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...

fotografz

Well-known member
(snip) … So I'm really wanting to get some perspective from those of you who left it behind. Are you happy with the switch? Do you ever miss your Leica?
Let's cut to the chase and provide a direct answer to the question you asked:

While I never "left" the M system, I did opt out of the M240 camera for color work and now strictly shoot a M Monochrome. So in essence, I left the M behind as an everyday camera, and now use other cameras for color work.

What I left behind, was a M9P … which while flawed, provided a special aesthetic look and feel for color images compared to other choices. That I DO miss.

I never felt 18 meg was a hindrance even compared to 36 meg that's more common now … at least for work I used a M for.

As a very long time M shooter, I feel quite lost. On one hand I'm loath to return to the older tech M9 or a new ME still sporting the same older tech and poor LCD. On the on the hand, the M240 just doesn't do it for me aesthetically. Trust me, I have tried to accept it, but cannot.

I have no real love for most alternatives, be it three fourths, or any of the "Mighty Mouse" FF Sony cameras. I'm reminded of this every time I snap a M lens into place and bring my MM to eye. There's nothing like a Leica Rangefinder.

If you already have a M240, and (unlike me) are satisfied with the imagery, I'd suggest renewing your relationship with it and improving how you make photos with-in its rangefinder parameters. Skill cost nothing but time and effort … and there is always room to improve one's skill.

- Marc
 

retow

Member
Let's cut to the chase and provide a direct answer to the question you asked:

While I never "left" the M system, I did opt out of the M240 camera for color work and now strictly shoot a M Monochrome. So in essence, I left the M behind as an everyday camera, and now use other cameras for color work.

What I left behind, was a M9P … which while flawed, provided a special aesthetic look and feel for color images compared to other choices. That I DO miss.

I never felt 18 meg was a hindrance even compared to 36 meg that's more common now … at least for work I used a M for.

As a very long time M shooter, I feel quite lost. On one hand I'm loath to return to the older tech M9 or a new ME still sporting the same older tech and poor LCD. On the on the hand, the M240 just doesn't do it for me aesthetically. Trust me, I have tried to accept it, but cannot.

I have no real love for most alternatives, be it three fourths, or any of the "Mighty Mouse" FF Sony cameras. I'm reminded of this every time I snap a M lens into place and bring my MM to eye. There's nothing like a Leica Rangefinder.

If you already have a M240, and (unlike me) are satisfied with the imagery, I'd suggest renewing your relationship with it and improving how you make photos with-in its rangefinder parameters. Skill cost nothing but time and effort … and there is always room to improve one's skill.

- Marc
Interesting, I have a M240 and my trusty old M9 and decided to sell the M240 for the same reasons. To my eyes the rendering of the CCD sensor is unique. The one in the M240 is just another "reasonably good" FF CMOS chip of which there are meanwhile a few around.
 

Amin

Active member
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.
It would be tough, but thankfully I have a very forgiving wife. Definitely something to think about though!


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.
Thanks, Graham. This helped me a lot in getting my thoughts together.
 
Last edited:

MCTuomey

New member
My daughter-in-law lost her grandmother earlier this year. Although she was ailing, her passing surprised the family. They are not picture takers and have very few visual records of her . Last Thanksgiving, ever schlepping a camera, I managed some nice shots of Jeannette that I filed away like so many family snaps. After her funeral, I made a large framed print of one and, as a surprise, gave it to my daughter-in-law's family at a get-together. They were so appreciative of this simple gesture, to tears actually.

Now it happened that the camera I used was my "anywhere" kit: M9+35Lux+75APO. I carry that kit nearly everywhere I go for three reasons: one, it's light and small; two, it's so crazy pleasurable to shoot; three, if I do my job passably, it will image beautifully. The shots could surely have been taken equally well with one of my Canon dSLRs. But they weren't and would never have been because I don't carry those bodies with me. They're not light and not small compared to the Leica. And though i enjoy shooting the Canons, they aren't nearly as high along the pleasure index as the Leica.

No other camera gear I have delivers so well on all these three measures at the same time. That's why I haven't left Leica. The only reason I'd leave Leica is if I had to, meaning I could no longer afford the luxury.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known 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.

