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
The new M11 sensor is only thing thats inticing about the new M. But previous iterations are more than capable to 98% of most applications. The upgrade is required for prosumers wanting flexible or larger prints; or more convient color grading. All FF sensors nowadays can can produce enough detail and latitude to make images look like each other in terms of colour

​​https://youtu.be/dSweJpr2Lbc
 
Once I had an M9....
When I bought a little Fuji set for travelling (X-E2s + 18-55) in 2016, I suddenly experienced how pleasant and easy and almost flawless a rangefinder-like digital camera can be, compared to the M9.
I sold the M9 and never looked back. While I love film Leicas, and own and use an MP and an M3, I´m lost for the Leica digital world. For me the Leica company took the wrong turn by establishing the boutique style with fast increasing prices and upper class marketing aesthetics. Besides, I´m not willing to lose approximately 1000 Euros per year in camera value.
 
Firstly, I enjoy using my film cameras; secondly, I collect good quality film cameras; thirdly, my film cameras give me what I want.

To me, battery controlled cameras will never supplant fully mechanical.
 
Last edited:
I have had THREE out of FOUR Nikon Digital cameras fail on me.
None of my two leicas, three Hasselblads, four Rolleiflex TLR or two folding cameras HAVE EVER FAILED ME.
Wild horses could not persuade me to buy any fancy expensive ELECTRONIC camera, they simply will not last. And with Leica spitting out new models like a rabbit on heat, the spares become fewer and fewer. My Nikon 35TI shutter failed with less than five rolls through it, three years after they had stopped production, I could not get a replacement, ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC. When the last nikon DIES and it will, I will go Canon.
 
I was thinking of buying a digital M because I have two M mount lenses that I only occasionally use on a Bessa R2 film body. That is fun to do sometimes and it makes me think less when I am using it. I really love making photos of my son with that set-up. However, I have a lot of other digital cameras that I would turn to before a digital M. Couple that with current Leica digital M prices and I could not bring myself to do it. Instead, I bought the Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 Fuji X lens and put that on my Fuji rangefinder shaped cameras (using focus peaking). I honestly really like this set-up and I am no longer thinking of a digital M.
 
A digital M Leica is not a M Leica at all...Only the mechanical M camera's are M Leica's. For trips I do use the Leica M4(P) with B&W films.
As a digital backup I do use the Huawei P 30 Pro with Leica Quad lens. You can make excellent digital images with this smartphone.
I don't see much difference in quality compared to digital M cameras. The wide angle setting on this smartphone have a high image quality.
For B&W film the M Leica is still a champion. A real Leica!!
 
The main reasons are that I do not take enough photos to justify the purchase of such a fast-depreciating asset and I lack confidence in digital storage systems (hard drives fail) and cloud services can cost real money over time. And all digital cameras eventually become junk, unlike the film cameras that still can be repaired/serviced.
 
Very simple, Lack of long-term support and parts. Screw mount Leicas and M-Mount analogue Leicas can well go into the XXIInd Century, working and shooting. Electronics don't. And electronics can't be replicated if it is not by thousands (uneconomic).
 
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...
Well time passes and my Sony bodies are gone leaving me shooting digital Leica again. I do miss their fast AF though especially when doing equestrian work. The SL2s is very slow in that regard .
 
I never considered buying a digital Leica. Digital cameras are "disposable cameras". They cannot be repaired. In addition, digitally printed photos cannot be stored for a long time. Digital photography is a throwaway medium.

Digital photo archives are chaotic. Analog photo archives are, by their very nature, chronological.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I never considered buying a digital Leica. Digital cameras are "disposable cameras". They cannot be repaired. In addition, digitally printed photos cannot be stored for a long time. Digital photography is a throwaway medium.

Digital photo archives are chaotic. Analog photo archives are, by their very nature, chronological.
Click to expand...

Digital photo archives are orders of magnitude quicker/easier to sort/retrieve than film. Digital files are more chronological than film. Film gives you chronological order for the roll, but there is nothing built in to be chronologic for multiple rolls. You have to do that yourself lettering your rolls. Ditto for date unless you are imprinting your images.

On the flip side every digital file is stored with an ascending sequential number, the time of capture and the date of capture and sometimes the location of capture and it also stores all the shooting parameters automatically. Camera, lens, aperture, focal length, shutter speed, ISO and more. Filles can be retrieved based on any combination of that information, by keywords entered when imported, by rating, sometimes by face...etc...etc.

Film doesn't hold a candle to the cataloging abilities of digital.
 
I’ve not had a digital M since my M9/M9m combo. I keep thinking about an M11 - I presume they’ve resolved the reliability issues now. However, I’ve not yet managed to persuade myself to spend the money.

Pros:
- I could use my M lenses reliably on a direct digital recorder
- I would have my preferred viewfinder available with direct digital recording
- colour would be easier
- digital is faster to get to print than film
- the size is right

Negatives:
- £8,000!!!! I could buy a GFX 100S and a pair of native lenses…
- then there’s the cost of a grip etc etc
- I’m not quite convinced that a rangefinder is optimal for focusing 60Mp, certainly compared to a good evf
- I have a Panasonic S1r and a nice set of of Zeiss ZF glass - bigger but works
- I don’t want to put my MAs away

I haven’t mentioned obsolescence. In my view sensor tech is there already. There haven’t been any game changing improvements in the 5 years, since 2019 certainly. At 60Mp on 36x24, there isn’t very much to be gained in my photography, given I generally prefer manual focus and am not addicted to wide apertures, by increasing resolution further. It’s likely more oversampling. For wide aperture photography, the M mount and sensible m sized lenses cannot deliver the same image quality as big lenses on a wide mirrorless mount - again system cost and performance don’t really add up.

All that said, 35mm rf’s are my favourite cameras and so, I waver but still haven’t pulled the trigger.

Mike
 
shawn said:
Film gives you chronological order for the roll, but there is nothing built in to be chronologic for multiple rolls.
Click to expand...
There is no need for that. Negatives are kept in albums. This way, the photos will automatically appear in chronological order. All you have to do is provide the prints with the page number of your negative albums to find them quickly. The numbers of digital photos are desperate. The chaos is already created before they are stored. And I'm not even talking about "new systems" that make the old systems obsolete. You'll need a computer to find your way around, but new computers will come out all the time. One day, computers will come along that no longer know their way around in your storage systems. Goodbye photo's!
 
Fire can do the same thing to prints and negs.

Glass negatives can break.

Nothing is permanent.

So? We make our art no matter what.
 
Erik van Straten said:
There is no need for that. Negatives are kept in albums. This way, the photos will automatically appear in chronological order. All you have to do is provide the prints with the page number of your negative albums to find them quickly. The numbers of digital photos are desperate. The chaos is already created before they are stored. And I'm not even talking about "new systems" that make the old systems obsolete. You'll need a computer to find your way around, but new computers will come out all the time. One day, computers will come along that no longer know their way around in your storage systems. Goodbye photo's!
Click to expand...
I use to shoot weddings on film. Nothing is automatic. Shoot 20 rolls... which came first? Nothing in film tells you that, the photographer has to letter the rolls to keep them in order. Then take the letters and the frame number to number the prints. It is very time consuming, even more so if you want to keep shooting info.

All happens instantly and automatically with digital and is embedded in the files.

There is simply no comparison between catalogings between film and digital.

As for preservation it is trivially easy to make exact duplicates of my photo for safekeeping at another location. How many copy negatives do you have stored offsite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top