PDA

View Full Version : Why did you decide to buy a digital Leica M.


raid
12-23-2014, 11:27
Since I am bored here, I am starting a counter thread ....
Why did you buy a digital Leica M (M8, M9, ...)?

filmtwit
12-23-2014, 11:33
For a few reasons:

Was impressed by the M240.
Good sensor, decent ISO range, good live view, ability to use even more lens systems then one could imagine. Hmm, what else, all of the reasons I hated the M8.2 were not present in the M240.
I good deal came my way, and I had the money for it (very very rare), though it still wasn't cheap to say the least.

Lss
12-23-2014, 11:36
I liked the Epson R-D1 better than anything I had used before. I wanted a similar camera with a smaller crop (and more pixels), and M8 was the option I could afford. Years later, not much has changed.

burancap
12-23-2014, 11:36
Because it seemed to be the logical thing to do at the time.

I loved my film M's. I loved my M and LTM lenses. Why not?

Vobluda
12-23-2014, 11:45
Because I was bored with film.

dotur
12-23-2014, 12:00
I wanted a digital RF and I've bought M8 twice. I sold it twice because it died twice in my hands (serious shutter problems). Later I was dreaming about M9 or Monochrom as more reliable cameras, but now I know it was only a dream. :D

Calzone
12-23-2014, 12:01
When Leica created the Monochrom it seemed that Leica had me in mind. I was a B&W only shooter so buying a digital with a color sensor was not in the picture for me. Leica in a way kinda made me a dream camera that did not offer features I did not need. The only improvements I would want is a bigger buffer and the bigger screen of the M-240. If Leica makes a MM-240 I will surely buy one, and I will also keep my MM. I don not want video capabilities.

I also bought the Monochrom to become more Leica-centric and concentrated on getting more ASPH glass. Also I bought more film M-bodies that could share the glass.

Before I was a B&W film only die-hard, but a Leica body with a monochrome sensor took away my last compelling reason to avoid digital. It been almost two years and I can say that my Monochrom has made me into a better photographer. Likely the best money I ever spent.

Cal

f16sunshine
12-23-2014, 12:03
I had the RD1 early on and loved it but, the files were a bit too lightweight when I was doing hired portraits and model port. shoots (I did many from '08-'11).

The M8 stepped in.
The M8 gave me a bit more resolution and files I could use for work.
It was not perfect but perfectly usable! A really great camera during that "era" of digital photgraphy.
Mirror-less cameras with nice apsc sensors were just not quite yet to be born. The M8 offered a real option to DSLR's.
I was able to see past it's flaws as it was Leicas first DRF and a nice compact option to my 5Dii's.
The Fuji cameras now fill in were the M8 used to sit in my workflow.
Sometimes I think I may get another just to use for fun.
Then I think better of it now. My fun cameras are my film cameras. :)

-doomed-
12-23-2014, 12:06
I bought one because I wanted it. I don't use it as much I'd like to, however. Too many no light assignments. Despite the camera's flaws, I thoroughly enjoy using it.

Godfrey
12-23-2014, 12:31
I bought one because I wanted it. I don't use it as much I'd like to, however. Too many no light assignments. Despite the camera's flaws, I thoroughly enjoy using it.

As above. :-)

G

Pioneer
12-23-2014, 12:39
I really wanted full frame. I was using Canon full frame for my work. Loved the quality but hated the size. Leica was expensive but the M9 was beautifully small and felt more like a film camera then any other digital I had ever worked with. So, I saved some money, sold the majority of my Canon kit, and bought the M9. I have never regretted it and now I have the Monochrom as well.

Denton
12-23-2014, 12:40
1)M240 screen resolution allows me to quickly check rangefinder focus and check for front/back focusing on lenses. Biggest reason to switch from M9
2) Hate the lack of contrast in an EVF, having optical finder helps my composition for shadow areas.
3) M240 still more crowd friendly than Canon FF DSLR, my former working camera system. Smaller is better for me.
4) very quiet shutter, although mirrorless is as good but DSLR can be very annoying in some venues.
5) Use of M-mount lenses shared with my M6 0.85.
6) Ease of telephoto use > 135mm
7)Still evaluating image quality of Fuji X lenses vs. Leica M, but so far very pleased with both. Fuji zoom good, but not as good as leica primes.

I also have a Fuji XE-1 which I like very much. I may go for an X-pro 2 when they come out. I actually sold my M9 thinking to convert to X system, but the EVF and bag of M lenses brought me back. I think I'll stay with Fuji and Leica for different reasons

airfrogusmc
12-23-2014, 13:09
I see in B&W at this point in time. It's how I see all of my personal work and have for some time now. When Leica introduced the MM I put my name on a list and waited. I also picked up a 35 Lux FLE.

I had a darkroom but a divorce some years ago and downsizing I gave up my darkroom and my commercial clients moved me to digital some years back so it was a no brainer for me.

I still love film but I also enjoy the creative freedom I have with digital. I mean to be able to get medium format quality at 1600 and 3200 ISO and to be able to shoot at 320 on one frame and to be able to shoot at 10,000 ISO on the next is incredible.

Yeah it was pricey but no more than the top of the line Canon digital or Nikon digital. And if I hadn't have bought it I wouldn't have spent the past 2 years and 30,000+ exposures creating with it.

