Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

  • Total voters
    610
Cost / depreciation and resale value / sensor tech evolving very quickly.

I'll be using an a7S until it falls apart. Hoping Sony makes a FF rangefinder style body at some point. More than likely I'll never buy a Digital M. Even if I hit the lottery tomorrow, it just wouldn't make sense to me.
 
telenous said:
Asking from a position of near ignorance (my only digital cameras are very old Canon DSLRs): if you have a slew of Leica lenses, isn't it better to get a Leica M digital body? Am I wrong to think that Sony A7x cameras do not always work well with lenses of other systems (esp. wide angles)?
Click to expand...


I find the Sony bodies work very well .
The widest I shoot is a 28 Summicron ASPH and don`t see any issues.

I also use it as a second body to my Canon DSLR with Canon 85/1.2 ,70-200/2.8, 35/1.4 .

It does vignette with my Pentax 50/1.2 but overall much more versatile than an M body would be and I prefer focus peaking to the RF .

I like my manual lenses but these days prefer using AF so sinking the extra into a Leica digital for what ? just doesn`t make sense .
I still use Film Leicas 1955 M3DS , 1960 M2 and 1969 BPM4 but there are better cheaper digital options for me is what I`m saying .
 
Friends of mine have digital Leicas. Very nice cameras, but are overpriced and don't have nearly the capability of a good number of other digital cameras. A friend's experience having his M9 sensor corrode and Leica's poor customer service sealed the deal for me in not ever planning on getting one.
 
Michael Markey said:
I find the Sony bodies work very well .
The widest I shoot is a 28 Summicron ASPH and don`t see any issues.

I also use it as a second body to my Canon DSLR with Canon 85/1.2 ,70-200/2.8, 35/1.4 .

It does vignette with my Pentax 50/1.2 but overall much more versatile than an M body would be and I prefer focus peaking to the RF .

I like my manual lenses but these days prefer using AF so sinking the extra into a Leica digital for what ? just doesn`t make sense .
I still use Film Leicas 1955 M3DS , 1960 M2 and 1969 BPM4 but there are better cheaper digital options for me is what I`m saying .
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed reply, Michael. I've read about Sony A7 sensors smearing detail in the borders when in use with non-native wide-angles. Your experience puts all that in perspective. A friend handed me briefly his A7 and I found focus peaking revelatory. My eyesight has recently, and quite abruptly, deteriorated in the near range so I can appreciate whatever focus assistance there is.
 
Hi Alkis.

The sort of problems reported with smearing ect may be there on wider lenses indeed if you look closely they may possibly be there with my 28 but I don`t scrutinise my pictures that way or that closely.

It`s not an exercise in perfection for me just getting the shot and hopefully a reasonable composition.

I`ve used an A7S and A7R2 with Contax/Yashica lenses and the A7R2 currently has a 1940 35 Elmar on the front using a Voitlander close focus adapter.
 
By and large, I am the same. Not going to pixel peep to find what is not obvious, no point to, at least with my photos. Thanks again for taking the time to give me your thoughts.
 
Didn't buy a digital Leica because I'm saving money for the apex of Leica cameras: M6 Royal Danish Wedding.

Not really.

So, to me a digital Leica is a big yawn. For the Leica experience I have film Leicas. If I want or need to use digital equipment, I'll use my X-Pro1 or D700.

narsuitus said:
UPDATE:
...
However, I recently decided to buy a Leica M10 digital camera to use with my Leica M6 film camera.
...
Click to expand...

Interesting that the M10 is larger. Because of battery?
 
There were reports of problems w/ some of the early Leica full-frame digital cameras, which didn't seem right for a camera that cost so much. But it sounds like the M240 has been much more reliable. Still, $6000 is and was too much to plop down on a digital camera, for me at least.

But $4000? For a new M240, weather sealed, and with a warranty? And no features that I don't want? Hmmmm. Also, I'm paying $20/roll locally for prints and scans of C41 film. I've got a bunch of newish and oldish (mainly oldish) M- and LTM-mount lenses, and I like being able to shoot them on a digital camera w/out having to deal w/ a crop factor; although I bought into the m4/3ds system some years ago, I found myself using native rather than legacy lenses with the system. Soooo.....

So, when Leica announced the new M-E type 240, I ordered one, and it arrived a couple of weeks ago. A nice, solid camera, beautiful vf, and I can shoot it just like my other M bodies (i.e., no auto anything). Still getting the feel of the camera but early results are very promising. I can see pairing the M-E 240 with my IIIc (loaded with bw) for a two-body travel kit with the ability to exchange lenses back and forth. So having now bought a digital Leica, I guess this post is Off Topic... LOL!!
 
For me, digital Leicas are simply too expensive for what they are unlike their older film cameras (I have an early M4 and 5cm DR lens). I would love to experience shooting with the M10 line but, as an amateur, I cannot justify the cost of Leica's digital bodies. I will continue to make do with Fuji and Nikon for my digital experience.
 
I am primarily a film shooter but the M8.2 comes in handy in low light. I don’t like the look of pushed b/w film and 1600iso after b/w conversion still looks pretty good. Someday when I go digital it will be with a Leica rangefinder preferably a later generation monochrom. Cost of entry will be high but if I can amortise it with 10 years of use then it’ll be worth it. My M8.2 is still going strong.
 
I have two Ms: M5 and M6TTL Millennium - with three lenses 50mm Summicron and 50mm Elmar M and 35mm Millennium. Right now these aren’t getting a lot of use as I can’t process my own films and I find outsourcing developing and scanning negs in the UK unreliable and expensive. So it’s digital with an X-Pro3, three lenses and Acros, which I like using a lot.

The only Leica digital I have ever considered is a Monochrom. Over the years I’ve handled them and toyed with the idea of purchase, coming close at times to closing a deal.

Yes, I’m fortunate that I could afford one but, frankly, I just can’t justify the cost in comparison of how much I would use one.

Though. Though… maybe if I sold all of my digital gear and Leica film bodies I would be forced to use a Monochrom…

There is nothing at all rational about any of this, but I dream. :rolleyes:
 
I don't know why I could justify spending an equivalent amount on my wife's new sewing machine, but a digital Leica just never really appealed to me. My Sony's (A7ii and iii) do all and more than I want to do. I can still use my Summilux on them too and get that true focal length experience.
 
I have an M9. That cured me of any desire to own another digital M, except maybe a Monochrom, and they are too expensive. The value for money ratio was too low for me. For the limited amount of digital that I shoot, I'll stick with my D4 and Olympus M43 cameras. I still shoot my MP and M3 all the time and love them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top