Official Talk Leica thread

Yep, nothing wrong with Gordy's straps - I've had about 10 over the years.

I still use a tripod mount wrist strap version on my Fuji GA645, and a tripod mount sling version on my Zeiss Ikon Nettar.

Excellent value for money, nicely made. Great customer service.

I would recommend them wholeheartedly to anyone, however now I've discovered Harry Benz straps, I think that is (for me) the way I will go.

Ta,
Shane :)
 
Hi everyone, I was just recommended to join this forum. I'm sure i'll chat to a lot of you soon. I use an M240 with a 35 Summilux after owning an M8, and M9-P with a lot of different lenses through my trial and errors!
Hopefully we can help each other out.

Rich
 
Thank you very much! The lens is over 20 years old but still works a treat!

I went through that typical GAS type thing with a 50 Lux asph, 50 Zeiss Sonar, 50 Voigtlander 1.5 ASPH, 50 Voigtlander 1.1 (all sold now, but I really wanted to like a 50 for a 1.00 Viewfinder so i could shoot with both eyes open), but the 35mm fov and the haptics of the summilux asph really makes photographing a joy. I have a Voigtlander 35 1.2 which i'll sell at some point, its also a beautiful lens but the balance on the camera just felt unwieldy. I also shoot a Nikon when i don't have the hands free to manual focus!

If you ever need an opinion on those lenses i'd be happy to send over a pic or whatever may help. I use a 15mm voigtlander when i want something UW, i don't intend on buying any more leica lenses, i've held strong for a couple of years now!
 
I think M240's can be bought reasonably easily for about 3K UKP New or nearly new if you don't mind buying from a Non-Official Dealer (Which doesnt affect the passport warranty as long as its registered correctly) - I bought my cameras in HK from some really helpful and supportive company's. Meteor, 9Days, Fotopia are all good and have so much stock to cater for the local market, who are crazy about Leica
 
Don't be that guy who shoots with the lens hood on the wrong way round! ;-)
 
I came very close to chopping in most of my Canon gear today and buying buying a new Leica M 240 ...35mm f2 Summicron and a 21mm Zeiss Biogon. I bottled out at the last minute. I take mainly landscapes+a bit of general stuff.....Have I done the right thing?
 
I came very close to chopping in most of my Canon gear today and buying buying a new Leica M 240 ...35mm f2 Summicron and a 21mm Zeiss Biogon. I bottled out at the last minute. I take mainly landscapes+a bit of general stuff.....Have I done the right thing?

Get a 5DSR if landscape is your thing. The Leica is nice, but good glass on a Canon with autofocus is much easier to use.
 
I came very close to chopping in most of my Canon gear today and buying buying a new Leica M 240 ...35mm f2 Summicron and a 21mm Zeiss Biogon. I bottled out at the last minute. I take mainly landscapes+a bit of general stuff.....Have I done the right thing?

I think that these days I'd factor a Sony A7 body of some description and a couple of nice lenses into any equation.
 
What are your reasons, Alan? Would I be able to keep my Canon lenses?

I mentioned the A7 series because they're CSC's (compact system cameras) and FF and offer good image quality and being CSC's they can take lots of different lenses including Leica/Leica fit and Canon too.

If you're talking Canon AF lenses there are adapters which provide AF although these arguably work better with the new A7rII and the newer Canon lenses. If you are at all tempted it might be worth Googling for information and reviews with various lenses particularly Canon if that's what you have and you could always ask for first hand feedback in the A7 owner thread on this forum.

I use a couple of Sony lenses on my A7 and they seem to be very good to excellent (55mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8.) I also use Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko and Canon FD manual lenses via Novoflex adapters. Manual focus is quite easy with this type of camera as you get good manual focus aids such as peaking and a magnified view and of course you also get other goodies such as an in view histogram etc.

IMVHO anyone looking at a Leica or indeed any other set up for deliberate shooting or manual lens use and anything other than for state of the art best in class focus tracking should be at least having a glance at the A7 range.
 