I got a lot more camera than I bargained for. A great quote by Ralph Gibson about the only digital camera he has owned or liked. The MM: "This camera will do anything I am capable of doing. I will never get to the end of what this instrument can perform".-Ralph Gibson

I have no problems with someone not wanting to shoot digital. I still love film but without a darkroom and with the way I see and work this is the perfect tool for me now. Since there is no color the sharpness has been compared to d800 which has twice the MPs.

I will shoot with this camera until it dies and I can no longer get it repaired. No reason for me to upgrade.

Never cared for Fuji. Tried one for a while before I went with the MM. EVF just doesn't do it for me and the way I work and see.

Mcary
12-23-2014, 13:18
After shooting both the M6 and the M8 I decided that for small format photography I prefer digital over 35mm film. Will I get an FF digital M yes someday down the road but for now I have my eyes set on getting a real field camera such as a Wista 4x5 to replace my Crown Graphic plus a couple of more lens say a 90mm and a 210mm to go along with the 127mm and 270mm lens that I currently have.

jaapv
12-23-2014, 13:36
Simply an excellent camera and I like a rangefinder...

seakayaker1
12-23-2014, 13:42
I bought a used M8.2, fell in love with the rangefinder it and sold it and bought a used M9 about four months latter.

Prior to this I had used a film SLR for years, a small point and shoot digital, and a GF1 prior to buying the M8.2.

Having bought the digital M it moved me to purchase an MP .72 and M6TTL .85 to continue the rangefinder experience.

Reaching a point in my life where I had some disposable income also helped with making the decision. I believe it was a luxury purchase when I made the purchase of the M8.2 and came to believe I wish I had made the move to a rangefinder style camera years/decades before I did.

luuca
12-23-2014, 14:34
I wanted to feel the same sensations that my MP gave (and still gives) to me.
And it worked.

Darthfeeble
12-23-2014, 15:53
I bought an M8.2 used to get the "Leica Experience". I was disapointed in the image quality beyond the lowest ISO setting and sold it. After seeing the things that an M9 was capable of producing, I managed to get one new. Loved it but felt restricted in that I had sold my DSLR to get the Leica. Sold the Leica to get another DSLR and missed it terribly. Saved and bought another M9 used and have been happy since. There's something in the CCD files that I don't see in the CMOS files. A crispness and detail. Now I have to save for more Leica lenses. There's always something......

nikonosguy
12-23-2014, 15:59
My m8 is on the way, right time, right place, famous first owner, have wanted on for a while

Godfrey
12-23-2014, 16:54
I am amazed by the level of commitment I hear around here. I cannot personally imagine saving for any camera.

You've got to be kidding.

Many people save up the money to buy the things they want. When I was first getting into photography, I wanted a Nikon F. It took a year of savings to have enough that my uncle helped me to buy the camera with a 50mm lens. It took another half a year to save up for another lens. I'm sure I'm not alone.

I pay cash for everything short of real estate. If I don't have the money, and I want something, I start saving for it. If I still want it when I have the money, I buy it. Simple as that.

Saving up and buying with cash is how to escape the stupidity and waste of the credit universe.

G

raid
12-23-2014, 17:38
I minimized the cost by buying used digital M cameras, and offering trades. It helped.

uhoh7
12-23-2014, 17:39
Sony crapped out. I could no longer hold out. LOL

raid
12-23-2014, 17:49
If there are limitations to the creativity, it usually is not the camera's fault. It is my fault. I am not anymore dwelling on type of camera used. I pay more attention to the lens choices.

x-ray
12-23-2014, 18:16
I've used Leicas since 1968 and like RF's for some of my work. My commercial work is entirely digital and I thought I'd like to have an M9 to complement my Nikon and Hasselblad digital gear.

I read a lot and was aware of all the initial issues with the M9 but later in the cycle I read so much positive about It I thought most of the issues had been corrected. Unfortunately I believed what I read and purchased one. I'm sad to say it was a disaster of an experience. I've learned two things, never buy anything digital made by Leica ever and never believe internet hype. It was a very costly mistake but I've learned my lesson.

burancap
12-23-2014, 18:46
Sony crapped out. I could no longer hold out. LOL

Which one? LOL

airfrogusmc
12-23-2014, 18:49
If there are limitations to the creativity, it usually is not the camera's fault. It is my fault. I am not anymore dwelling on type of camera used. I pay more attention to the lens choices.

I use a F/L that matches my vision just like my choice of camera. The lens happens to be 35mm on FF.

Rob-F
12-23-2014, 19:13
I wanted to shoot digital shots with my Leica lenses, and I wanted to do it with an RF camera, for the compactness.

Richard G
12-23-2014, 19:27
1. To save money, and time. See later... (and see Mike Johnston's Letter to George in his The Online Photographer blog. It's very funny and very true.)
2. Because I wanted it. I bought it perhaps a little on impulse, but it was a silver M9-P looking so much like a brand new M2 out of a time capsule, and I just had to have it.

