jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, I rather dislike the Sony NEX 7 I have as a backup...Both the interface /ergonomics and the files. And the fact that that the rubber peels off.
All digital M I bought have been quite solid performers. I only had a sensor break down on my M9 and Leica gave me a loaner for the time it took to repair. For the rest about 150.000 nearly troublefree shots so far.
Billydoo
Newbie
I shoot semi-pro on the side and found I rarely left the house with a camera except for my iPhone.
The D800 and D3 with pro glass are just too big to toss in a bag.
I never go anywhere without my M8 and M3. Plus, the glass is just AWESOME.
The D800 and D3 with pro glass are just too big to toss in a bag.
I never go anywhere without my M8 and M3. Plus, the glass is just AWESOME.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I've shot 16 rolls over the past couple of weeks. Getting perilously close to buying a scanner again.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program...
rscheffler
Well-known
Long time Canon shooter. Never really considered Leica seriously. The M8 seemed like too much of a technological blunder, with the various problems. By the time the M9 came around, my thinking changed somewhat. I was growing tired of big DSLRs and wasn't all that enamored with manual focusing the Canons and didn't like the so-so quality of the wide angle lenses. So I started keeping tabs on the M9, wondering if it could work for me. At the end of 2010 I stumbled across a used one at a reasonable price, at a time when it was still very difficult to get a new one, and took the plunge, with some apprehension. To ease the cost of entry, I started with a few ZM lenses.
Prior to this, my previous M experience was a short-lived ownership of an M3 in the early 90s. I simply didn't gel with the rangefinder experience back then. But for some reason the M9 was different. Perhaps ~20 years of perspective, or something about my expectations had changed, but it being digital also made the learning curve easier. I stuck with it, learned its strengths, weaknesses and quirks, and it grew on me. Eventually I acquired a Leica lens, then a few more.
I figured out how to meld the M9 with my Canon kit and often used them together during jobs. I was pretty happy with the M9's output, but not as much with some of its usability. The M240 acquired earlier this year addressed most of these concerns and I'm much happier with the overall performance of the system. Both on its own and when used with my Canon kit.
In hindsight, I'm glad I took the chance on the M9 and that it occurred a couple years before mirrorless really started to take off. If I was in that situation now, I'd probably be looking at something from Sony or Fuji and spending a lot of money, yet still having some doubts. While they are certainly good and capable, there is something about the absolute simplicity and directness of control of the Leica M that doesn't exist anywhere else. I find this a great complement to my Canon gear, as weird as it might sound, because it's about as far away from a 'digital experience' one can have while still shooting digital.
Prior to this, my previous M experience was a short-lived ownership of an M3 in the early 90s. I simply didn't gel with the rangefinder experience back then. But for some reason the M9 was different. Perhaps ~20 years of perspective, or something about my expectations had changed, but it being digital also made the learning curve easier. I stuck with it, learned its strengths, weaknesses and quirks, and it grew on me. Eventually I acquired a Leica lens, then a few more.
I figured out how to meld the M9 with my Canon kit and often used them together during jobs. I was pretty happy with the M9's output, but not as much with some of its usability. The M240 acquired earlier this year addressed most of these concerns and I'm much happier with the overall performance of the system. Both on its own and when used with my Canon kit.
In hindsight, I'm glad I took the chance on the M9 and that it occurred a couple years before mirrorless really started to take off. If I was in that situation now, I'd probably be looking at something from Sony or Fuji and spending a lot of money, yet still having some doubts. While they are certainly good and capable, there is something about the absolute simplicity and directness of control of the Leica M that doesn't exist anywhere else. I find this a great complement to my Canon gear, as weird as it might sound, because it's about as far away from a 'digital experience' one can have while still shooting digital.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
I often wish the digital revolution had not happened.
I was really happy with my M6 cameras and shooting film.
As other digital systems gained momentum, I was for years tormented - looking for a Leica alternative - with similar quality primes and compact size.
Eventually i gave in , near the end of the M9 production , accepting as fact there was no viable alternative and the cost had to be borne.
Now that the pressure of fast and volume results is handled by digital, I'm now finding space to shoot film Ms again and really liking the mix of M9,MM and film.
I was really happy with my M6 cameras and shooting film.
