presspass
filmshooter
Because I prefer to shoot analog Ms. When I'm working, I shoot Canon DSLRs. When I'm not, it's film Ms, but sometimes I need color when I only have the Ms with me. It's easier to cope with one bag and the M8 - bought new and still working - is there when I need it. BTW, there were some profiles posted for Capture I to help the M8 cope with the IR issue. I've been using them for a number of years, and the result is close enough, so the IR filters are not in the bag.
Ben Z
Mentor
I still remember your initial grumbles about the IR filters, Ben
Funny thing but although I sold the M8 I kept all the filters and still used them with the M9 and M240 on lenses longer than 35mm where the cyan corner effect isn't an issue. My filters are the Heliopans and they seem to be as anti-reflective as the B+W MRC UV/protector filters so I've never had added issues with ghosting and flare, and they don't scratch as easily as the 486's and Leica UV/IR's either. I don't have much trouble with synthetic blacks on the M240 but the IR filters make green foliage look better.rogazilla
Level 2 Newb
Just trying to find the right tool... My father taught me how to use camera back in early 80's. It was either a Minolta or Pentax fully manual. I loved it but we were poor and each frame to be developed is a lot of money for us. I have numerous point and shoot film and digital but the experience was just different and I just took snap shot for memories.
Fast forward to 2008 when I finally decided to get back into photography and bought a Rebel. There is something just not right for me. I experimented different settings, AF and learn how to use Light room. I went from Rebel to 7D to 5D then 5D3. I spent money on zoom, super zoom, primes. But something just wasn't right for me.
I finally picked up a old OM-10 and it comes back to me... its the MF vs AF. when I try to compose a shot, my shot are dictated by the AF points and continue to hit and rehit the AF button to get to focus where the MF lens I focus on the subject just the way I wanted and compse and shot. I am not saying I am fast like the 5d3 but that's the control that I wanted and missed.
Figured out that I want MF. Next is film vs digital. Given the hours I work and all the chemicals involved, I just can't develop on my own right now. Probably need some mentor and lots of internet searches on that too. Digital is the only way to go for me right now. (I did buy some bottle, tanks and c41 stuff thinking one day I will try it...) I did also buy a R3M after reading much about RF since it is different from SLR MF... I fell in love.
So I bought the X100 and the MF is just not ready for prime time... I love the camera and still use it though. I then got really excited and bought the A7.
Things I learned about myself:
Love MF, Love OVF, need digital at this stage of my life. The only thing out there really is the digital M. I have spent a lot of money and time to get to this conclusion. Is it the best sensor? No, I think A7 sensor or my 5D3 sensor are better. 5D3 instant on and the response is just superb where A7 is clunky. But today, I walk out of the house with my M every time.
If someone can put a OVF on the A7 with some sort of MF mechnism that works? might just be the next ticket... I understand EVF is probably here to stay but I just feel such disconnect that I don't like it. I have been looking into the X100t's new hybrid finder... Might have to see if I can rent one or borrow one. If it works as advertised and Fuji stick that on the X Pro 2. That might be the much cheaper alternative for me over the M.
In my opinion, M is very expensive and probably over priced compare to what you get BUT it is really the only camera out there that offer what I want in a camera.
Fast forward to 2008 when I finally decided to get back into photography and bought a Rebel. There is something just not right for me. I experimented different settings, AF and learn how to use Light room. I went from Rebel to 7D to 5D then 5D3. I spent money on zoom, super zoom, primes. But something just wasn't right for me.
I finally picked up a old OM-10 and it comes back to me... its the MF vs AF. when I try to compose a shot, my shot are dictated by the AF points and continue to hit and rehit the AF button to get to focus where the MF lens I focus on the subject just the way I wanted and compse and shot. I am not saying I am fast like the 5d3 but that's the control that I wanted and missed.
Figured out that I want MF. Next is film vs digital. Given the hours I work and all the chemicals involved, I just can't develop on my own right now. Probably need some mentor and lots of internet searches on that too. Digital is the only way to go for me right now. (I did buy some bottle, tanks and c41 stuff thinking one day I will try it...) I did also buy a R3M after reading much about RF since it is different from SLR MF... I fell in love.
So I bought the X100 and the MF is just not ready for prime time... I love the camera and still use it though. I then got really excited and bought the A7.
Things I learned about myself:
Love MF, Love OVF, need digital at this stage of my life. The only thing out there really is the digital M. I have spent a lot of money and time to get to this conclusion. Is it the best sensor? No, I think A7 sensor or my 5D3 sensor are better. 5D3 instant on and the response is just superb where A7 is clunky. But today, I walk out of the house with my M every time.
