Interesting article for Leica fans

[fotografz]

I like the SIZE of the A7r and I don' like the PRICE of the M240 - I don't SEE a better file from the M240 than I get from my M9. My MM is the most satisfying camera I own.

I can't use focus peeking to shoot wide open with my Noctilux and nail a person's eyes every time - I own a lot of fast Leica glass to shoot wide open - so the M9 and MM are my go to choices for now a far as serious rangefinder work goes.

I like being able to use Leica glass on the Sony - but I will buy the Sony 24-70FE lens to pretty much stay glued on the A7r - because the Sony SIZE for RESOLUTION equation is huge winner.

All that has changed for me is the price of entry into larger prints ha come down to reality. The Leica/Nikon systems I run - still can't do what my Artec and Alpa gear does as far as tripod work goes. I don't expect this to change - ever. I am glad I stopped upgrading MF digi backs at 40 megapixels.

I won't be buying into MF CMOS either - CMOS files all look the same - from every manufacturer out there- they are all the same - no pop straight out of camera.

Peter, you have a way of summing it up directly

I've come to a similar conclusion … in today's over-crowded camera market, with all sorts of cameras that meet a vast majority of needs, there is a new user skill that is required: The art of knowing when to stop.

I should have stopped at my M9P which had the CCD mojo I feel is missing with anything else. The MM is also my most valued rangefinder ever.

I did do a course correction and sold all of my Hasselblad H4D/60 gear, and now have "stopped" at the S2.

The A7R is, as you say, likable due to the size and relatively reasonable price for what it is capable of.

However, I process work from my gear and that of all the different second shooters and assistants I hire. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and a few others … all CMOS, all homogenized in look and feel out of the camera.

- Marc

 

[jonoslack]

I bought into Leica expecting to at best tolerate the rangefinder safe in the knowledge that with the M I also had liveview on LCD and EVF. The reality was I fell in love with a rangefinder.

HI There Keith
I remember your anguish over the decision, and I'm REALLY PLEASED to hear that you've fallen in love with a rangefinder.
I just get a little buzz every time I see that patch and the framelines which an EVF just doesn't do for me (good though they are these days). I also think that being able to 'see around' the subject is most important for composition.

all the best

 

[KeithL]

My camera buying decisions were essentially made for me. My requirement was compact and relatively lightweight bodies, full frame sensors, a complete range of lenses with an emphasis on super-wides and outstanding, glitch free image quality that could, when necessary, be framed with precision.

What other choice was there?

 

[KeithL]

HI There Keith
I remember your anguish over the decision, and I'm REALLY PLEASED to hear that you've fallen in love with a rangefinder.
I just get a little buzz every time I see that patch and the framelines which an EVF just doesn't do for me (good though they are these days). I also think that being able to 'see around' the subject is most important for composition.

all the best

Hi Jono, yes, things turned out even better than I'd hoped!

I love the rangefinder but also find the EVF very useful. Amongst the lenses I'm currently using is a 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor AIS, via adapter. I bought the lens in the early 80s and shot most of my stock with it over a period of many years. At the time it was considered to be amongst the sharpest lenses ever made by Nikon. Fast forward 30 years and I was unsure how it would behave on FF, high MP digital sensors but I needn't have worried, I'm simply blown away by the IQ.

The M240 is just so versatile.

Best

Keith

 

[KeithL]

I should perhaps add that my walk-around camera - where framing is less of an issue - is my M9-P which of course takes full advantage of being able to 'see around' the subject; certainly an advantage when used for this type of work.

My M240 is mainly although not exclusively used as a tripod mounted camera via a RRS L-Bracket, typically using rangefinder for focus and EVF for framing.

 

[Jack]

CCD color is second to none -- at least at present.
I do not agree that CCD monochrome is superior to CMOS monochrome; I see the best mono coming more as a function of total pixels available for conversion.
Dedicated mono cams do give you more net mono pixels out of the gate than Bayer.
MF cams of any build are heavy and big relative to most FF 35 DSLR.
DSLR cams are faster to use and more convenient to carry.
DSLR cams won't flash synch at more than 1/250th with studio strobes.
Larger formats render an entirely different DoF signature than smaller ones, regardless of lens used -- an effect difficult to replicate with smaller formats.
The Sony has taken FF 35 DSLR down to M4/3 sizes and portability while retaining a FF35 look -- and with about any lens.
The smallest cams are saddled with EVF's; I still prefer TTL or direct VF's.
Horses for courses.
Bacon.

 

[Seascape]

I spent 6 years with a M8, and aside for the UV/IR filters creating some problems when bright lights were in the image, I was extremely pleased with the results.
I did test a few M9's but they never impressed me as being worth the trade up cost difference, for very little gain in IQ.

I have a set of first class R lenses from my film days, so when the M240 came out it seemed like the time to go FF Leica digital.
I must say I am still working on M240 skin tones, however the IQ is substantially higher than the M9's I tested, all my M lenses look fantastic on the new M.

I have read as many reports as I can about the Sony's and realized the A7 was probably the best fit for my wide angle M lenses. I currently own a 24 Elmarit ASPH, a 28 Elmarit Ver 4, and a 35 Summilux ASPH.

I recently tested the 28 Elmarit Ver 4 on a A7 and it was totally unusable, sharp only in the very centre of the image, and major smearing everywhere else even at 5.6. I have not tested my other wide angles because the 28 results were so disappointing.

