honozooloo
Established
i chose a digital RF because theres only one photo lab on my entire island (Oahu) thats worth a damn. and fresh film is so expensive in general that i honestly find my digital RF more cost effective (!!).
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, if you are using hyperfocal distance according the DOF scale, you are not really rangefinder focusing, are you? In fact, you are not focusing at all.
Lss
Well-known
There is much more to prefocusing than hyperfocal distance, and it can be a very thoughtful focusing method. Switching between DoF marker focusing and rangefinder focusing is quite seamless.
This is a functionality that many modern cameras lack completely. For example, prefocusing for MF typically requires use of AF or the electronic focusing aids. It is not practical in some use cases. It is also the sole reason I lost some important personal shots last week using my Sony RX1R. I had to rely on the AF in blind, and while I refocused for each frame to make sure I would get at least one keeper, every single shot was a blurry mess (due to incomprehensible focusing distance selected by the AF algorithm). Thanks, Sony.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
And? If it works who cares. Thats why those scales are there to use. My auto focus lenses have them but they are not useful.
And I really don't have any problems focusing when I actually focus but when I am shooting in very fast situations I usually always hyperfocus.
:: Mark
Well-known
This does not sound like a reason to buy a digital Leica specifically - after all, doesn't any mirrorless camera with a vintage SLR (or Leica) lens get exactly this?
Oddly enough, I tend to use zone-focus with a Ricoh GR more than with my M7, partly because it is much faster and more precise to change the zone. I have the Ricoh set to back-button AF with aperture controlled from the front-dial. To change the zone, just point and focus at something at the appropriate distance. The display shows a helpful DOF distance indicator for the current aperture.
I do not have a good answer to the original question. Logically, about the only practical reason would be to get the smallest possible full-frame digital camera with an optical view-finder. But purchase decisions seem seldom logical.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
That was one of many reasons for me. I was agreeing with some of the other reason mentioned and I added that.
Full frame, B&W dedicated, rangefinder was another reason for me buying my MM.
Full frame, B&W dedicated, rangefinder was another reason for me buying my MM.
Mcary
Well-known
I find myself using the focusing scales even for static subjects like landscapes, have the lens (28mm Elmarit) set to F-11 and the zone set for 4ft to Infinity. Then just concentrate on composition and lighting.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Mcary and that to.
edftwin
Street Wanderer
Because I love outdated technology lol...and after 2 years since I sold my M9, I bought myself an M8.2 which will be arriving at my doorstep tomorrow. For that I think i'm crazy...
asiafish
Established
I remembered seeing Leica advertisements back in the mid to late 1970s and early 1980s and handling one at a camera store. I could only (barely) afford a cheap SLR at the time (Minolta SRT200, great camera), but I always wanted a Leica.
When I got back into photography about five-years-ago, I didn't even think about Leica until I saw a woman shooting with an M8 and started talking to her. I did a little research and bought an M6. I liked the handling and the rangefinder, but didn't want to use film for my primary, so I traded the M6 toward an M Monochrom and haven't looked back.
I still used a DSLR, but the more I travelled with it, the less I liked carrying it. I bought an X Vario to replace my Df and bag full of primes, then added an X (type 113) for even lighter carry (the two X cameras are my non-photography travel kit), and finally yesterday ordered a brand-new M-E so that I can have color on serious photography trips.
Using the M Monochrom also got me to want to play with film again. I wish I'd kept that M6, but I ended buying that M5 I remembered from those 1970s advertisements and couldn't be happier.
For lenses on an SLR I tended to want to carry everything, which not only weighed me down, but overwhelmed with choices. With the M (digital or film) its usually just one lens, either 35mm (35mm f/2.5 Summarit M) or 50mm (50mm f/2 SUmmicron M or one of my vintage Zeiss Sonnars). Once in a while I'll mount one lens and put the other in a pocket, but usually just one.
