This story drives me to touch a general thing. I shoot with Canon gear, and overall I love my 5D3 + good Canon/Zeiss glass much. But such a bulky really attracts too much attention by the people if you shoot in the street. So, I often abandon photography and draw people with my sketchbook because that's not so intimidating. I love drawing, but in those situations I really miss a Leica.
exactly thats the point, its a pain in the ass. and therfor the only reason that makes you shoot thousands of pictures are if youre unsecure about you or your equippment.i also use nikon and also shoot as less as possible.even when every photo is a keeper, i hate it haveing two good photos. i just have to delete all but the few excellent ones hehe
arden hi ... I am looking for a camera and Leica is certainly out of range being a beginner , as you own a nex 7 would u suggest a nex5 or an entry level dslr of the same range? I am upgrading from a nikon point and shoot so need some advice
honestly it will take me months of saving, but i will do it. i wouldnt do it for an m8 but a digital ff leica m? definitlyand when i have it i will hide the exifs in my flickr account so that no one can judge the photos based on the idea that a snob took them ;)
I own two vintage Leica rangefinders and one of their compact digital cameras---and it is easy to be captivated by the mystique. But owning a contemporary Leica is like owning a Rolex watch--both are beautifully made anachronisms (I own one of those too). Unless you are a professional photographer who must use a rangefinder for low light and/or interior shooting where silence is a premium---it is near impossible to justify the expense.
Up to a point you're sorta of right in theory .. Except I've had exceptional results with the M9-P and a Nokton 50mm f/1.1 ans sum micron 35mm 1.4. It isn't newest etc etc, but it cooks fine and I find myself shooting it at consistently lower ISO not because I have but becuz I can. It's okay on the higher ISO but eliminating sensor filter lends detail hard to match. There is an undefinable image quality I won't bore with ...becuz it's not practical to knock about with. I've owned, used and collected Leicas to absurdity, apart from 9 I own m6' a couple of older m's, and a dozen LTMs. For most things it's a 5d Mk3 which I find outstanding in low light -manual F if needed. But the x100 and canon s100 are also exceptional in their own way and quiet for low light.. I'm stunned at HDRs at ISO 12800 with the 5d3. I wouldn't disagree on the Sammy or nex. And Nikons.
SLR/DSLR is a superior instrument optically it let you see what you are shooting that is a very important addendum for a person who do care about image outcome :) " 'tunnel-vision' of an SLR" just a bloody Leica M marketing nothing more.
For most shooters M body just a compact seriously overpriced status travel camera with an obtrusive outdated viewfinder/focusing mechanism that is true. Leca M lenses deliver spectacular IQ being used wide open that is true too.
not everyone has to prefer or even like using a rf, but it is a unique way of shooting which offers unique strengths. it is *not* slower than shooting a dslr (exept for frame rate). it offers more control, and it rewards skill. it's good to have the option.
@iapx: none of the people from the dpr article above shoot with a rangefinder full time (or even part time), as near as can be deduced from their comments. using an m camera takes skill and practice. unlike an uberkamera of, say, the d4 persuasion, the camera is exactly as good as you are; no better, and no worse, either. it takes relatively little time with a d4 to get to the point where the limiting factor is the camera, and your only hope of improving on those limits is if nikon comes out with a new model. with an m camera, you are in complete control, and as you improve, so does the camera's capabilities.
@kodachrome2000:an slr-style vf doesn't offer more control, it it just an aid to visualizing the effects of the camera on the scene. (not a very good one at that.) an actual rf--which the xpro1 is not, btw--assumes you are skilled enough to understand how your camera sees, and concentrates on letting you see a clear and true view of the actual scene, which no other type of camera does. rather than altering the scene and making you try to imagine what reality looked like, it shows you reality and trusts you to imagine what you want your camera to do to it. that enhances control. and no, a film leica doesn't 'make more sense' than an m9; i use one too, but i shoot enough that the m9 began saving me money (on film and dev) in under a year, to say nothing of the quality advantages.
i agree that it is a whole lotta money for a camera. it is still cheaper than film, and the only way to shoot a classic rf digitally. that, plus size to quality ratio, makes it eminently rational for some.