As other digital systems gained momentum, I was for years tormented - looking for a Leica alternative - with similar quality primes and compact size.
Eventually i gave in , near the end of the M9 production , accepting as fact there was no viable alternative and the cost had to be borne.
Now that the pressure of fast and volume results is handled by digital, I'm now finding space to shoot film Ms again and really liking the mix of M9,MM and film.
Lss
Well-known
There is a lot of distrust in digital Leicas in general, and M8 often gets particularly many complaints. Some early adopters have the right to complain about the IR issue that made it to the market without a solution. The solution however has been out there for years, it is simple, it is fairly convenient, and it is effective. There is also the coffee stain issue, which is only cosmetic. (Important for some people, but it is still worth highlighting that it is cosmetic and not a functional issue.)
The M8, of course, is somewhat of a half-way product with its small sensor and rather unpolished yet fortunately dead simple UI approach that relies a bit too much on the LCD screen. The sensor size is a real usability and quality issue that can only partially be solved by spending M9 money on additional lenses. The UI thing is a very minor issue, it is basically about needing the menu for ISO selection. However, it is a telling sign that the designers were not quite ready for prime time. Also, having no manual lens selection is a dumb move.
Regardless, the M8 remains a surprisingly relevant product as we are heading for the year 2015. I use mine alongside the Sony RX1R, which (although also not the latest and greatest anymore) currently provides the best imaging quality available to average consumers. This is obviously within the limits of a fixed 35-mm lens. I put the files from these cameras side by side all the time. There is no question the Sony provides better quality, but the small-frame Leica from the previous decade is comparable for most uses. And in terms of use, the M8 is significantly better. A technological blunder? Hardly. Using the product has proven it delivers.
ChrisN
Striving
Richard's answer rings a bell with me. I loved making photos with the M4 and the couple of lenses I have. I do enjoy the simplicity of my M cameras and the fact that I don't have to think about the camera, just the image I'm trying to capture. Only a full-frame digital M would let me do that. I wasn't interested at all in the M8. I've had the M9-P now for about 2 1/2 years with no problems. It was a once-in-a-lifetime purchase for me; a retirement present to myself; a gamble. So far it's paid off. If the camera dies I'll probably buy a Sony A7 of some sort to use with the M lenses, but I'd end up buying Sony lenses for the autofocus.
Raid's comment is very true too, but I only learned that after I'd used the camera for a while. The DNG's can often be converted to make wonderful B&W images too.
EDIT: Merry Christmas you lot!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
You're obviously fairly heavily invested in the digital M system jaapv but for someone like me on the other side of the world a failed 240 is going to mean some time without my camera I suspect so I have my fingers crossed!
By my observations you're not a working photographer so why did they offer this service ... from memory you are a (dare I say it) ... 'dentist!'
oltimer
Well-known
Kieth, I can tell you my Dentist is very busy with his camera. He is in the teeth realignment and heavy into transplants. He does shoot more now in 1 week than most very busy photographers. In fact his Canon system gave him problems, and they gave him a loaner while his was repaired. I would say in the type of work he does as a Dentist; is very professional from documenting the steps they have to take. When we go Steelhead fishing; he does not even want the camera around as he says; I want a break from it.You're obviously fairly heavily invested in the digital M system jaapv but for someone like me on the other side of the world a failed 240 is going to mean some time without my camera I suspect so I have my fingers crossed!
By my observations you're not a working photographer so why did they offer this service ... from memory you are a (dare I say it) ... 'dentist!'
x-ray
Mentor
I'm not familiar with the Sony and have never seen one in the flesh. The only knowledge I have is a long time friend that's a retired pro. He has a Sony A7? And absolutely loves it. Love and hate relationships depend on ones expectations and experiences I guess but in any case he's illustrating several books he's written with it and his results are superb.
I'm afraid i was spoiled using M bodies for decades. When I used them heavily in my work I was shooting thousands of frames a month and the only problems I encountered in the 60's through the 90's was a broken self timer spring on a very early M3 and the RF aligned on one of my M:'s and one of my M2's. Not a bad record for that kind of use. I'd put the M film bodies and F2 Nikon at the top of the list as to most reliable 35's ever.