The reference to the saving above is that I would otherwise have invested heavily in the Fuji system, X-Pro 1. That would have seen me buy two lenses immediately as well. And then more would come. Then there would be a successor like the latest Fuji, and so it would go on. By getting the M9-P I could shoot full frame with all my lenses. Up until March 2012 I was mainly using film (M5 mostly) and had the wonderful little Fuji X100. If I went Fuji interchangeable I was looking at holding a whole lot of unused M mount lenses as I wouldn't get rid of them, and I'd shoot film occasionally, maybe only very occasionally.

Getting the M9-P took me out of needing new lenses and took me out of the upgrade cycle. I had been happy with the 1970s M5, and was still using my 1950s M2. A ten year old M9-P if still useable would have been fine for me.

When the M240 came out I considered it in detail and realised that I would indeed by quite happy adding the Monochrom. With the recent sensor program news I think I am outside of the upgrade cycle for some time. This year the only new camera I bought was a Leica II (1932) and apart from the little Elmar that came with that I have bought no new lenses. Am I happy with my decisions? Yes.

x-ray
12-23-2014, 19:39
Simply an excellent camera and I like a rangefinder...

I'm curious what would have made it a poor camera?

music_healing
12-23-2014, 19:44
for many years.. I swore I wouldnt buy any of the super expensive Leica M digital (8-9-9P-ME-MM or 240)

for digital, i ve been using panasonic GF and Sony Nex for 3 years (all with M lens) ...

but most of the photos I took with analog M (+/- 70-80 % )

since in my country, there is only few color studio lab (C41)
and none of the lab ever provide me with the standard I want
and zero E6 lab

I always get dissapointed by the color of the labs...
I always wait each week as the first customer (fresh developer)
I consult to the scanner technician, etc..

but the color in my head... never match the output

...

so I lent many digital , A7 series, EM5, EM1, GX7, GR, Fuji X100, XT1 (every mirrorless available)...
but the shooting experiences and the output file is still not there yet

finally I give up

when a friend , get his ME serviced, with brand new sensor, brand new warranty, all body is fixed like new
he offer me that ME for very cheap price ..

I take the trigger

for color.. I shot ME now.. for black and white, i prefer M analog

in very good weather and air ... I shoot Portra , Rollei CN200 and Superia 800

so the reason is

- no good color lab available... the output of the available lab is not there to my standard.
- the experience , I used to RF focusing ... other mirrorless still cant match the RF experiences

So .. thats the story


Sincerely
William

MCTuomey
12-24-2014, 07:32
No other digital body that integrates as well with M glass.

raid
12-24-2014, 07:38
The M9 gives me beautiful colors in scenes where there are subtle colors. This is important to me. I can capture pastel colored beach scenes in low light with vintage Leica and Zeiss optics.

noimmunity
12-24-2014, 07:47
No other digital body that integrates as well with M glass.

Off topic, but: that's why I'm just thinking either go back to film (which I'm doing now) or just sell the darn lenses.

ktmrider
12-24-2014, 11:59
Have had M cameras since 1975 and thus several M mount lenses. Wanted to try digital so tried an X100 for travel. I was impressed with the technology for travel and about a year ago, I found a deal on an M9 which had just come from Leica, NJ, so I bit the bullet.

Am sure the M9 will be just fine for my needs for several years. Do not have any plans to upgrade any time soon. I may sell a couple lenses that do not see much use. During a 90 day trip to Europe this year, the 35mm focal length provided about 90 percent or better of the photos taken so future travel looks to be M9 with 35/90.

x-ray
12-24-2014, 12:15
Off topic, but: that's why I'm just thinking either go back to film (which I'm doing now) or just sell the darn lenses.

I've gone bak to film. No headaches with film.

Pioneer
12-24-2014, 13:56
I've gone bak to film. No headaches with film.

Sure there are. Just everyone knows what they are. No surprises.

MCTuomey
12-24-2014, 14:13
Off topic, but: that's why I'm just thinking either go back to film (which I'm doing now) or just sell the darn lenses.

Yeah, that's it. I spent a lot of time and effort getting my M glass together, not ready to let it go. I've shot more film in the last 6 weeks than in the last 2 years.

Sorry to go OT.

peterm1
12-24-2014, 15:11
As hinted at on Raids other and similar thread I have been a long time film M shooter who had owned two M3s and an M4P plus a variety of M and LTM lenses and wanted something digital with a similar feel to film Ms now that I largely shoot digital not film.

It took me a few years to decide to purchase an M8 having previously tried a few different alternatives like the Panasonic L1 which although it is an SLR has a very RF look and feel to it. That camera was quite nice in its own way, in its day, but was big and bulky and did not take Leica M lenses although various SLR lenses would mount with adapters. It gave a sort of rangefinder feel. Later a Sony NEX and M4/3 cameras have followed and although they are easier to shoot that a Leica M in both AF (naturally) and MF mode they still don't have THAT feel.

Never the less as I have recounted on the other thread, I do feel somewhat disappointed with my M8 as it is not a mature product really and involves a number of compromises. Will I buy another M sometime? Probably not at least in the foreseeable future and of course now that there are revelations that M9 (and derivative cameras) sensors are faulty that option is, well not an option.