I think choosing a Leica has a lot to do with following your heart and not your brain.
When I was younger I always wanted a Tag Heuer watch. My friends thought I was stupid because any watch tells the time.
When I was a bit older and into photography I wanted a Leica.
My friends thought I was stupid because any modern day camera can take good pictures.
In fact the Leica I have recently aquired is far inferior in every possible way technically to most of the cameras I have owned over the past 5 years. But sometimes you can't explain what certain objects can give you on an emotional level.

Why buy an expensive Jaguar when a Prius is more practical?

It's just something that calls to some people and not to others.
 
I think choosing a Leica has a lot to do with following your heart and not your brain.
When I was younger I always wanted a Tag Heuer watch. My friends thought I was stupid because any watch tells the time.
When I was a bit older and into photography I wanted a Leica.
My friends thought I was stupid because any modern day camera can take good pictures.
In fact the Leica I have recently aquired is far inferior in every possible way technically to most of the cameras I have owned over the past 5 years. But sometimes you can't explain what certain objects can give you on an emotional level.

Why buy an expensive Jaguar when a Prius is more practical?

It's just something that calls to some people and not to others.



Too true :)
 
If you have the chance then i'd recommend having a go with an M240 for a day or so. The A7 has a better sensor probably, with autofocus if that is a priority.

Shooting a M is far more involved than shooting pretty much any other modern small format camera. I have had mine a few years, previous to that an M9 and M8 and I actively enjoy taking a photo with it rather than just aiming a viewfinder and hitting the button. The build quality is unparalleled and the rangefinder experience provides a larger uncluttered viewfinder.
I sold my RX1 after buying an M240 as it could match the ISO. The RX1 took a great image. but it was similar to pointing my iphone..

The lenses over the past 50 odd years are incredibly good for their size. The Leica lenses have the best quality output for the size/weight, but the Zeiss and VC lenses are also fantastic.


Its one of those things that you'll either appreciate or you don't. But it's worth a punt if you're willing to have a go.
 
...
In fact the Leica I have recently aquired is far inferior in every possible way technically to most of the cameras I have owned over the past 5 years. ...

While I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with this statement (although it depends on what your other cameras were I suppose!)
I have a Leica M8 which is rather ancient even by Leica standards and "only" 10Mpixels. I recently did a controlled test comparing real world photos (the view from my bedroom window!) against a few of my more recent cameras including some of much higher resolution. Comparing the results side by side on a good screen showed that the Leica image resolved finer detail with better contrast than any of the other cameras I tried. Much of that will be down to the lenses. I have m-mount adapters for micro-4/3rds and Fuji-X so I might try comparing the different cameras using the same Leica lens on each one.
 
Last edited:
I found when using the adapters you can't resolve as much detail as on the Leica. An example would be the A7 with a Leica lens, where the peripheral of the image circle is a bit off as apparently the sensor hasn't got the requisite 'microlenses' to help direct the extreme angles of light from the lens, due to the short register distance and the design of the lenses. They work fine on an OMD but you're only using the centre of the lens typically due to the crop.
 
I found when using the adapters you can't resolve as much detail as on the Leica. An example would be the A7 with a Leica lens, where the peripheral of the image circle is a bit off as apparently the sensor hasn't got the requisite 'microlenses' to help direct the extreme angles of light from the lens, due to the short register distance and the design of the lenses. They work fine on an OMD but you're only using the centre of the lens typically due to the crop.

If you want to use Leica lenses on an A7 series camera from what I've read I think that the A7rII would be the one to go for.

On the whole involvement thing mentioned by another poster, I do see the charm in manual RF's and I've owned them in the past and I do enjoy using old 35mm SLR lenses on my A7 and MFT cameras and although they're nowhere near as good as my modern lenses that doesn't stop them from making nice images and actually my Minolta 50mm f1.2 might optically be the worst old lens I have but it has character and produces a nice look. I think that the modern AF experience is just as involving as a manual camera and lens but in different ways.
 
I think choosing a Leica has a lot to do with following your heart and not your brain.
When I was younger I always wanted a Tag Heuer watch. My friends thought I was stupid because any watch tells the time.
When I was a bit older and into photography I wanted a Leica.
My friends thought I was stupid because any modern day camera can take good pictures.
In fact the Leica I have recently aquired is far inferior in every possible way technically to most of the cameras I have owned over the past 5 years. But sometimes you can't explain what certain objects can give you on an emotional level.