Some people say that 16Mp is enough for an A3 print. And of course, 36Mp is not really more than double 16Mp: to double the pixel resolution, you need to double the numbers on the vertical and the horizontal axis—which will give you 64Mp from the original 16Mp.
 

jaapv

Subscriber Member
I have really good A2 prints from the M8, AKA 12 Mp.
Just crunching the numbers of pixel count and DPI does not relate to the real world of printing.
There are aspects like viewing distance and the (lack of) resolving power of the human eye
to be taken into consideration.
Not to mention the subject matter. Some subjects do not need more than a few Mp for a wall-sized print.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Hi Amin,

I just opened this thread following the title "Looking for perspective"... I've realised that what brings me back to GETDPI over the years is the quality of photography I see here (along with the genuinely warm and friendly atmosphere! never to be taken for granted)

The simple way I see this (from my own perspective), is that one can buy into the rare craftsmanship and brand of Leica - people who respect the history of photography as an art and a craft will look on in admiration/envy at someone so successful and well educated to be carrying this brand... you'll cherish being a member of that club, and enjoy owning/using such a special piece.

...and then there's the technical prowess of the 'big brands' CaNikon etc - heavyweight brands in every sense of the word. Since the (practically) same quality of imaging can be realised at a much more affordable level - if I was going for technical innovation I'd be looking at m4/3rds or the latest smartphone :)

However you wish to spend your disposable income, remember to keep pointing the thing at the ones you love most!

Kind regards

Brian
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
It seems as though the consensus here is to evaluate what you most enjoy working with, and stick with that. I would heartily agree with Steve that the intended images and the preference of the photographer should dictate the gear, more than the technology. I also think Godfrey is right to encourage you to get off the gear train! Find something that you really like working with an stick with it. You will learn it inside out and become much more comfortable with it, which in turn will put your subjects at ease. Find a camera you don't have to fight! Even if the technology improves and the results from a newer model are "better", if the camera feels awkward to you, you are going to take inferior photos.

I had a very clear example of this: A few years ago I shot with a Rollei 6008AF and film and got results I was very happy with. I thought medium format digital would be so fantastic, so I made my biggest camera purchase to that date and bought a used Sinar eMotion 54LV and Hy6. I had nothing but troubles with the digital aspect of the camera, and despite the high resolution, incredible lenses and medium format autofocus, I was never happy with the pictures. I often brought a film back along and shot with that. The results were much better. Another example would be the Konica Hexar AF. This is a glorified point and shoot camera from the 90s with a fixed 35mm lens and max shutter speed of 1/250th of a second. I usually take better photos of people and travel with this camera than I do with my M9 and 35mm f/1.4 FLE. It allows me to do what I feel is most important -- pick a clear focus point and set an approximate aperture, and then everything else it just does for me and steps out of the way. It is discreet, quiet and simple to use, and so it encourages me to be more spontaneous, which is what I personally need for travel and candids. I tend to be a contemplative photographer for most of my work, and I take it quite slow. But for travel and candids, I benefit from the Hexar's style. It's as if it is whispering to me, "hey, don't worry about it, just take a photo, I will handle it." Heh. It works! The M9 and S2 speak to me loudly and in accented German: "Vee vill do exactly vat you say vith utmost precision, Herr Richardson." For my professional work that is more what I want to hear.

So, more succinctly, my advice would be to try to resist the urge to change gear for "something better", unless you feel like you are fighting your current gear. Trying lots of equipment is important, but only in so much as it allows you to find what really feels right to you. Once you figure that out, better to stick with it for the long haul...or at least stay within the system.

P.S. As Jono mentioned, selling Leica is often a one way trip. Be aware.

P.P.S. As Jono and Jaap mentioned, print quality has a lot more to it than just the megapixels and dpi. I print exhibitions for a living, and believe me, they have much less to do with the resultant quality than does the technique of the photographer, the subject matter, the quality of the lenses and the quality of the color. The best predictor for print quality is the structure and character of the image at 100%. If the image looks beautiful at 100%, it will usually enlarge very well and look good at low dpi. If an image at 100% looks mushy, grainy or otherwise a little off, it generally does not matter how many megapixels it has.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Some people say that 16Mp is enough for an A3 print.
I have a series of A2+ prints made with the Olympus E1 (5.1mp) - they've been on the wall of the house in Cornwall for several years. They look excellent, certainly nobody has ever criticised them for lack of resolution. Of course, they're not perfect viewed from a metre, but that's not usually the point of pictures that size.