So I think it will have to be some other camera for me, maybe a Sony NEX 7 or maybe one of Fuji's great offerings if I want to further upgrade. I certainly like the results I get from my existing NEX camera but it is one that does not have an eye level finder and as I much prefer using an eye level finder it is a little deficient in that respect. Quite apart from this general preference, reliance on an LCD is not even an option when shooting in bright sunlight as reflections off the screen make it near as dammit impossible to view.

Duane Pandorf
12-24-2014, 15:16
Its real simple for me. I've found a synergy with the combination Leica glass on the Leica digital M that I never found with any other camera I've owned.

airfrogusmc
12-24-2014, 15:20
I never cared for the M8. THe MM though is in my opinion Leica's finest digital effort and is the camera I shoot all of my personal work with. I tried some of the mirrorless cameras and tried a Fuji before buying and bought the MM. I prefer it over all of my digital camera's. I am an old film shooter (zone system for a time, yes I did all the tests)and this is the only camera digital or film that I had as much pleasure shooting as I did with my Blads or when I shot with an 8X10 Deardorff.

jaapv
12-24-2014, 17:30
I'm curious what would have made it a poor camera?
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
12-24-2014, 18:36
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.

noimmunity
12-24-2014, 18:53
I've shot more film in the last 6 weeks than in the last 2 years.

I've gone bak to film.

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
12-24-2014, 21:46
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.

FrozenInTime
12-24-2014, 22:16
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.

Lss
12-24-2014, 22:26
The M8 seemed like too much of a technological blunder, with the various problems.
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
12-25-2014, 01:30
1. To save money, and time. See later... (and see Mike Johnston's Letter to George in his The Online Photographer blog. It's very funny and very true.)
2. Because I wanted it. I bought it perhaps a little on impulse, but it was a silver M9-P looking so much like a brand new M2 out of a time capsule, and I just had to have it.

The reference to the saving above is that I would otherwise have invested heavily in the Fuji system, X-Pro 1. That would have seen me buy two lenses immediately as well. And then more would come. Then there would be a successor like the latest Fuji, and so it would go on. By getting the M9-P I could shoot full frame with all my lenses. Up until March 2012 I was mainly using film (M5 mostly) and had the wonderful little Fuji X100. If I went Fuji interchangeable I was looking at holding a whole lot of unused M mount lenses as I wouldn't get rid of them, and I'd shoot film occasionally, maybe only very occasionally.

Getting the M9-P took me out of needing new lenses and took me out of the upgrade cycle. I had been happy with the 1970s M5, and was still using my 1950s M2. A ten year old M9-P if still useable would have been fine for me.

When the M240 came out I considered it in detail and realised that I would indeed by quite happy adding the Monochrom. With the recent sensor program news I think I am outside of the upgrade cycle for some time. This year the only new camera I bought was a Leica II (1932) and apart from the little Elmar that came with that I have bought no new lenses. Am I happy with my decisions? Yes.

The M9 gives me beautiful colors in scenes where there are subtle colors. This is important to me. I can capture pastel colored beach scenes in low light with vintage Leica and Zeiss optics.

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
12-25-2014, 01:49
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.


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!' :D

oltimer
12-25-2014, 03:37
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!' :D
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.

x-ray
12-25-2014, 15:06
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.

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
12-26-2014, 14:03
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.

ferider
12-26-2014, 19:46
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.

raid
12-26-2014, 19:47
MM or M9P or M240 or ,,,,?

Chris Bail
12-26-2014, 19:52
I had no other option: I got one for Christmas yesterday. And I'm embarrassed to admit that I like it ...

Roland.

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
12-26-2014, 19:53
MM or M9P or M240 or ,,,,?

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
12-26-2014, 20:11
Congratulations.
Is it a special edition?
Is it the $68000 edition?

ferider
12-26-2014, 20:19
Congratulations. Is it a special edition?

It's the Hundert Jahre anniversary model, an M240 in special cloths, Raid.

Thanks,

Roland.

raid
12-26-2014, 20:21
Congratulations on such a special gift.

Pioneer
12-26-2014, 21:01
Congratulations Roland. You are absolutely right. You do have a wonderful wife.

Let us know how things work out as you get into the swing of things.

jaapv
12-27-2014, 01:24
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.
I still remember your initial grumbles about the IR filters, Ben :D:D:p

presspass
12-27-2014, 09:57
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
12-27-2014, 19:53
I still remember your initial grumbles about the IR filters, Ben :D:D:p

:D 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
12-29-2014, 07:49
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.

Ronald M
01-06-2015, 08:07
My son bought one and I could not be outclassed.

Keyne
01-07-2015, 15:22
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
01-07-2015, 15:33
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.

jaapv
01-07-2015, 16:15
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.Digital Bessa = Epson RD1 :D

Pioneer
01-07-2015, 16:38
There is another option in full frame digital rangefinders??

Keyne
01-07-2015, 19:13
Digital Bessa = Epson RX1 :D

My dream would be for someone to re-introduce the Epson for maybe $1,200-$1,500.... Would buy one in a second.

Pioneer
01-07-2015, 19:29
I thought it could still be purchased new in Japan??

Keyne
01-07-2015, 20:02
Really? I didn't know that... Who sells them?

mfunnell
01-07-2015, 20:55
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

colonel
01-11-2015, 16:09
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 .....