If someone can put a OVF on the A7 with some sort of MF mechnism that works? might just be the next ticket... I understand EVF is probably here to stay but I just feel such disconnect that I don't like it. I have been looking into the X100t's new hybrid finder... Might have to see if I can rent one or borrow one. If it works as advertised and Fuji stick that on the X Pro 2. That might be the much cheaper alternative for me over the M.
In my opinion, M is very expensive and probably over priced compare to what you get BUT it is really the only camera out there that offer what I want in a camera.
Ronald M
Mentor
My son bought one and I could not be outclassed.
Keyne
Established
I wanted a digital Rf and was concerned about the RD1being too old so I bought an M8. Have loved every minute of it, however if there had been a less expensive digital RF option I would have considered/purchased one instead (eg digital Bessa?). I love the simplicity that for me anyway can not be replaced by other digital cameras.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
After shooting for over a year with Leica glass on a Ricoh GXR-M I realized to get the maximum benefit from a Leica lens in digital capture I needed the real thing. I had also grown tired of looking through a TV screen to frame my photographs. It didn't take long after using an the rangefinder that focusing with an EVF camera is like having tunnel vision.
My only complaint with my M-E is the lowest ISO is 160. If it only had an ISO of 64 or 25 I'd be in heaven. I could leave my ND filter at home when shooting wide open.
My only complaint with my M-E is the lowest ISO is 160. If it only had an ISO of 64 or 25 I'd be in heaven. I could leave my ND filter at home when shooting wide open.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Digital Bessa = Epson RD1
Pioneer
Mentor
There is another option in full frame digital rangefinders??
Keyne
Established
Digital Bessa = Epson RX1
My dream would be for someone to re-introduce the Epson for maybe $1,200-$1,500.... Would buy one in a second.
Pioneer
Mentor
I thought it could still be purchased new in Japan??
Keyne
Established
Really? I didn't know that... Who sells them?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I voted "because I wanted one", but would make the additional caveat that I found myself in the somewhat surprising circumstance that I could afford one.
As to why I wanted one, well, it's all about the rangefinder (or, to be more precise, "viewfinder combined with a lens-coupled split-image and double image rangefinder with illuminated, parallax-corrected, brightline framelines"). I find I can't get along with EVFs, though in some ways I wish I could. I suspect my aging eyesight has something to do with that but I also perhaps rationalise that I feel a difference between seeing the scene itself versus watching it on a TV screen between me and the scene (all EVFs I've tried feel that way to me).
Beyond that, the only ways I know of to have visual/mechanical confirmation that the camera is focused on what I think/want it to be focused on, with an OVF, are through confirmation of focus on a properly adjusted screen (eg. a single or twin lens reflex system) or optical rangefinder. I know, through use of cameras like the Hexar AF, Contax G and T series and even the OVF of an X Pro-1 that a nice light indicating focus lock may mean the thing is focused, but doesn't really tell you what it's focused on. Call me insecure, but I like to confirm that focus is where I want it, rather than on something else the focus system may have latched on to.
In addition, I see and compose differently when using a camera with a finder window rather than a reflex system - both through seeing outside the framelines and also because a reflex system shows you what's in focus at widest aperture, leaving you to imagine what comes into focus as you stop down, while a viewfinder system shows you everything in focus leaving you to imagine what you're subtracting as you open the aperture. I find I do things differently with the different finder systems - not better or worse, just differently.
(EVFs no doubt give you the possibility of seeing things as they would be at the taking aperture, without overly dimming the finder, but I still don't get along with them.)
For a number of reasons, I wanted to do this with digital as well as with film and I wanted to do this with my existing M and LTM lenses at their existing (for film) fields of view - for that Leica was the only game in town. When I could afford to buy one I did, and I've been glad that I did.
...Mike
As to why I wanted one, well, it's all about the rangefinder (or, to be more precise, "viewfinder combined with a lens-coupled split-image and double image rangefinder with illuminated, parallax-corrected, brightline framelines"). I find I can't get along with EVFs, though in some ways I wish I could. I suspect my aging eyesight has something to do with that but I also perhaps rationalise that I feel a difference between seeing the scene itself versus watching it on a TV screen between me and the scene (all EVFs I've tried feel that way to me).
Beyond that, the only ways I know of to have visual/mechanical confirmation that the camera is focused on what I think/want it to be focused on, with an OVF, are through confirmation of focus on a properly adjusted screen (eg. a single or twin lens reflex system) or optical rangefinder. I know, through use of cameras like the Hexar AF, Contax G and T series and even the OVF of an X Pro-1 that a nice light indicating focus lock may mean the thing is focused, but doesn't really tell you what it's focused on. Call me insecure, but I like to confirm that focus is where I want it, rather than on something else the focus system may have latched on to.
In addition, I see and compose differently when using a camera with a finder window rather than a reflex system - both through seeing outside the framelines and also because a reflex system shows you what's in focus at widest aperture, leaving you to imagine what comes into focus as you stop down, while a viewfinder system shows you everything in focus leaving you to imagine what you're subtracting as you open the aperture. I find I do things differently with the different finder systems - not better or worse, just differently.
