The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Looking for a perspective from those who used to shoot Leica M and have moved on...

J

JohnW

Guest
....Do you ever miss your Leica?
Every day. I went from M8/M9 to a variety of systems, but nothing has felt quite right. I'm still waiting for an affordable camera that is a unique pleasure to hold and use. I could not imagine using a big rig like the D810 for daily shooting of family, etc. Not to mention that it seems like serious overkill for that purpose. But that's me.

For your mostly family pics, it's hard to see how your M240 and m4/3 kits would not cover your needs. Honestly, this sounds more like a GAS-itch for something different rather than a real need. Not that there's anything wrong with that; some itches just need scratching. But why is it so hard to be content with what we have!?

John
 
Last edited:

Amin

Active member
Honestly, this sounds more like a GAS-itch for something different rather than a real need. Not that there's anything wrong with that; some itches just need scratching. But why is it so hard to be content with what we have!?
Probably right, John.
 
Last edited:

Double Negative

Not Available
I think a part of the problem, for any photographer - is to find One Camera to Do it All(TM). I'd say for many, that's just not possible. If all you shoot is street, sure - a Leica RF would probably do it. But a lot of us are into multiple disciplines, have different ways of working and certainly different preferences.

Of course, some of us might take this freedom a bit too far when the GAS hits... :D
 

segedi

Member
You have a beautiful family and they appear to enjoy the non-AF method that you are currently using.

But, if you really want AF, you could pick up a Df with kit 50mm and have fast AF, great IQ and ... it weighs less than your M240 and 50mm Summilux! ( http://j.mp/1AXuEvr ) You could pick up 35 and 85mm f/1.8s as well and have a very well rounded kit for less than the cost of the M240 body. Keep the glass... like others, every time I sell Leica glass I regret it and it can be adapted to other digital bodies via adapter if the itch ever arises.

Whatever you do, wait until after Photokina!

I've sold of my Canon DSLR and all but two lenses (still have a couple film cameras)
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I went the other way. After some twenty years shooting Hasselblad film and digital cameras for both professional and personal work I switched to the Leica M series. I'm currently using M9-P and M 240 cameras. I can honestly say I haven't had had so much fun in years!

Having said that I can't see that the OPs requirements wouldn't be met by m4/3, in fact were I shooting primarily family and outings I wouldn't even consider lugging around a DSLR system.
 
J

JohnW

Guest
...-I like using cameras. The way an M240 and D810 feel and work in my hands is pleasurable to me. I've owned an X100S and didn't connect with it for whatever reason.

-I do print my family photos quite large and feel that I have some few special prints (both family documentary as well as art), at least to me and my family, where the image quality contributes to my enjoyment.

-I like pixel peeping and seeing sharp, high quality, aberration-free images at full magnification on my calibrated screen as I process them. It's just a process I enjoy, almost a separate hobby from the final product images.

-Up to a point, I don't mind carting around some gear.

-I enjoy lens connoisseurship - how certain lenses draw, finding low distortion superwides with low distortion, flat fields, and sharp corners, the feeling of a well made lens, etc. Again, it's a separate hobby for me than the photography, but it's one that I enjoy.
Those points help me a lot to understand your thinking. Why not sell the m4/3 kit and get a D810 and your favorite prime? Use that and the M240 for a while and then decide.

John
 

mmbma

Active member
you should have both. I have my Leica setup and my DSLR. Instead of getting the most expensive and newest model, get a used Nikon 800 or 800e if you need the 36mp. the Sigma glasses are great BUT heavy
 

Amin

Active member
Those points help me a lot to understand your thinking. Why not sell the m4/3 kit and get a D810 and your favorite prime? Use that and the M240 for a while and then decide.

John
Doh, you quoted me before I could delete my defensive post. Oh well. I do enjoy these cameras and don't care if they "outspec" me or were designed for better or more serious photographers.

I love adjusting the focus tab on my 35mm Summilux to zone focus for my playing child as I raise the M to my eye. Love seeing the rest of the frame when I use the 50 or 90. But I also enjoy the more precise framing the DSLR gives me. I truly enjoy focusing manually with a rangefinder, but I appreciate great AF as well.

