Why did you decide to buy a digital Leica M.

[Dervla]

I do both... film & digi
but as of Late digi is becoming more the way for Me to create
understanding it's uses and 'look' to fit my way of 'seeing'

I have crossed over to the darker side... giggles

Dear Helen,

It is so nice to see the posts by you.

Sincerely,
Dervla/Thomas

 

[muser53]

Why a digital M? For me it was a simple decision. I've used Leica's since my dad gifted me his well used 111F sometime around
1965. Over the years I've acquired a few M bodies and many lenses and they have become an extension of how I see the world. When a very lightly used M10 became available last month it was a no brainer. Gear wise I am especially happy my (Canadian) 35 pre-asph Summilux fits the camera as well as my well used 35 2.8 Summaron.
Without getting into the (boring) debate about the pros and cons of digital vs film I will say the one thing I enjoy about digital is the ability
to see your images when you return home from a day of shooting. As I typically don't make a lot of images on any given day I appreciate not having to wait until I shoot out a roll of 36 exposures.

 

[jsrockit]

Sometimes, as a RFF user, you just need to use a rangefinder... even if they aren't best suited to your photography. I just like them. The M240 with the CV 50mm 3.5 has been very fun to use. I prefer digital to film.

 

[d_c]

The 1972 Summilux 35mm I bought in 2011(?) or so had already been modified for use on the digital bodies. I had it CLA'ed and further modified so that it now has the correct six bit code and mates up with the digital Ms' EXIF and such automatically. It's worth doing that ... and definitely one of my favorite lenses.

G

I found the digital sensor in my M262 to be quite unforgiving about any collimation errors in my old lenses, so IMHO it's definitely worth getting your lenses serviced and the collimation checked, at which point they can also be upgraded to a 6-bit mount.

 

[Godfrey]

I found the digital sensor in my M262 to be quite unforgiving about any collimation errors in my old lenses, so IMHO it's definitely worth getting your lenses serviced and the collimation checked, at which point they can also be upgraded to a 6-bit mount.

Collimation in a Leica M body is the alignment of the RF optical patch between the stationary and moving components in the viewfinder, and has nothing to do with a lens's RF calibration. Two of my bodies, the M4-2 and M10-R ... both bought used, have had both collimation errors and distance calibration errors which require a service to correct.

I have used the same set of lenses, including the 'Lux 35, on M9, M-P240, M-D262, and M10-M. RF distance calibration is the first thing I check whenever I buy a body or a lens. The RF distance calibration in the body is a separate thing from the RF calibration of the lens, which has to do with the positioning of the RF actuating cam in the lens rather than the calibration of the RF mechanism's moving mirror in the body. None of my lenses have shown any RF calibration errors.

G

 

[d_c]

Collimation in a Leica M body is the alignment of the RF optical patch between the stationary and moving components in the viewfinder, and has nothing to do with a lens's RF calibration. Two of my bodies, the M4-2 and M10-R ... both bought used, have had both collimation errors and distance calibration errors which require a service to correct.

I have used the same set of lenses, including the 'Lux 35, on M9, M-P240, M-D262, and M10-M. RF distance calibration is the first thing I check whenever I buy a body or a lens. The RF distance calibration in the body is a separate thing from the RF calibration of the lens, which has to do with the positioning of the RF actuating cam in the lens rather than the calibration of the RF mechanism's moving mirror in the body. None of my lenses have shown any RF calibration errors.

G

I appreciate the distinction, but collimation of lenses is also a thing, i.e. ensuring that a lens which is scale focussed to infinity, and which shows in a properly calibrated rangefinder as being set to focus at infinity, will correctly image something at infinity on the sensor plane.

A number of my older lenses showed some degree of focussing error with my digital body that wasn't down to the calibration of the rangefinder in the camera, but was instead due to back focussing issues. I even had one lens returned from Wetzlar which still didn't correctly image a point source when both rangefinder and lens scale said the lens was correctly focussed at infinity. Our local Leica store replicated the issue on a new camera, by comparison to a couple of new lenses, and so the lens was returned to Germany for the issue to be resolved.

 

[Godfrey]

Collimation in terms of a lens means aligning the optical centers of the lens elements, not adjustment of the rangefinder-focusing mount cam.

As I said, none of my lenses have shown any mis-adjustment of the rangefinder cam requiring re-calibration, even back to my oldest (a 1960 Hektor 135/4.5). I think you would find such mis-adjustments primarily on lenses that have been disassembled and reassembled for service somewhat sloppily in the past, since Leica would not ship a new lens with such a mis-adjustments except in the rare instance of a defect in quality control. (I suspect most instances of de-collimated lenses are due to similar sloppy re-assembly...)

Whatever. If you find a lot of your older lenses have such issues, then it's wise that you have them properly checked and adjusted on an optical bench. I have not found any such issues with my lenses, only rangefinder/viewfinder collimation and rangefinder distance calibration, and those only on two bodies out of all the Ms I've owned.

G

 

[IanForber]

I bought a digital Leica because I always wanted a Leica. I was saving for an M7 but in a moment of madness decided to get a Mamiya 7 instead. Then I went over to digital with Nikon and Olympus. When I tired of their complicated menus, I came back to Leica. Why digital? Partly because of ease of use given that I already had the software etc, partly because film Leicas are so popular with the young ‘hipster’ crowd that I didn’t want to look like I was trying too hard to be trendy.

 

[robert blu]

Today I went through this many years old thread and realized I never answered the question!

The main reason for which I bought my M10 is I wanted a digital camera very similar to my M7 in use, size, controls. And of course where to use my M lenses, Leica or CV.

A few years ago I was in Wetzlar and when I had the M10 in my hands I realized it was the camera I was looking for. My wife asked me if I was sure and to my affirmative answer she said then go for it, now.

Years later I'm still very satisfied and have no plan to upgrade to any other digital.
I still use the M7 for specific project which I want to develop on film. Sometimes film, sometimes digital, life is nice

 

[Whitten]

I used an M6 (film) for many years. I prefer to focus with rangefinder, even more than auto focus. I like the size factor, both body and lens.
If a company brought out a digital rangefinder with full frame sensor (at least 24mp) I would consider it over Leica as Leicas are very expensive.
I currently own an M240, which I was lucky to get at a lower price.

 

[LCT]

Why did you buy a digital Leica M (M8, M9, ...)?

Too boring an answer to interest anybody i fear but i bought digital Ms because they were and still are the best digital cameras for M lenses.