Why buy an expensive Jaguar when a Prius is more practical?

It's just something that calls to some people and not to others.
You hit it right on the nail. When I bought a Leica S and three lenses I was told you could buy a house/car for that price and my answer was....... Have you ever tried taking a picture with a house or a car[emoji15]
 
If you want to use Leica lenses on an A7 series camera from what I've read I think that the A7rII would be the one to go for.

On the whole involvement thing mentioned by another poster, I do see the charm in manual RF's and I've owned them in the past and I do enjoy using old 35mm SLR lenses on my A7 and MFT cameras and although they're nowhere near as good as my modern lenses that doesn't stop them from making nice images and actually my Minolta 50mm f1.2 might optically be the worst old lens I have but it has character and produces a nice look. I think that the modern AF experience is just as involving as a manual camera and lens but in different ways.

The Minolta 50 1.2 takes a beautiful photo. My friend uses one on his A7 rather than the af lenses. Everyone has their own perspectives and it's good that now there are so many options for people with specific camera requirements. :)
 
Just another 4500 posts and we will be up there with the d750 thread!
Come on guys get posting..hehe
 
While I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with this statement (although it depends on what your other cameras were I suppose!)
I have a Leica M8 which is rather ancient even by Leica standards and "only" 10Mpixels. I recently did a controlled test comparing real world photos (the view from my bedroom window!) against a few of my more recent cameras including some of much higher resolution. Comparing the results side by side on a good screen showed that the Leica image resolved finer detail with better contrast than any of the other cameras I tried. Much of that will be down to the lenses. I have m-mount adapters for micro-4/3rds and Fuji-X so I might try comparing the different cameras using the same Leica lens on each one.

I've started to look at M8's! I love my film M but I must admit, the idea of having the same feel and control but digital is a great appeal. The results looks pretty decent from them. The black and whites I have seen look superb. Just stay away from the high ISO's I've heard.
It's a serious GAS attack! Something I don't need but feel I need to at least get out of my system.
 
I've started to look at M8's! I love my film M but I must admit, the idea of having the same feel and control but digital is a great appeal. The results looks pretty decent from them. The black and whites I have seen look superb. Just stay away from the high ISO's I've heard.
It's a serious GAS attack! Something I don't need but feel I need to at least get out of my system.
Yea high ISOs aren't great and I find the OOC jpegs to be pretty awful but the raw files are DNG format which is easy to process.

One aspect I particularly like about the M8 is the ability to do infrared photography very easily simply by putting an IR filter on the lens. The sensor doesn't have an IR blocking filter on so you get easily hand-hold able shutter speeds and because it's a rangefinder there's no problem composing as you're not viewing through the filter. With the M9 and newer they added an IR blocking filter so that option no longer works.
 
Yea high ISOs aren't great and I find the OOC jpegs to be pretty awful but the raw files are DNG format which is easy to process.

One aspect I particularly like about the M8 is the ability to do infrared photography very easily simply by putting an IR filter on the lens. The sensor doesn't have an IR blocking filter on so you get easily hand-hold able shutter speeds and because it's a rangefinder there's no problem composing as you're not viewing through the filter. With the M9 and newer they added an IR blocking filter so that option no longer works.

I think my main concern as well is the reliability of the shutter. Whether this is as bigger problem as the internet make you believe I don't know.

Interesting what you said about infrared photography. Didn't think of that. Im getting more and more swayed the more I look at them. Another option is the RD1 from Epson but I know I will just end up wishing I went for the M8.
I know the feeling will be closer to my film M. You haven't been swayed to an M9? I like them but cost is the main factor if Im honest.
 
I think the m8 is still good even though it is now a 9 year old camera
-only 10mp but few screens will display over 4mp
-high iso is not good but iso160 is all i really need anyway
-1.33x crop instead of full frame so I got a 28mm lens instead of 35mm
-ccd sensor (like m9) instead of cmos (like m240)
-does not get sensor corrosion like m9
-half the price of an m9
-has handy top panel battery/remaining shots lcd
-shoots 16 bit raw using service menu and m8raw2dng utility
-ir cut filter costs £100 but only need one as can only afford one lens
 
I think my main concern as well is the reliability of the shutter. Whether this is as bigger problem as the internet make you believe I don't know.