I think Double Negative and John are right - I want both cameras, but I like the idea of owning only one of them :D.
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I can only add one thing --- having just one system in the camera cabinet sure makes deciding which to use for whatever upcoming shoot a breeze :ROTFL:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
It is symptomatic of the age that there should be 17 replies and they all embark on putting the gear first and the image second as a way to choose.

As the well known photographer and educator Paul Hill succinctly says "Personal taste and circumstances inevitably affect which method you use to make pictures, but the technology should always be in the service of your ideas and not the other way around"
All well and good, although in my case I've found that in the large, for my kind of photography, it simply doesn't matter much. The cameras themselves change the photos due to how they image, the other dynamics of the interaction between me and subject is pretty much the same.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
All well and good, although in my case I've found that in the large, for my kind of photography, it simply doesn't matter much. The cameras themselves change the photos due to how they image, the other dynamics of the interaction between me and subject is pretty much the same.
Very well said - could not agree more !!!
 

topoxforddoc

New member
I like to keep my photographic tools simple, just like they used to be. I have no problem doing manual focus, even on fast moving objects. That's how we all did it before 1980 and the Minolta 7000AF SLR.

For me, it's the image which matters. I'm not too fussed about having the latest technology. Sometimes technology gets in the way between you and crafting the picture. So for me, a manual focus, manual control camera is perfect. Film or digital - well they have their own limitations and each have a different look, esp in black and white, which is my preferred medium.

So, a Leica RF is perfect. My DMRs were good too and get used all the time - positively archaic in digital terms, but they deliver the goods. After all, that's what matters.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
not sure i see it that way.

shooting with a rollei TLR, blad 500, giant Canon or Nikon SLR or leica M all affect the engagement and dynamic of interaction quite differently. as does waist level viewfinder, square format, vs rectangular, loud shutter, quiet shutter, etc.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
not sure i see it that way.

shooting with a rollei TLR, blad 500, giant Canon or Nikon SLR or leica M all affect the engagement and dynamic of interaction quite differently. as does waist level viewfinder, square format, vs rectangular, loud shutter, quiet shutter, etc.
Not all Canons are "giant". Most of these Mirrorless, and some DSLR cameras have tilting LCDs for waist level work, or overhead work. The adaption to a square or rectangle may be an aesthetic choice but need not interfere with how you relate to a subject.

While I do personally subscribe to the notion that a rangefinder allows you to see the world with less distractions, it doesn't mean that using a Nikon has to alter your vision or way of seeing the world around you. A decisive moment is a decisive moment regardless of the tool … be it a Hasselblad, TLR, Leica or Nikon/Canon etc.

What's the old chestnut that gets bandied about whenever discussions like this arise?

"Put anything into the hands of an experienced and talented photographer, and" … you know the rest.

But we digress … the question is about shooting family images with a M or Nikon. If the OP is ultra skilled with a M it can work. If there is a lot of activity and diverse shooting, then maybe a Nikon or Canon, or (?) might be of more aid.

I shoot weddings with a M and a DSLR. There certain things that I like doing with the M. There are certain things I wouldn't even consider shooting with a M, and I've been using one regularly for almost 40 years.

The difference is, I can't just say "darn, I missed that one" like I can when shooting my own family snaps.

- Marc
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
For family type photos an A7/R with FE 55 or 35 mm seems to work pretty well, including face, nearest eye detection, etc.
Also, that system can easily be used by "non-expert" family members. ;)
 

jonoslack

Active member
I have these temptations occasionally . . Lots of great responses here, but there is one thing that nobody seems to have mentioned.

This is a one way trip - you can get enough money from your Leica kit to fund a fine D810 kit - no question. But you wouldn't be able to sell your D810 kit in a year to fund a fine Leica kit again.

I was actually very tempted to get rid of my µ43 kit and get a simple Nikon kit . . . . then I shot with it again, and it makes a wonderful compliment to the Leica M - and it's quite good enough to make huge prints of people.

One always naturally thinks of print size in relation to mp size as comparable (so that 36mp is more than twice as much as 16mp) . . . when I'm contemplating going to 36mp I always look at this little diagram:



I think you'd regret your M kit if you sold it.
 