When I got back into photography about five-years-ago, I didn't even think about Leica until I saw a woman shooting with an M8 and started talking to her. I did a little research and bought an M6. I liked the handling and the rangefinder, but didn't want to use film for my primary, so I traded the M6 toward an M Monochrom and haven't looked back.
I still used a DSLR, but the more I travelled with it, the less I liked carrying it. I bought an X Vario to replace my Df and bag full of primes, then added an X (type 113) for even lighter carry (the two X cameras are my non-photography travel kit), and finally yesterday ordered a brand-new M-E so that I can have color on serious photography trips.
Using the M Monochrom also got me to want to play with film again. I wish I'd kept that M6, but I ended buying that M5 I remembered from those 1970s advertisements and couldn't be happier.
For lenses on an SLR I tended to want to carry everything, which not only weighed me down, but overwhelmed with choices. With the M (digital or film) its usually just one lens, either 35mm (35mm f/2.5 Summarit M) or 50mm (50mm f/2 SUmmicron M or one of my vintage Zeiss Sonnars). Once in a while I'll mount one lens and put the other in a pocket, but usually just one.
Pioneer
Mentor
For the life of me I can't remember why I bought a digital Leica. Must have had a good reason at the time. 
Nonetheless I do enjoy using it.
EDIT - Ackk!!
Now I own two!
Nonetheless I do enjoy using it.
EDIT - Ackk!!
Now I own two!
G Dogg
Established
Because I was able to. And because it simplifies my approach.
Range-rover
Mentor
No your not, I just got a M8 and love that little camera. It just has the important things you need to take
great pictures.
Range
RichardPhoto
Established
Other:
I have an M6 and prefer to shoot B&W with film. I enjoy B&W developing, in particular experimenting with things like stand developing and pushing Tri-X to get a particular look.
I got a digital Leica (M8) as I do not derive any pleasure from C41/E6 developing and both the film and chemicals have gotten very expensive. I only develop C41/E6 if I have no digital option - my XPan or my 4x5. Even on those I prefer to work with B&W.
My M8 produces images roughly on par megapixel-wise with scanned 35mm film and I can manipulate the image to look like any film I desire. It's entirely subjective but I prefer colour from a sensor over film. It does all that plus it does it at no extra cost (aside from camera purchase) and no hassle of developing and scanning. I can also retrospectively chose the look and benefit from easy editing of DNG files.
In short...
IMO, a digital Leica is better and more economical shooting in colour and saves me a lot of time I would otherwise spend developing and scanning.
I have an M6 and prefer to shoot B&W with film. I enjoy B&W developing, in particular experimenting with things like stand developing and pushing Tri-X to get a particular look.
I got a digital Leica (M8) as I do not derive any pleasure from C41/E6 developing and both the film and chemicals have gotten very expensive. I only develop C41/E6 if I have no digital option - my XPan or my 4x5. Even on those I prefer to work with B&W.
My M8 produces images roughly on par megapixel-wise with scanned 35mm film and I can manipulate the image to look like any film I desire. It's entirely subjective but I prefer colour from a sensor over film. It does all that plus it does it at no extra cost (aside from camera purchase) and no hassle of developing and scanning. I can also retrospectively chose the look and benefit from easy editing of DNG files.
In short...
IMO, a digital Leica is better and more economical shooting in colour and saves me a lot of time I would otherwise spend developing and scanning.
mlu19
Established
Agree with RichardPhoto. Shooting digital M is time saving. After the arrival of my daughter, I no longer have time to develop and scan my films. I'd also like to record her memories in color. When my time frees up one day, I may come back to shoot b&w on film purely for personal reason, but for now I'm not willing to sacrifice time (develop and scan) and money (hundreds of photos each month) on film.
KM-25
Well-known
Uncle!
From 2006-2011 I was Leica all in, 4 film bodies, and an M8 then M9. Then between 2011 and a couple months ago, all I was rocking was a single M3/50.