Keyne
01-15-2015, 09:46
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 .....

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
01-15-2015, 10:04
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.

Doug
01-15-2015, 13:03
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! ;)

noisycheese
02-18-2015, 20:58
I am amazed by the level of commitment I hear around here. I cannot personally imagine saving for any camera.

I would personally be afraid of using anything I had saved for.
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
02-22-2015, 06:18
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
02-25-2015, 18:05
Since I am bored here, I am starting a counter thread ....
Why did you buy a digital Leica M (M8, M9, ...)?

For me : size, simplicity and the color its produce

honozooloo
02-25-2015, 18:14
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
03-27-2015, 05:25
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.

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
03-27-2015, 06:55
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.
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
03-27-2015, 12:42
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.

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
03-27-2015, 13:42
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.

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
03-27-2015, 14:23
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.

Mcary
03-28-2015, 03:53
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.

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
03-29-2015, 09:04
Mcary and that to.

edftwin
04-07-2015, 10:52
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
04-15-2015, 10:16
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.

Pioneer
04-20-2015, 17:01
For the life of me I can't remember why I bought a digital Leica. Must have had a good reason at the time. :D

Nonetheless I do enjoy using it.

EDIT - Ackk!!

Now I own two!

G Dogg
04-20-2015, 17:55
Because I was able to. And because it simplifies my approach.

Range-rover
06-17-2015, 06:11
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...

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
06-17-2015, 08:22
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.

mlu19
06-17-2015, 08:41
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
06-17-2015, 09:34
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...

airfrogusmc
06-17-2015, 12:24
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...


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
06-17-2015, 13:28
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.

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
06-18-2015, 08:14
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.

Brooklynguy
07-01-2015, 18:34
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.

chaospress
07-20-2015, 01:15
It started with Winogrand and Friedlander- Leicas were what they used and I wanted to shoot like them. I spent $500 for a beat up M2 with a 35mm Summaron attached to it, in 1979 or '80. I upgraded to a new M4-p when I sold an article I wrote on the photographer Muybridge. Got an M6 when they put a meter in the camera and noticed my exposures got better. Bought an M7 when they added aperture priority. Picked up an M8 when they installed a sensor. Sold it after a year or so and only shot the M7 along with a Canon 5D. Decided I'd finally go for the M9 early this year, loved it, then thought why not get an M240? Glad I made that choice because it's opened up new avenues in my shooting. I've shot with other cameras and like what they can do, but I always come back to the Leica, and I guess I figure I need the latest, greatest, most capable one.

uhoh7
07-30-2015, 19:47
Sony A7 crappy with all my nice wides.

raid
07-30-2015, 19:52
I was very much against anything digital in photography, but then I gave up, and I got a used M8.

Alberti
10-12-2015, 03:03
When Leica created the Monochrom it seemed that Leica had me in mind. I was a B&W only shooter so buying a digital with a color sensor was not in the picture for me. Leica in a way kinda made me a dream camera that did not offer features I did not need. The only improvements I would want is a bigger buffer and the bigger screen of the M-240. If Leica makes a MM-240 I will surely buy one, and I will also keep my MM. I don not want video capabilities.

I also bought the Monochrom to become more Leica-centric and concentrated on getting more ASPH glass. Also I bought more film M-bodies that could share the glass.

Before I was a B&W film only die-hard, but a Leica body with a monochrome sensor took away my last compelling reason to avoid digital. It been almost two years and I can say that my Monochrom has made me into a better photographer. Likely the best money I ever spent.

Cal

well said, back this up 100%;
now adding that the sexy feeling of MM1 files is maybe different from MM246 files that - if I get it right - arrived after your posting.

35photo
05-14-2016, 09:42
Size, and image quality

DanielDuarte
05-24-2016, 08:55
I'm personally torn.

I migrated to digital this year after years of large and medium format film usage.

I picked up an MP 240 (I get a HEALTHY BH student discount as I am an MFA Photo student) and I'm still within my 30 day return period at BH.

I have existing Leica lenses:

35mm Cron ASPH
90 Elmarit e46

Saving / Selling extra stuff to buy a 50 Lux.

My personal dilemma, the SL. The price difference is marginal, actually a bit more than the 240 since my discount was greater on that copy.

I've found myself just having a lower than expected focus hit rate, which is expected given how new it is to me. I've used RF's before but in larger cameras, ala Mamiya 7 etc.

I want to take advantage of the M glass and its characteristics, period. I tried the cron on an A7RII, woof... what a DOG.

SL with EVF for focusing on complicated scenes / the dark... vs the purity of optical RF set up.

raid
05-24-2016, 09:05
Both can be done, Daniel.
I just finalized my camera choices for an upcoming trip, and I packed into the same small camera bag my M9 with 35mm Summilux, plus a Hasselblad SWC. There is no need to give one up for the other.

robert blu
05-24-2016, 10:42
I'm not going to buy one of these cameras but if I had to decide I would really be interested in evaluating the SL with M lenses (lenses I have) ...a little bit more expensive, slightly larger body, not RF of course but a more flexible tool ...just my idea...
robert

Ruffmeister
05-24-2016, 13:07
I bought a digital M just to verify that I prefer film :bang: Hahaha
No, in reality, I love my M8/.2s. I'm not sure I would be happier with any other digital M though.

