I know?
Oh, that's drool-worthy to be sure. One thing not addressed in this thread (b/c really germane to my decision to repair the M9) is that I already have a Nikon D3, with a lot of AIS lenses, a Pentax K-1 with a lot of SMC-A lenses, and an OM-D whatevertheheck with a good selection of micro 4/3 lenses. I am pretty sure my jump to FF mirrorless is going to be Nikon-based at this point, although I am open to arguments why sticking with Leica makes more sense. For instance, it sounds like Leica has the coding worked out for use of their M lenses (even the wides) on the mirrorless body. That's definitely something to consider. I also have the core of my favorite focal lengths in R-glass, so maybe that will figure into the decision as well. All of that is in the future, however.