I received my Leica R to M adapter last week and the results with my 100 and 180 Apo's are first rate…..I am extremely impressed with the results, and of course they have lens specific in-camera corrections from the M240.
Both lenses were shot tripod mounted using LV and focus peaking, that was easy to use and extremely accurate.

Overall, I am very happy with my M and R lenses when used in conjunction with the M240.
My very limited experience with the A7 was quite disappointing.
This is obviously just my experience, but maybe it adds to the overall database of experience on how to best use Leica M and R lenses.

 

[segedi]

My fullframe options for Leica lenses:
Monochrom (18mp, B&W only)
M7 (~24mp with nikon 9000 scanner, swap-able color and b&w sensor : )
M3 (same as m7)

For cropped frame I use a GXR with M mount.

I went from shooting B&W film and color digital to the opposite!
While intrigued by the offerings, I'll be waiting until I use up a lot of film and/or the scanner quits...

 

[fotografz]

I spent 6 years with a M8, and aside for the UV/IR filters creating some problems when bright lights were in the image, I was extremely pleased with the results.
I did test a few M9's but they never impressed me as being worth the trade up cost difference, for very little gain in IQ.

I have a set of first class R lenses from my film days, so when the M240 came out it seemed like the time to go FF Leica digital.
I must say I am still working on M240 skin tones, however the IQ is substantially higher than the M9's I tested, all my M lenses look fantastic on the new M.

I have read as many reports as I can about the Sony's and realized the A7 was probably the best fit for my wide angle M lenses. I currently own a 24 Elmarit ASPH, a 28 Elmarit Ver 4, and a 35 Summilux ASPH.

I recently tested the 28 Elmarit Ver 4 on a A7 and it was totally unusable, sharp only in the very centre of the image, and major smearing everywhere else even at 5.6. I have not tested my other wide angles because the 28 results were so disappointing.

I received my Leica R to M adapter last week and the results with my 100 and 180 Apo's are first rate…..I am extremely impressed with the results, and of course they have lens specific in-camera corrections from the M240.
Both lenses were shot tripod mounted using LV and focus peaking, that was easy to use and extremely accurate.

Overall, I am very happy with my M and R lenses when used in conjunction with the M240.
My very limited experience with the A7 was quite disappointing.
This is obviously just my experience, but maybe it adds to the overall database of experience on how to best use Leica M and R lenses.

Unfortunately you picked the one lens in the Leica M line-up that is totally unusable. Of my 6 M lenses, 4 are great, 1 marginal depending on subject, and one unusable: the 28mm.

Even with 4 Leica lenses working very well, I probably wouldn't have bought a Sony A7/A7R just to use with M optics alone. However, I also wouldn't get a M240 either since I almost exclusively shoot people, and the skin tone struggle put me off. The M240 or its successor may be revisited if and when that gets fixed without requiring a degree from MIT and PHD level work in color theory.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

CCD color is second to none -- at least at present.
I do not agree that CCD monochrome is superior to CMOS monochrome; I see the best mono coming more as a function of total pixels available for conversion.
Dedicated mono cams do give you more net mono pixels out of the gate than Bayer.
MF cams of any build are heavy and big relative to most FF 35 DSLR.
DSLR cams are faster to use and more convenient to carry.
DSLR cams won't flash synch at more than 1/250th with studio strobes.
Larger formats render an entirely different DoF signature than smaller ones, regardless of lens used -- an effect difficult to replicate with smaller formats.
The Sony has taken FF 35 DSLR down to M4/3 sizes and portability while retaining a FF35 look -- and with about any lens.
The smallest cams are saddled with EVF's; I still prefer TTL or direct VF's.
Horses for courses.
Bacon.

Excellent summation Jack.

While not a CMOS sensor, I can attest to the notion that more pixels (and/or better pixels) makes for excellent B&W conversions. At lower ISOs to 640, my S2 consistantly does better than my M Mono.

I also very much agree that CCD color is better, which is hard for some to grasp unless they have worked extensively with a good CCD based camera. My hope is that your caveat (i.e., "for now."), comes true, and CMOS matures enough to deliver that level of color fidelity without all the confusing struggle in post.

Glad you touched on the larger format DOF signature … it is something often overlooked.

Agreed, EVF have a ways to go yet. Useable, and especially valuable for really low light, but still irritating as the technology now stands.

Thanks,

-Marc

(BTW, what does "Bacon" mean? )

 

[GrahamWelland]

(BTW, what does "Bacon" mean? )

I'll take a wager that if you google Beggin Strips videos you'll find the answer

 

[PeterA]

Peter, you have a way of summing it up directly

I've come to a similar conclusion … in today's over-crowded camera market, with all sorts of cameras that meet a vast majority of needs, there is a new user skill that is required: The art of knowing when to stop.

I should have stopped at my M9P which had the CCD mojo I feel is missing with anything else. The MM is also my most valued rangefinder ever.

I did do a course correction and sold all of my Hasselblad H4D/60 gear, and now have "stopped" at the S2.

The A7R is, as you say, likable due to the size and relatively reasonable price for what it is capable of.

However, I process work from my gear and that of all the different second shooters and assistants I hire. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and a few others … all CMOS, all homogenized in look and feel out of the camera.

- Marc

Hey Marc

yeah I can be 'direct' I guess- no offence meant to anyone.

people can spend their money anyway they like - but truth be told my favourite photos framed and hung have rarely been an outcome of megapixels or even optics...certainly not dollar spend..

I have come to favour smaller lighter gear - the Sony ticks that box - my Leica M's have a challenger - finally...well maybe just a pretender at this stage..but light enough to punch above its weight for sure ..

cheers and happy shooting
Pete