May I ask why you feel like that?

I didn't used to "get" the idea of a digital M. I liked using film M's however and ended up getting an M8. I figured I have 14 days to return if it wasn't for me and I was getting an itch to try one for a few month. I did/do however really enjoy using it, more so than my Fuji X, and it's made me crave going for an M9 for FF. :bang:

taomei
05-25-2016, 13:56
I went with a digital M because the Sony's buttons and menu interface were getting on my nerves more often than not. I prefer the simplicity of a clean shooting experience without obsessively magnifying the EVF to check for focus using peaking. There is simply no other full-frame option on the market that handles the way the Leica does :-\

Analogue Student
06-06-2016, 17:53
Mechanical and optical build quality, compactness and pride of ownership. I love my Leicas!

Archiver
06-16-2016, 05:40
My photographic journey really began years ago, with small sensor Canon cameras, and moved into a combination of film compacts and DSLR's. During this period, I often shot with a Zeiss Ikon ZM and a Canon compact in lieu of a large and heavy DSLR, so I wanted a way to shoot full frame digital without a DSLR's weight and bulk.

The M9 had recently been announced, and the timing was right. The money was available for me to use on cameras and I loved shooting with the Zeiss Ikon, so the M9 seemed like the right move to make.

Now that I think about it, had I entered the camera market at a different time, I may have gone with one of the Sony A7 variants and bypassed digital rangefinders altogether. This may have been an alternative course because since buying the M9, I've gone on to buy a number of micro four thirds cameras, and often shoot with them instead of the M9. If I didn't buy the M9 and its many lenses, I may very well have gone to the Sony side instead.

But I'm glad I didn't, because the M9 and subsequent M7 have given me thousands of cherished images and deeply thrilling joy.

zerobuttons
06-21-2016, 10:45
I wanted to feel the same sensations that my MP gave (and still gives) to me.
And it worked.

I can agree with that.

jsrockit
06-29-2016, 04:58
Leica, the anti-thesis of Sony.

uhoh7
12-11-2016, 09:13
Sony A7 crappy with all my nice wides.

Now that guy gets right to the point, ;)

Of course, about 6 months later I sent the A7 to Kolari for a thin filter mod, and since it has seen plenty of use as a second body to M9, and with lenses longer than 135. It shoots M wides 90% as well as M9.

The A7x is more fragile and more tedious to use than Mx, however my next camera, when I get my $ straight, will be A7r2 Kolari. I'll keep M9.

Why? I'm using the r2 sensor in a loaner RX1r2, and it's astounding. 80mb uncompressed RAWs which can be hammered in LR with little new noise, better at ISO 6400 than M9 at 800, 42mp which allows very large prints and great crop flexibility (i shoot wildlife also), and the techart pro will autofoucs M glass very well. AF and the silent shutter on the r2 will allow more flexibility at events.

In daylight the camera "with me" will still be the M9. :)

https://c3.staticflickr.com/2/1533/26172696482_5a65419451_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FSMUPC)
L1046305 (https://flic.kr/p/FSMUPC) by unoh7 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), on Flickr

I'm excited to see the M10, and frankly, M10/A7r2.mod would be even better :)

Ronald M
12-11-2016, 10:06
My son bought a used M8 before the 9 was out . You can not let your kids get better toy than you have.

I bought the last of the M9P`s . Good Camera.

Not unhappy with M8.

Pete B
12-23-2016, 01:04
I had my M for nearly a year before I started using it. I don't know why. Maybe it was because I wasn't keen on digital. I used it in anger for the first time on a recent trip to Nepal following a trip where a lab made a mess of developing my Portra. Presently, I can't see myself using my film Ms on future trips. This M-P 240 is the only digital camera I've enjoyed using. I feel like I've taken back control. A pro photographer I was trekking with couldn't stop asking to see my LCD screen - he was so impressed by the imaging of my 50mm Summicron, particularly on portraits. He felt his Canon whatever with his pro zooms was harsh in comparison.
Pete

rodinal
12-26-2016, 16:11
I bought an used M8.2 (at a very convenient price) for two reasons: to quickly test the behavior of my M and S lenses at different apertures and distances, and to take souvenir family/party color photographs.

Later, I discovered it performs very well with the Visoflex II (and 65mm Elmar lens plus short bellows) to do macro shots of my watch collection.

raid
03-25-2017, 06:18
I wonder if the introduction of the M10 will cause a radical change in how people view buying a Leica or not.

robert blu
03-25-2017, 09:45
Raid yes, I'm one not 100% convinced of the previous model and for that price I need to be convinced it works for me. After I played with the M10 in Wetzlar I changed my mind.
Still some doubts about the after sales service but the camera is so similar in use to my M7 and doesn't need long scanning sessions that I think yes, it can be my camera!
robert

Ko.Fe.
03-25-2017, 10:32
Just because it is Leica. Here is nothing else like Leica. Film and digital. Nobody else makes camera as nice as Leica makes them. In 2016 I received money as the gift for buying camera. I have money enough for high end DSLR or nice Fuji with load of lens, but I went and purchased new M-E. In 2017 after realizing what M-E is so precious I jumped on M8 as well. Because it became affordable.

