Sell my RX1R2 for an M? 'M' I crazy?

[Speedgraphic]

I put together a ZI kit recently with the Zeiss discounts available now. I have the 50/1.5, the 35/1.4, and the 28/2.8. My compact digital is an RX1R2 (I shoot weddings and have Nikon digital equipment that only gets used for work projects), which has been a phenomenal performer in every regard. But it occurs to me that by selling it I'm most of the way to a used M. Does anyone think that my ZM 35/1.4 is an adequate replacement for the 35/2 Sonnar? Or does anyone think that the worse ISO performance and lack of AF are worth putting up with for the joy of using my three ZM lenses on the best available DRF that will take them?

Is the EVF on the M comparable to the EVF on the RX1R2? (I could then use it with slightly more confidence for work, or to close focus using filters).

Frankly I've been astounded with the little RX1R2 and I'd be sad to see it go. OTOH, this lovely ZM 35/1.4 is fantastic on film, do I need 2 35s in a compact camera? Probably not... But I've been prone to GAS induced mistakes before... Any advice would be welcome. :thumbup:

 

[Vivek]

It is truly your call.

Only you can make the GAS induced mistakes that you are prone to make.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Ill take that as a vote for the RX1.

 

[Paratom]

The M has the big advantage that you cann use other focal lengths than 35mm. It also offers an excellent viewfinder.
The vf2 is a compromise (IMO) as is the viewfinder for the RX1.
For 28/35/50 the OVF of the M works great.
So if you like to use more than 35mm and if you like optical viewfinders I think the decision makes sense. The M plus a compact lens isnt much bigger than the RX1.
I once added a Rx1 to my M equipment , enjoyed it but felt too much overlap with the M and therefore sold it again.

 

[iiiNelson]

Depends on what's most important between compactness and flexibility. Either is capable. One has AF. No bad choices here. Just preference.

 

[thompsonkirk]

I'm heading in the opposite direction – just sold my last Leica body in favor of Sony (A7rII, RX1rII, and coming in the mail, a Kolari mod A7rII for better corners with 28 & 35mm rangefinder lenses).

Remember that you can go to higher ISOs with the RX1rII without banding or noisy shadows; so in a sense it's already equivalent to f1.4 on Leica M. No reason to change unless your top concern is bokeh.

This is my first time in over 40 years without a Leica. That's partly because of a couple of unfortunate service experiences, but more generally I don't think it's the right time to buy one – maybe the next generation, but right now they're just too far behind.

In the meantime, the little RX2 on a wrist strap with a Metro grip reminds me of the light and easy handling of my 1970s M4.

Kirk

 

[silver92b]

I put together a ZI kit recently with the Zeiss discounts available now. I have the 50/1.5, the 35/1.4, and the 28/2.8. My compact digital is an RX1R2 (I shoot weddings and have Nikon digital equipment that only gets used for work projects), which has been a phenomenal performer in every regard. But it occurs to me that by selling it I'm most of the way to a used M. Does anyone think that my ZM 35/1.4 is an adequate replacement for the 35/2 Sonnar? Or does anyone think that the worse ISO performance and lack of AF are worth putting up with for the joy of using my three ZM lenses on the best available DRF that will take them?

Is the EVF on the M comparable to the EVF on the RX1R2? (I could then use it with slightly more confidence for work, or to close focus using filters).

Frankly I've been astounded with the little RX1R2 and I'd be sad to see it go. OTOH, this lovely ZM 35/1.4 is fantastic on film, do I need 2 35s in a compact camera? Probably not... But I've been prone to GAS induced mistakes before... Any advice would be welcome. :thumbup:

I shot the Zeiss 50 f2 and the 35 f2.8 with my M240. Both lenses are quite good. If you go this route, I'd strongly advise doing the 6bit coding so the camera will recognize the lenses. In my case, the body just doesn't want to see the DIY coding I did with the templates and paint pens that come with the kit (it works great with the Leica coded lenses). My friend has no such problems with his M240. IMHO, the Olympus EVF does a pretty good job and works well with the focus peaking and magnification, but it's bit of a clunky add-on. If you get it, make sure you get the "Thumby" thumb grip so you don't have to remove the thumbs-up each time you use the EVF.

I've never used the Sony so I have no opinion on that. I do have a Leica Q as well and I can tell you for sure that there is a big difference shooting with only the fixed lens vs the ability to shoot with interchangeable lenses. The "digital zooming" (cropping) works pretty well, but will not equal the actual longer lens. The M240 is probably not the stellar low ISO performer that the Sony is supposed to be. It also lacks AF and IBS. OTOH, I get more "keepers" shooting with the M240 than I ever did with the Micro4/3 cameras I had before. I love shooting with the M240 and the various lenses I have. Also, if you want ultra wide angle, you cannot get it at all with the fixed 35mm lens.

It's up you, there is no right or wrong choice per se. You can probably get a very nice deal on a used M240 so the money might not be the issue if you sell the Sony. Maybe you should rent an M240 and shoot with it for a bit with the 50mm and 35mm lenses and see what appeals to you more. I don't think you can go wrong with the Leica, but I'm not an unbiased observer

 

[Speedgraphic]

Thanks for all the advice everyone! I think I'm going to go for an M. My reasons are that I think I'll have much more fun using the Leica, and that it may drive me to be more creative with exposure, being so manual friendly. This is reinforced somewhat by the time I spent with a borrowed M, during which I had a heck of a fun time and composed and exposed differently than I do with my Sony. Plus, my 28/2.8 Biogon really sings on the M 240 sensor. That lens is so under-rated. I like that the Leica is less 'gadgety' vs the Sony too. A few of my peers in the wedding industry use them for parts of their work and I always love what they do with them.

Plus, M prices have really REALLY come down. I am buying one from a friend of a friend for $2,900. I will easily be able to sell my RX1R2 kit at or near that price.

I didn't know the Thumby grip lets you use the EVF...I'll def look into that. I agree that the camera really needs a grip. It's a slippery mistress!

Maybe in a year or two when prices have come down on the RX1R2 again I'll pick one up. I think the Leica will make up for it's absence, but I'm sure part of me will miss that little 35/2 Sonnar and sensor combination. But we can't have everything I suppose.

 

[DanielDuarte]

Have to shoot what inspires you to get up and take the picture.

For me, this meant a long journey. I fell in love with Leica optics and wanted to continue that. I had a bit of a financial mess when I switched from an MP240 to the SL but its worth it. Now, I want a MM to join the SL.

The EVF and use of the M glass forces me to go tripod and slow. Just like when I was shooting large format.

The M is wonderful for that quick, discreet shooting.

But ultimately we have to stop pixel peeping and spec drooling and make pictures.