"also, how dare i"? well, first off, you misunderstand the word 'visualize,' evidently mistaking it for a synonym of 'see'. never mind; slr vfs *do not* give you very good control over what you are seeing through them. in general, they present the scene as it would appear with dof at ~f/4. sure, you could stop down manually to see the real dof at, say, f/8 if you wanted to (or you can just visualize it...), but that's impractical. if otoh you are shooting wide, there is *no way* the reflex vf can show you the true appearance of the photo--it can't display wider than the equivalent aperture of the fresnel lenses in the focusing screen (usually about f/4, sometimes a bit wider). so, want to see in the vf how your lens looks shooting at f/2? sorry, you can't. and this all assumes you are using a flagship camera--otherwise you're stuck with only 95% of the scene, seen through a tiny tunnel.
Note to Kodachrome 200 and others who do not see the sense of what they believe is an obsolete camera.When I use my M8u while traveling' the deliberate shooting method imposed by the manual rangefinder followed by re-composition before shooting results in fewer shots over all and many more "keepers". So don't be so fast to knock a RF digital camera. They have their place even if that is not in your place. I'll continue to use my faithful M8 because I cannot spend $9000 on an M9 since I prefer to retain domestic tranquility in the household. But Leica RF cameras are a superior product built like a tank and guaranteed to be a precision picture taking instrument long after other and less well built cameras have gone to their Chinese junkyard for recycling. They truly last forever which should satisfy any owner except those who need to buy the latest thing on the market every 6 to 12 months. So, maybe in the long haul, those who spend the $9000 really come out ahead, money wise.
It is not a camera for silly rich people. It is a precision working tool with some of the finest lenses in the world. Just it's size and Ff sensor make it worth the money. Anyway how much does a Nikon D4 cost. The leica M is a way of shooting and seeing the world that some people don't or will never get but then hey each to his own and just because some of us choose to shoot in a different way we shouldn't get slammed for it and be accused of being silly rich people.As an aside if you wan't a safe place to invest your money buy leica lenses as I sold one the other day for 35% more than it cost me 3 years ago
Take four people who have never shot with a rangefinder camera before, give them a Leica M9-P to shoot with and they get some out-of-focus results. Why be surprised? It takes skill and practice to get the best out of a rangefinder camera. Contrast that with a DSLR - any DSLR - where everything, including focusing, is done for you and no-one has to think about what they are doing. The Leica is a camera for an entirely different type of person.
Saying that MF is somehow "slower" than AF is comparing apples and oranges. The typical situations where Leica shines are precisely those where catching the "decisive moment" is essential and prefocusing /zone focusing plus the manual occasional adjustments can achieve that brilliantly. As a (film)Leica SLR user, all I can say is that, even when refocusing is necessary, setting the focus point/recomposing etc takes much longer than a simple twist of the lens knob, which becomes instinctive after a short while. Try a DSLR and a Leica in a fast moving, busy street shooting situation and you will see the difference It is practically impossible to control where the camera focuses unless you set the focus point and that takes time. There must be a reasons why a lot of street and documentary photographers cling to their Leicas, and this is one of them. Sure, Leica won't make it big in the wedding photography world, but this is not the situation where the concept proved so invaluable.
The middle ground for rangefinder users wanting to shoot digital is an M8 or an Epson RD-1. Both get a good price on the used market. The M9 is the only Full-Frame digital rangefinder camera available.
Shooting with an M9 is like sipping on the finest wine while laying on a beach somewhere tropical. The moment you pick up an M9, it instantly becomes an extension of you, of your eye, and of your soul. Simply put, the M9 is the crown jewel of any real photographer's camera collection, because after all if you don't own an M9, you're just shooting with second best. ;)
Leica M's do one thing that every other DSLR and mirrorless camera (besides the Fuji Xpro1 & X100) can't do. That's composing how you will frame your image within your viewfinder with both eyes open. It's an entirely different style of shooting and personally I feel that it's a style much better suited for capturing those fleeting moments in time. You see the world as it is with the same level of brightness and clarity. I think this alone is the reason why so many photographers (not the wealthy in search of a status symbol) dream of owning a Leica.
We can argue until our last breath why every other camera is superior from image quality to AF, but for those of us who have experienced and embrace this style of shooting, all the advantages mean little. 1e1e36bf2d