My precious!

raid
03-25-2017, 11:20
Raid yes, I'm one not 100% convinced of the previous model and for that price I need to be convinced it works for me. After I played with the M10 in Wetzlar I changed my mind.
Still some doubts about the after sales service but the camera is so similar in use to my M7 and doesn't need long scanning sessions that I think yes, it can be my camera!
robert

If you get the M10 before we meet this year, that would be great. Then I could see how the M10 looks like in person.

robert blu
03-25-2017, 11:41
If you get the M10 before we meet this year, that would be great. Then I could see how the M10 looks like in person.

...it could be dangerous...:)
rob

raid
03-25-2017, 11:44
...it could be dangerous...:)
rob

Rasha will keep any dangers of buying an M10 safe away from me!

sepiareverb
03-25-2017, 12:30
I was having trouble keeping color paper and chemistry on hand. The low temp RA4 kits were getting hard you source reliably, and paper supply was erratic. I started inkjet printing and thought the digital route would give me a simpler workflow. I've not really looked back. I still shoot some color film here and there, but nowhere near the frequency I used to.

TerryMcC
05-19-2017, 00:02
I bought a M240 about a month ago, haven't taken it outside the house yet as whenever I get the photography urge I grab my Barnack iiif instead. It is smaller and lighter, and I don't mind the lack of a meter.

narsuitus
12-31-2017, 09:16
In the early 1970s, the first Leica I used was an M1 on a microscope.

My favorite 35mm film rangefinder has been a Leica M6. I have also used Contax, Canon, Argus, Minolta, and Fuji rangefinders.

In 2012, I compiled a list of size, weight, and performance features that I wanted my ideal digital rangefinder to have. When the Leica M10 met 28 of my 37 desired features, I decided it was time to buy the Leica M10 because it was as close as I would get to my ideal.

JeffS7444
12-31-2017, 10:31
At the time when the M8 was announced, I was heavily invested in Leica M, so a digital M made sense. Aside from Epson's RD1, I don't recall there being any compact large sensor cameras on the market: I think Sigma's DP1 and the first-generation Micro 4/3rds cameras came afterwards.

Really enjoyed the M8 and M9 when I had them! Selling them was another matter: Never before have I seen so many would-be buyers who fretted over well, pretty much everything.

Moto Mark
12-31-2017, 11:05
I got the M240 because I love shooting with my film Leicas ( IIIg, M2, M6) and I wanted that same Ďfeelí in the digital world that I wasnít getting with my then current Canon and Olympus digitals. Not long after I got the 240 the digitals were sold.

I can use all of my M and LTM lenses on the 240 and I especially like that if I come up with a vintage LTM lens I can instantly see how it will look by popping it on the 240.

When Iím shooting with the 240 Iím usually treating it like a film camera ( ISO at 400 or below, manual shutter speed and aperture) and Iím very impressed with the results.

Ronald M
12-31-2017, 23:01
My son ordered a M8 ,told me about it, and while it was in transit I got one for my self.

Got to keep up with the kids you know.


m9P came later.




p

coelacanth
01-25-2018, 00:30
Came back to digital M after an extended break from it.

I'm trying to simplify and reduce my photo (and other) gear, and decided to trade-in bunch of stuff to almost break even with a decent condition M Type 240 with Leica Store warranty. I'm keeping one film M, one digital M, 35/2 and 50/1.4 Pre-ASPH lenses for basically all of my daily photography while OM-D kit will cover underwater, film scanning, video and technical photos.

We'll see if it sticks.

d_c
03-07-2018, 04:25
I was all in with a Leica M system - multiple lenses and 3 film bodies, but was finding the logistics of getting my pictures to digital (where they needed to be) was getting more complicated and expensive. I tried a Ricoh GXR as an interim measure but it was so painful to use that I found myself leaving the camera at home, so I decided to trade in the kit I rarely used and get a digital body. I'm now down to four lenses, my M6 and an M262, and I'm enjoying shooting pictures again. I'm still a little rusty but gradually getting back up to speed.

ASA 32
06-21-2018, 08:55
No other digital body that integrates as well with M glass.

What he said....

trix4ever
07-11-2018, 00:10
I was fed up with carrying my D810 and lenses from 14mm to 500mm and did not like the black and white conversions from the nikon, so since I had a Leica M6 and M4-P and lenses from 15mm to 50mm it seemed obvious that a digital M might be worth trying. The M10 was too expensive, the M8 and M9's too crude, crap screens, horrible shutter sound, Monochrom too pricey, then I found an M240 just under US$3000 and could not resist.
I've semi retired and don't need the long lenses any more.
I thought I'd use the M240 for black and white conversions which I must say seem much better than the D810, but I instantly fell for the colour files which are exactly what I always wanted but have never found elsewhere in digital, having tried Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Canon and disliked them all.
So now for me its the Leica film M's for tri-x and the M240 for colour, all in one bag. The Nikon and it's lenses will be going on Ebay but I must admit I will wait to see what Nikon mirrorless gets released before I sell, just in case they don't screw it up.


http://filmisadelight.com

raid
07-30-2018, 06:26
I had/have lots of Leica lenses, so it made sense to me to try out a Leica digital M camera. You kept the RF in place, and the results look fine to me.