And of course, 36Mp is not really more than double 16Mp: to double the pixel resolution, you need to double the numbers on the vertical and the horizontal axis—which will give you 64Mp from the original 16Mp.
You put it better than me! Personally, I feel that 24mp is the sweet spot between resolution and the processing power required.
 

jonoslack

Active member
So, more succinctly, my advice would be to try to resist the urge to change gear for "something better", unless you feel like you are fighting your current gear. Trying lots of equipment is important, but only in so much as it allows you to find what really feels right to you. Once you figure that out, better to stick with it for the long haul...or at least stay within the system.
Excellent Stuart
 

RiversPhoto

New member
I haven't yet sold my Leica M9 and M8, but they are both collecting dust.

I use the lenses everyday, however, on my Sony A7s, and A7. The A7s especially has been a more complete tool for my photography, which is event, travel and street. I have recently added video with both cameras which would otherwise be possible only with a very expensive upgrade to the M240. (BTW, smearing and cyan shift are not detectible in 16:9 format on either camera, and the A7s works nicely with my Leica wides...) I also gain crazy high ISO and quiet shutter with the A7s which doesn't exist currently with the M240.

As a Leica shooter for 20 years, there was a several month period of getting to know a new A7 computer system before I started to forget about the camera and concentrate on making images. I'm getting there, and would appreciate if Sony let me turn of more stuff like the rear screen. On balance, however, my kit now is better and more complete than it was a year ago, and at least one paid job opened up in November because I could shoot some video in addition to the my usual Event photography.

Current Kit:
Sony A7, A7s
Walimex Aptaris half cage
Voightlander 15mm, 21F4
Leica 24 2.8, 28 2.0, 35 2.0 Asph, 50 F2, 90 2.8
Sony FE 24-70 F4
Novoflex FE to M adapter
Zacuto Enforcer

Everything and a laptop fit in a moderate sized carry on for flying.

Michael
 

Amin

Active member
Many thanks to everyone. The discussion has really helped me to think things through, and I'm sticking with my Leicas.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Congratulations Amin . . . . don't forget to try the Panasonic FZ1000 - there is a fantastic camera for shooting family, and it won't break the bank or impinge.
 
Last edited:

jaapv

Subscriber Member
"hey, don't worry about it, just take a photo, I will handle it." Heh. It works! The M9 and S2 speak to me loudly and in accented German: "Vee vill do exactly vat you say vith utmost precision, Herr Richardson." For my professional work that is more what I want to hear.
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:How true... Fortunately I have some affinity with the German way of thinking that many Anglophones lack...:D
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Many thanks to everyone. The discussion has really helped me to think things through, and I'm sticking with my Leicas.
I hope it works out as you hope. And remember: if it doesn't, you can buy something more appropriate to your use. There's no downside.

Postscript

I hadn't taken the M9 out for a walk for some time (last October, I think) since I've been concentrating on using the E-M1, then A7, and all the Polaroids and 35mm/Hasselblad film cameras in between. Last weekend I had the A7 out with the adapter to use my Nokton 50/1.5 and Color Skopar 28/3.5. So I figured, what the hey?, I'll take out the M9 this weekend.

I decided that I was in a 50mm mood this weekend so I fitted the Nokton 50 and stuck the 28 in the bag just in case. The 50 feels right on the M9. Using it is so different from using the A7 or E-M1, and is different even from using the CL or R8. I set it to ISO 160 and worked the exposure manually, much as I'd set the A7 to a fixed ISO and worked the exposure manually last weekend.

With the same lens, and looking at the same subjects, and capturing raw files, and rendering them to B&W as I usually do, the M9 indeed produces different results from the A7. Are they better or worse? No, they're somehow just different. It's like the difference between HP5 and Tri-X, or Delta 100 and ACROS 100, or changing from XTOL to HC-110: The differences are subtle, nuanced, and hard to articulate. But I can see them.

Does this mean that I should use the M9 in preference to the A7, or that I should seek something better than either? Not to me. Part of my joy in photography is seeing how different cameras see and exploiting that, whatever it might be. The hunt for perfection is rarely of much interest, indeed the celebration of how the flaws conspire to make a photograph warmer, more humane and real, is usually the Grail I'm after.

How well you understand your camera, how that interacts with your vision, your subject, and the way you like to shoot ... These are the things that are important. Pick a camera, or cameras, and go with the flow. Get off the GAS train and study photographs.


Leica M9 + Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM)
ISO 160 @ f/2 @ 1/4000 sec
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I hope it works out as you hope. And remember: if it doesn't, you can buy something more appropriate to your use. There's no downside.