250swb

Member
All well and good, although in my case I've found that in the large, for my kind of photography, it simply doesn't matter much. The cameras themselves change the photos due to how they image, the other dynamics of the interaction between me and subject is pretty much the same.
Glad you agree with me that the photographer, and therefore the resulting image, makes the individualist statement and the camera goes along for the ride. I got the impression though that Amin had lost a bit of direction and a 'gear hunt' was on the cards to regain it. Everybody knows a new camera can refresh the way you look at things, or it can mean you just shoot the same things all over again except with a new camera.

The alternative strategy is to refine the approach to the image, put that first, see where a camera's imaging ability can be employed for the job in hand. A small fast focusing EM-1 can change the dynamic's of the type of family photograph made just as a large format field camera can slow things down and put an entirely different feeling into the family image. If your photographs all look the same no matter what camera you use that reflects how you work, I was simply asking Amin to consider the way he works and not put the cart before the horse.

Steve
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I sold off my Leica gear when I went to medium format digital. Do I miss it? You bet!

Is it the best solution for shooting family and general travel images vs a current spec aps-c or m4/3 system? I'll wager that the answer is no. As mentioned, I'd also happily enable face tracking & focusing for family shots and almost any of the current crop of cameras would work superbly well.

Would I trade from Leica to a Nikon full frame DSLR system (other than maybe a DF)? No I personally wouldn't for shooting the kind of imagery you showed. Landscapes, sports or still life? Sure, go for 24/36mp behemoths but I would counter that for general shooting 16/24mp is just fine. I'd take colour fidelity and DR over mega pixels any & every day. Also portability matters a lot and you're more likely to have a lighter/smaller system with you than a full size DSLR.

Now the tricky intangible consideration is what do YOU ENJOY shooting with? I loved shooting with my Leica's even if I couldn't guarantee getting focus 100% of the time. It was a special experience and I appreciate the resulting special images. Ditto medium format tech, film (pano 35 & 617 & 4x5) and my Nikon Df system for some reason. My Fuji X series cameras do a great job but lack the special experience for the other systems mentioned. Ditto my Sonys. That said, in general shooting the Df, Fuji XT-1, Sony RX1r and Sony A7r all do a great job and I'd probably reach for them first!

The thing I miss most about the Leica's were the lenses that I'd amassed and then sold. The m8/M9/M9p and film M bodies I don't miss so much and if I still had the glass I'd most likely be shooting with a Monochrom today. Digital bodies have a definite shelf life but the glass lasts forever.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Glad you agree with me that the photographer, and therefore the resulting image, makes the individualist statement and the camera goes along for the ride. I got the impression though that Amin had lost a bit of direction and a 'gear hunt' was on the cards to regain it. Everybody knows a new camera can refresh the way you look at things, or it can mean you just shoot the same things all over again except with a new camera.

The alternative strategy is to refine the approach to the image, put that first, see where a camera's imaging ability can be employed for the job in hand. A small fast focusing EM-1 can change the dynamic's of the type of family photograph made just as a large format field camera can slow things down and put an entirely different feeling into the family image. If your photographs all look the same no matter what camera you use that reflects how you work, I was simply asking Amin to consider the way he works and not put the cart before the horse.

Steve
Some of this makes sense to me … especially the part about "getting something new and shooting the same things all over again".

Perhaps, removing gear from the equation may help? … I believe one can alter how they see and react to the world around them without any camera in hand. You do not need a camera to teach you how to see light … to recognize when to take a picture and when not to … to learn how to anticipate sometimes rather than just react all the time … to employ composition and design. All these things are independent of the tool being used be it a still camera, video camera, a brush, or a stick of charcoal.

The camera comes into the picture when you want to record what you observe, but it doesn't do the observing, the composition, or provide the sense of timing. The most we can ask of the tool is to do what it is told when we tell it to … and in some cases one tool may fit your way of observing, your sense of timing, or your methods of composition better than another. The trick is self awareness regarding all those things.

If you improve your own vision, the camera you already have may well suddenly be better than you thought it was.

Again, the choices being contemplated aren't between some small fast AF camera, and a lumbering large format field camera … that just obfuscates the OPs inquiry.

Moving from a M to a Nikon AF camera? How do those proposed choices work for or against the OPs advancement when shooting his preferred subject matter? At what point does technology trump acquired skill … or at what point does skill over-ride the conveniences of technology?

- Marc
 
Top