Well I find my self bulking back up again, got another M6, a 35 and 28 and I am pretty sure in another month or so I will have an M240. For two weeks I'm going to really give it a full test though, rented the 240, 35 FLE and the comically expensive 50/2 Apo.....going to see how that lens stacks up against my amazing 50 Planar.
I did give the 240 a nice three hour spin at Look3 last weekend and while I did not love everything about it, too thick, wonky ISO adjustment, the files took on that signature Leica look right out of the gate and were very, very pliable. I'll likely only use it for certain paid work much prefering to shoot and print film so it ought to last me awhile.
While their repair convenience in terms of loaners and turn around time could be better, I have to say...every exchange I have ever had with them on the phone, via email or in person has been very pleasant and down to earth, being very much absent of any "Prada" like overtones of exclusivity.
So it just seems like the right time to jump back onboard full swing...
From 2006-2011 I was Leica all in, 4 film bodies, and an M8 then M9. Then between 2011 and a couple months ago, all I was rocking was a single M3/50.
Well I find my self bulking back up again, got another M6, a 35 and 28 and I am pretty sure in another month or so I will have an M240. For two weeks I'm going to really give it a full test though, rented the 240, 35 FLE and the comically expensive 50/2 Apo.....going to see how that lens stacks up against my amazing 50 Planar.
I did give the 240 a nice three hour spin at Look3 last weekend and while I did not love everything about it, too thick, wonky ISO adjustment, the files took on that signature Leica look right out of the gate and were very, very pliable. I'll likely only use it for certain paid work much prefering to shoot and print film so it ought to last me awhile.
While their repair convenience in terms of loaners and turn around time could be better, I have to say...every exchange I have ever had with them on the phone, via email or in person has been very pleasant and down to earth, being very much absent of any "Prada" like overtones of exclusivity.
So it just seems like the right time to jump back onboard full swing...
airfrogusmc
Mentor
What are you planning on picking up?
My experience has been similar. I just got my 35 Lux back ahead of schedule. They were always nice on the phone and very responsive in emails.
KM-25
Well-known
I currently own and I am happy with:
M6TTL with several customizations. M3, 28 Elmarit Asph, 35mm 1.4 Asph non FLE and a 50 2.0 Planar.
I have rented to check against current gear:
M240, 35mm 1.4 FLE, 50mm 2.0 Apo Summicron.
I love everything about my current 35mm 1.4 asph, the size, the rendering, the sharpness and the focus action. I also think the 50 Planar is one of the all time top 5 best lenses for Leica M mount for the buck, closely nipping at the heels of the latest version non Apo Summicron.
I rented the 50 Apo to use with both the 240 on a 10 day shoot and to do a project on Kodak Technical Pan film where it should be truly spectacular.
But at this point, I would say adding a good used M240 is nearly a sure bet, the 35 FLE is a good possibility and only if it just totally blows my mind, the 50 APO down the road.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
The M6 is a great camera. Sounds like a great line up.
I'm planning on not replacing my Canon stuff well over 100K on each so I am thinking the next year or so if I can swing it. Should get a buck or two for my Canon 200 2L..
So I am seriously thinking a 75 or 90 and a 21 and maybe a used ME or M9 or maybe even a Q for backup? Thinking out loud.
I'm planning on not replacing my Canon stuff well over 100K on each so I am thinking the next year or so if I can swing it. Should get a buck or two for my Canon 200 2L..
So I am seriously thinking a 75 or 90 and a 21 and maybe a used ME or M9 or maybe even a Q for backup? Thinking out loud.
Brooklynguy
Established
Back in the mid 1980's I bought my first M4p and stopped using my Nikon F3's for most everything in favor of my Leica. Fast forward 20 or so years and Nikon's DSLRs were great but too big for street shooting and mirrorless cameras still suffered from slow AF and fussy controls. Things have improved with newer mirrorless, but I still prefer my Leica M8 and M9 for their direct handling and operation.