(EVFs no doubt give you the possibility of seeing things as they would be at the taking aperture, without overly dimming the finder, but I still don't get along with them.)
For a number of reasons, I wanted to do this with digital as well as with film and I wanted to do this with my existing M and LTM lenses at their existing (for film) fields of view - for that Leica was the only game in town. When I could afford to buy one I did, and I've been glad that I did.
...Mike
colonel
Established
Compared to AF digital cameras the MF rangefinder lacks the shotgun speed. You need to work more deliberately and it's harder.
The plus side is that the MF system IMHO is the best one ever made. Thus you can be completely precise about where focus is and nail it every time.
I have far more keepers from my M and more enjoyment in the experience.
However a different mentality is required .....
The plus side is that the MF system IMHO is the best one ever made. Thus you can be completely precise about where focus is and nail it every time.
I have far more keepers from my M and more enjoyment in the experience.
However a different mentality is required .....
Keyne
Established
Exactly. You described exactly what I love about rangefinders and I why I like the experience of them better than other types of cameras. However, I just bought a Fuji X-T1 to compliment my M8 (higher ISO, weather sealed, etc.) but we shall see if it sticks. I really love the RF way of taking photos. For me its more fun and I have definitely loved/kept more photos from my M8 than any other camera.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
The way I work a rangefinder is lightning fast. I like to use the DoF scales on the lens, which really suck on most modern autofocus lenses, to be prefocused. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused. I get shots I wouldn't get with my DSLRs auto focus because of that. I to love the rangefinder shooting experience.
Odd... In a previous century, before the widespread use of auto-focus, the rangefinder was hailed as quicker to get the shot. Just line up the double image, no back-and-forth to assess the sharpest point on a screen.
Now it's the other way 'round, and ironically some celebrate the RF as forcing a slower and more thoughtful method of shooting (formerly reserved for the large format guys). But does finding advantage in being forced into a more methodical method imply a shortage of discipline?
Personally, I like both AF and RF for different reasons, and after working with one for a while it's refreshing to switch. The AF is very fast to acquire precise focus on... what? It can be ambiguous at times, and errors occur. With the RF I like that conscious choice and confirmation of the desired focus point, but that takes an extra second or two, and errors can occur!
Now it's the other way 'round, and ironically some celebrate the RF as forcing a slower and more thoughtful method of shooting (formerly reserved for the large format guys). But does finding advantage in being forced into a more methodical method imply a shortage of discipline?
Personally, I like both AF and RF for different reasons, and after working with one for a while it's refreshing to switch. The AF is very fast to acquire precise focus on... what? It can be ambiguous at times, and errors occur. With the RF I like that conscious choice and confirmation of the desired focus point, but that takes an extra second or two, and errors can occur!
I voted no other option.
I wanted a manual control FF rangefinder. No Japanese Leica knockoff option for $2500, so had to go Leica.
Always loved the film Leica's from M3 to M6. But digital Leica's are priced very high for what they deliver.
I wanted a manual control FF rangefinder. No Japanese Leica knockoff option for $2500, so had to go Leica.
Always loved the film Leica's from M3 to M6. But digital Leica's are priced very high for what they deliver.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I traded in a TON of Nikon lenses, film SLRs and a Leica MP to be able to afford the M240. I wanted to be able to use my Leica lenses on a full frame digital rangefinder; there was simply no viable alternative to the M240 available so I took the plunge.
I have not regretted it. Yes, the M240 is a very costly camera - but I use the hell out of it. That is what I bought it for. If it is destroyed or stolen, I cannot afford to replace it; that's why I have it and my Leica M lenses insured to the hilt.
My unsolicited advice to others regarding the M240 is:
Get yourself an M240
insure the hell out of it
carry it daily
shoot the hell out of it
Life is short and then we die. Enjoy it while you can.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Odd... In a previous century, before the widespread use of auto-focus, the rangefinder was hailed as quicker to get the shot. Just line up the double image, no back-and-forth to assess the sharpest point on a screen.
Now it's the other way 'round, and ironically some celebrate the RF as forcing a slower and more thoughtful method of shooting (formerly reserved for the large format guys). But does finding advantage in being forced into a more methodical method imply a shortage of discipline?
Personally, I like both AF and RF for different reasons, and after working with one for a while it's refreshing to switch. The AF is very fast to acquire precise focus on... what? It can be ambiguous at times, and errors occur. With the RF I like that conscious choice and confirmation of the desired focus point, but that takes an extra second or two, and errors can occur!
And then there's those useful DoF scales that really work. I use them all the time. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused.
Quan
Established
For me : size, simplicity and the color its produce