This is another thread but I'm sad to say I didn't have the same reliabity with my M9 and didn't receive the same customer service even after explaining I'm a full time working pro and have used their products since 68. Simply put my camera was in the shop along with lenses on a couple of occasions for 27 weeks during the approximate year and a half I had it.
Factors important to me, broad dynamic range, raw files that will take pushing and pulling to achieve the image I'm looking for, compatibility with excellent glass, a wide array of premium glass in a wide range of FL, exceptional reliability and professional level service.
I don't think it matters whether you're a pro on assignment or an amateur on vacation, you don't want your camera failing and if it does you don't want it in the shop for ever.
Thanks again for your response and have a great holiday!
Ben Z
Mentor
Well I've been using Leica's for many decades and happen to like the rangefinder, and I already had a bunch of M lenses otherwise I would never have bought into the system at this point given the cost, especially lenses.
My first M-mount digital was an Epson R-D1, which I got for $1300 as a factory refurb. I didn't care for the fact it did not have the full range of frame lines and required them to be manually switched, and the rangefinder was apt to go out of calibration without provocation. So I was delighted to sell it (for what I paid for it) and move on to the M8 despite the IR filters. And even more delighted to move on to the M9 because it didn't need them. And though I only moved on to the M240 because a great deal on a demo came my way, I'm glad I'm rid of the M9 given the whole sensor cracking/spotting issue, even if Leica does eventually find a permanent solution.
The one thing that has changed for me with digital is I no longer own two bodies as I always did in my film shooting days. The film bodies were smaller, lighter, much cheaper, and bought used could be sold several years later at no significant loss. And I could justify it because I would shoot different ISO, or slide film in one and print film in the other. Since digital I only need a second body in case the main one breaks down (which knock on wood has not happened to me with any M digital so far). I agree with Jaap the Nex (mine's a 6) is not an equal substitute for the M but the IQ is not bad at all, it was cheap ($450 brand new), it's small and light enough to be unobtrusive in my luggage (and does not need a separate charger), has a built-in flash, and it works well with all my M lenses. The worst about it to me is it's an EVF not a rangefinder.
My first M-mount digital was an Epson R-D1, which I got for $1300 as a factory refurb. I didn't care for the fact it did not have the full range of frame lines and required them to be manually switched, and the rangefinder was apt to go out of calibration without provocation. So I was delighted to sell it (for what I paid for it) and move on to the M8 despite the IR filters. And even more delighted to move on to the M9 because it didn't need them. And though I only moved on to the M240 because a great deal on a demo came my way, I'm glad I'm rid of the M9 given the whole sensor cracking/spotting issue, even if Leica does eventually find a permanent solution.
The one thing that has changed for me with digital is I no longer own two bodies as I always did in my film shooting days. The film bodies were smaller, lighter, much cheaper, and bought used could be sold several years later at no significant loss. And I could justify it because I would shoot different ISO, or slide film in one and print film in the other. Since digital I only need a second body in case the main one breaks down (which knock on wood has not happened to me with any M digital so far). I agree with Jaap the Nex (mine's a 6) is not an equal substitute for the M but the IQ is not bad at all, it was cheap ($450 brand new), it's small and light enough to be unobtrusive in my luggage (and does not need a separate charger), has a built-in flash, and it works well with all my M lenses. The worst about it to me is it's an EVF not a rangefinder.
ferider
Mentor
I had no other option: I got one for Christmas yesterday. My first digital camera. And I'm embarrassed to admit that I like it ...
Roland.
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
MM or M9P or M240 or ,,,,?
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
What a nice gift!
I answered "Because I wanted one".
I like shooting rangefinders, and sometimes it makes sense to have the instant gratification that digital provides. To that end, I bought a used M8 three years ago and found I liked it a lot. I use my MP more, but when I must have pictures TODAY, I reach for the M8 (soon to be an M9, when it's delivered next week).
ferider
Mentor
Even more embarrassed, Raid: I had a chrome M100 under the Christmas tree. Looks fabulous with my 1956 Rigid Summicron
I love my wife.
raid
Dad Photographer
Congratulations.
Is it a special edition?
Is it the $68000 edition?
Is it a special edition?
Is it the $68000 edition?
ferider
Mentor
It's the Hundert Jahre anniversary model, an M240 in special cloths, Raid.
Thanks,
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
Congratulations on such a special gift.