Mcary
07-30-2018, 09:24
Sure I had a good reason for deciding the get a digital Leica but now that I've been using on for about 5-6 years I have no plans on stopping. Sure the M9 I'm using is almost 9 years old but it meets all my needs. Right now I don't see replacing for another 3-5 years if not longer.

ktmrider
07-30-2018, 13:23
Have owned film Leica's since 1975. There has always been one on hand since the Leica CL way back when. I still own film M's but wanted the convince of digital for certain uses. I picked up an M9 about five years ago and traveled through Europe for 90 days with it but never bonded. Sold it two years ago and picked up the MP240 about six months ago. It gives a lot more capability then the M9 so no plans to move to M10.

richlion
08-22-2018, 03:05
Was a G.I. in Germany 1961. The M3 seemed like a well built camera with a reputation as the finest 35MM camera around used by all the best shooters at the time.

The Air Force PX in Wiesbaden was asking $250 (about 2 months G.I. salary.) I took the M3 with a 50mm Dual Range Summicron, 35mm Summaron f 2.8; and a 135mm Elmar f 4.0

I have been owner of many other cameras since then but the M3 is still my film companion. I shoot B&W T-Max 400, develop in a small tank, then scan.

My son won't let me sell the camera so I guess it'll be in the family for a while longer.

Richard M, NYC

robert blu
08-22-2018, 05:14
...My son won't let me sell the camera so I guess it'll be in the family for a while longer.

Richard M, NYC

This is so nice :) and welcome to the forum !
robert

ckuwajima
08-22-2018, 05:21
Went from digital Canon back to shoot film with a M4 a few years ago. Being fond of the handling of a RF, just wanted a digital M for (a few) situations where film is not doable.

dfdann
08-22-2018, 05:23
Bought a Digilux 1 when they first came out. It still works by the way. That led to a M7 and
Then a M8. Recently added a new CL which I love.
Cheers, Dan

raid
04-03-2019, 07:33
OK, so this old thread made it back to life!
The "internal struggle" with choosing between film and digital camera is still present.
The monetary loss is large when you switch from an older digital Leica to a new digital Leica. The "old" film Leica cameras still work like new, even though they may be from the 1950's or earlier. As we get older, time becomes even more precious, and here, a digital camera is the winner for my case. Do I really want to re-learn how to develop and print B&W film? No good photo labs are to be found locally, so film needs to be mailed out for developing and maybe scanning and/or prints. More and more, the edge goes to digital cameras. Whether the camera must be a Leica seems to be another issue.

peterm1
04-05-2019, 16:18
OK, so this old thread made it back to life!

:)

You are right Raid....It's Alive

This phrase always reminds me of this....... :)


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/NewVictoriousBorderterrier-small.gif

On a more serious note I think I mostly agree with your earlier post in which you said - shown below.

"I had/have lots of Leica lenses, so it made sense to me to try out a Leica digital M camera. You kept the RF in place, and the results look fine to me."

That quote would pretty much represent my thoughts too. Though to be honest if mirrorless technology was as good back then it is now I very possibly would have forgone the M8 option and instead just gone with something like one of the cameras in the Sony A7 series.

raid
05-18-2019, 12:39
I am still finding it easier and more practical to use a digital camera than using a film camera, but I find it more fun to occasionally use a film camera for smaller numbers of images. It is less costly these days to use a digital cameras than a film camera if you must send out the film for developing and scans. At least we are lucky to get both options available to us, Peter.

Borge H
08-17-2019, 04:54
In the end, I thought it took too long time to process film to get results. Especially slide color became more complicated as the number of laboratories decreased. Scanning also took very long time!

First I bought a new M9, later I also bought a M (model 240). I might have sold the M9 but I kept it as a spare though it is not used that much anymore. It's new sensor, sad for the old one had nice colors!

Digital images are easiest if you have a task that needs to be quickly resolved, but for my own needs I like to use my old film Leicas. I will not buy M10.

But now it is enough. Now I have the cameras I need for a long time to come.

raid
08-17-2019, 06:10
Borge, can you detect a difference in the colors from your M9 with new sensor when compared with old sensor?

Borge H
08-17-2019, 13:31
Borge, can you detect a difference in the colors from your M9 with new sensor when compared with old sensor?


I know a lot of people write that you can adjust the colors in Lightroom so that the images are similar, but I am not so good at Lightroom and have not succeeded. If anyone knows how to easily do this I will be happy!

My own workflow is that I mostly only adjust the color temperature, sharpness and exposure in Lightroom on my dng files. I then found that the images from the M9 with new sensor are more similar to M (type 240) than those with old M9 sensor, the new pictures are more "warm".

I liked the pictures with the old M9 sensor! They reminded me of Kodachrome. But it was not an option to keep it, it had started to become small dots with rings. They quickly became several in the pictures. Leica in Germany changed the sensor and did a service at a small cost.

cboy
09-26-2020, 20:35
i grew up and learnt photography with a manual film camera. Digital Ms imho is the closest to simulate manual photography experience currently. Simply that...Not every one needs the bells and whistles latest tech, which often distracts shooting experience, and often at times can hinder user control. My two cents...