Postscript

I hadn't taken the M9 out for a walk for some time (last October, I think) since I've been concentrating on using the E-M1, then A7, and all the Polaroids and 35mm/Hasselblad film cameras in between. Last weekend I had the A7 out with the adapter to use my Nokton 50/1.5 and Color Skopar 28/3.5. So I figured, what the hey?, I'll take out the M9 this weekend.

I decided that I was in a 50mm mood this weekend so I fitted the Nokton 50 and stuck the 28 in the bag just in case. The 50 feels right on the M9. Using it is so different from using the A7 or E-M1, and is different even from using the CL or R8. I set it to ISO 160 and worked the exposure manually, much as I'd set the A7 to a fixed ISO and worked the exposure manually last weekend.

With the same lens, and looking at the same subjects, and capturing raw files, and rendering them to B&W as I usually do, the M9 indeed produces different results from the A7. Are they better or worse? No, they're somehow just different. It's like the difference between HP5 and Tri-X, or Delta 100 and ACROS 100, or changing from XTOL to HC-110: The differences are subtle, nuanced, and hard to articulate. But I can see them.

Does this mean that I should use the M9 in preference to the A7, or that I should seek something better than either? Not to me. Part of my joy in photography is seeing how different cameras see and exploiting that, whatever it might be. The hunt for perfection is rarely of much interest, indeed the celebration of how the flaws conspire to make a photograph warmer, more humane and real, is usually the Grail I'm after.

How well you understand your camera, how that interacts with your vision, your subject, and the way you like to shoot ... These are the things that are important. Pick a camera, or cameras, and go with the flow. Get off the GAS train and study photographs.


Leica M9 + Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM)
ISO 160 @ f/2 @ 1/4000 sec


That's the spirit! :)
Now, what gear best to use to take pictures of those hummingbirds?
 

RVB

Member
<strong><a href="http://ru.fakelongineswatches.com/">Копии часов</a></strong> | <strong><a href="http://ru.fakelongineswatches.com/">Копии часов</a></strong> | <strong><a href="http://www.fakelongineswatches.com/ru/">Копии часов</a></strong><br>
<strong><a href="http://ru.fakelongineswatches.com/">Копии часов</a></strong> | <strong><a href="http://ru.fakelongineswatches.com/">Копии часов</a></strong> | <strong><a href="http://www.fakelongineswatches.com/ru/">Копии часов</a></strong><br>
<strong><a href="http://ru.fakelongineswatches.com/">лучшая реплика часы</a></strong><br>
<strong><a href="http://www.fakelongineswatches.com/ru/">лучшая реплика часы</a></strong><br>
<br><br><a href="http://bestbeatsbydreoutlet7.webs.com"> часов blog </a><br><br><a href="http://discountweddingdressesonline7.webs.com"> часов </a><br><br><a href="http://watches18.webs.com"> About blog </a>
Have you nothing better to do??
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi there,
as someone owning all 3 systems (EM1, Leica M and 5dIII with some nice glass) and also doing a lot of family shots I have to say that the DSLR is the system I use the least often.

Here are my findings:
If you like wide angle,35mm and 50mm the RF works very very well.
If you shoot a lot 90mm and longer maybe a DSLR with AF works better.
So IMO main DSLR advantage is if you often use longer glass, or if you shoot a lot of sports.
The nice glass for DSLR often gets pretty heavy. If I take my 5dIII with 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4.0 the backpack is nearly full. If I take the M or m43 with equivalent FL I just have a small bag.
I also love the SUmmicrons 35 and 50mm, and while the Signa 35/1.4ART is very nice as well it is much bigger and even if the D810 is technically better IQ I prefer the color and bokeh I get from the Leica M and Summicrons.

The EM1 is a nice addition because its weatherproof, has fast AF and flexible high quality zoom lenses, like the 12-40 and the 35-100/2.8.

SO I would say its really a question if you are willing to carry much more weight in order to get AF, and if you do prefer the SLR-finder or a Rangefinder.

I even thought to sell my whole DSLR kit but then I think I might want to shoot some sports sometime.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I've gone the opposite direction, selling everything except an MM, and an M that I keep as a backup (and for use with odd lenses), and a bunch of Leica and antique glass. At one time or another I've owned Alpa + Phase One, D3, Sony A mount, Leica S and most of the third party (e.g. Sony) bodies that can mount Leica glass, as well as a bunch of "pocketables". They are all gone now. After two full years of using the MM daily I'm still finding new reasons to love it. I've lost interest in changing gear which gets in the way of what I'm trying to do with my images.

Eyesight is an issue but solvable. I shoot with glasses on to correct my mild astigmatism.
 
Top