Interesting what you said about infrared photography. Didn't think of that. Im getting more and more swayed the more I look at them. Another option is the RD1 from Epson but I know I will just end up wishing I went for the M8.
I know the feeling will be closer to my film M. You haven't been swayed to an M9? I like them but cost is the main factor if Im honest.

The M9 isn't much of an upgrade in my opinion. Yes you get full-frame instead of 1.33 crop, but you lose the IR sensitivity which I like using, and there's the sensor problems with the M9. The M240 would be more tempting if it weren't so expensive :) M8's can be picked up for under £1k now, and MPB have a couple with faults from £650 if you want to get one repaired...
 
The M9 isn't much of an upgrade in my opinion. Yes you get full-frame instead of 1.33 crop, but you lose the IR sensitivity which I like using, and there's the sensor problems with the M9. The M240 would be more tempting if it weren't so expensive :) M8's can be picked up for under £1k now, and MPB have a couple with faults from £650 if you want to get one repaired...

I worked out that 50mm (what I have already in M mount) would be approx. 66 - 67mm on the M8. Something which I didn't see as horrendous to work with. Ive been using an 85mm comfortably recently on a 5D.

Have you had any dead pixel lines or shutter faults in ownership? Im wondering whether to just ignore all this internet talk and take the plunge.
Ffordes have a couple for what seems to be the current going rate on eBay + you get the fall back of warranty for 6 months.
 
I agree with Photopaque:
It's just something that calls to some people and not to others

I bought an M240 eighteen months ago, and never regretted it.
Yes, I can buy a Canon for a fraction of the price (I have a 5dII) and the Canon can and will produce a beautiful image.
However my Leica also produces a beautiful image, and I enjoy using it to produce that image. I feel connected to the camera and lens. It certainly isn't point and shoot.
A Canon and the like (in my opinion) does everything for you, but takes away that feeling that you are involved in the creation.
With a Leica, you have to think about the exposure and focusing, it makes me feel as if I'm part of the photograph.
Notwithstanding, I really do think Leica M lenses are far superior glass than the Canon L's I have tried.
 
I had a play with @dancook's Leica Q last night. It is a delicious little thing for sure. Beautifully made, fast, very usable.

I had my Sony A7R with 28mm f/2 lens on it. Similar size and weight to the Q, but the Sony lens is a bit longer. The A7R is much slower to focus than the Q, and more ponderous in operation. I like to see the aperture and shutter speed without having to activate the camera which you can do with the Q but not the A7R which is a shame (though the Fuji X100T is great by comparison).

We did a side-by-side comparison shot in low light at all the same settings. The Sony is a bit noisier. Q white balance was a bit odd with very red skin tones (could be due to not using the latest version of Lightfoot - I'm on 5.7). Oddly the Q seemed wider angle than the A7R which is strange as both are specced as 28mm. Difficult therefore to determine sharpness but both were v.sharp. The slight lack of noise on the Q meant it looked a bit sharper before any Lightroom tweaking was done (pics with RAW files). A bit of green fringing on highlights on the A7R but minimal.

Overall, I think if you had an A7R and a 28mm f/2 you'd have to be very happy with the image quality v. the Q. The Q certainly isn't a massive jump up on the basis of this simple and idiotic 1-shot comparison. However, from a usability perspective, the Q is just streets ahead. Beautiful to use and I'm insanely jealous. The A7RII is meant to be much faster than the A7R, but the physical controls, layout etc of the Leica still give it a super quality which the Sony can't match. The RX1 got halfway there but Leica have sorted it. I think I'll wait for the interchangeable lens version to come out from Leica though...

These picks are white balanced using the eyedropper on the neutral grey HH logo on the subject's shirt. They are also slightly de-noised and sharpened as I'd do with any photograph of this sort.

Leica Q 1/60 f/2 ISO1600 Full size link:
20631117653_0f41942c81_b.jpg


Sony A7R with 2/28 1/60 f/2 ISO1600 Full size link:
21064131090_238e2afc28_b.jpg
 
Forgot you did a WB, was going to compare to LR 6.x default export
 

Attachments

  • L1000597.jpg
    L1000597.jpg
    132.7 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:
Back
Top