Official Talk Leica thread

[Adam Bonn]

Sea Shack Shanty by Adam Bonn, on Flickr

M9 and CV35/1.7

This photo is some months ago now, but it really show's what I personally love about the M9 rendering.

Bright, warm, saturated but believable!

Oh and... this photo has zero edits! I literally imported the DNG, then exported it as a jpeg!!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Bright, warm, saturated but believable!

It's a pleasant picture but to my eyes it demonstrates no qualities beyond what many other digitial cameras show.

For example: this was made with an old Canon Digital Ixus 70 and to my mind shows slightly better transition levels in the sky. It also shows similar levels of detail, depite being a 7MP original.

Of course, if both were printed to A0, I would expect the M9 to demonstrate noticeably more detail and better gradation between tones but on a web page that isn't going to happen.

 

[Adam Bonn]

but did that photo have any edits done to it?

that's the thing with the M9 it's a very strong SOOC RAW camera

(can't really compare details at web res)

 

[ecniv]

Leica m10+ 28mm voigtlander (probably)
Looking down from the mountain top, Bavaria, Germany

Had a cable car to the top...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

but did that photo have any edits done to it?

No - straight out of the camera.

(can't really compare details at web res)

The point I made above.

The thing is, I just bought another Ixus 70 for £20 - which is somewhat cheaper than a M9!

I was a fan of the M3 and I would have liked a M4 but I don't see much evidence that digital Leicas are worth their premium price, which is a sad end to what was a very good brand.

 

[Adam Bonn]

No - straight out of the camera.

The point I made above.

The thing is, I just bought another Ixus 70 for £20 - which is somewhat cheaper than a M9!

I think the problem in general with digital cameras is that it's hard to accept the cost vs the return and longevity.

If you enjoy shooting a rangefinder but want a digital camera then it's a very narrow choice.

If somebody thinks damn it I MUST have a digital rangefinder then the cost of an M would probably be swallowed (bitterly) and great happiness will come

If somebody thinks damn it I MUST have a decent performing camera for the cheapest possible price then I don't think that a Leica will bring a great deal of happiness....

I'm not sure what you expect Leica to do?

Play it all Rolex style and say we don't do digital, so we're rebranding what used to a be a tool for professionals into a luxury item and quadrupled the cost (would you buy a film M if it was £12,000 - like how people do with watches? So in the 1960s if you were a professional diver you needed a dive watch, so you bought a dependable one, it cost about £1000 in todays' money. Now what's basically the same thing costs 12k and is bought by suited execs! You want this for Leica? I guess some would say it happened already )

Or what else?

Do a Zeiss and just make lenses for other brand mounts and hope that's a sustainable business model? (that might work actually)

Maybe the problem is that digital came and now we're stuck with it

I don't see much evidence that digital Leicas are worth their premium price

I think this is your actual point no?

Man on the internet posts a shot which he states shows his personal conviction for his enjoyment of his expensive camera, then someone else can't help but resist to post a different (and largely incomparable to be fair) picture that projects his personal conviction that it's all a big waste of money

Meanwhile brand X users are laughing because our sensors aren't MF
Meanwhile brand Y users are laughing because our cameras don't have 8k
Meanwhile brand Z users are laughing because our cameras don't have eighty auto focus modes

I mean it's all just whack right?

All just white noise really...

The gear I use pleases me and that's it's job.

The pictures it makes are either pleasing to people or not (and never 100% one way or the other)

If someone is just as happy with a different camera I don't doubt it for a second and I don't feel the need to try and undermine or blunt someone else's happiness about their gear choices.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

and I don't feel the need to try and undermine or blunt someone else's happiness about their gear choices.

Do you think that was my intention? If so, that's a problem you're making for yourself.

I was pointing out that, based on the image you showed, the Leica has slipped from being a tool of choice for high quality reportage to being a run of the mill and somewhat overpriced, "me too" product.

If Leica built a digital version of the M3, with the same viewfinder/rangefinder assembly, in the same excellent chrome body design and taking the same Summicron lenses, at the same relative price as the original, I would purchase one.

In the meantime, I use the Panasonic/Leica products which, to my mind, carry on the tradition of the M3...

 

[Adam Bonn]

Do you think that was my intention? If so, that's a problem you're making for yourself.

I wouldn't speculate about your intentions, why would I?

Besides (as perhaps I didn't say clearly) I choose my gear for me

I was pointing out that, based on the image you showed, the Leica has slipped from being a tool of choice for high quality reportage to being a run of the mill and somewhat overpriced, "me too" product

I wouldn't use a 12 year old digital product as a comparison to whatever modern reportage pros are shooting (Canikon DLSR and some Sony I think these days). Maybe some do use Leica, but probably a newer model than an M9

My image certainly does not show that Leica is being a run of the mill what a ludicrous thing to say!

My image shows a fishing shack in northern Portugal and anything that infers to you about the brand of camera I used is you talking, not the photograph.

I don't know what a 'me too' product is to be honest... I didn't always shoot Leica, and little has changed since I switched. In 4 years only 2 people have ever commented on my camera in public, so I guess 'not them either'

If Leica built a digital version of the M3, with the same viewfinder/rangefinder assembly, in the same excellent chrome body design and taking the same Summicron lenses, at the same relative price as the original, I would purchase one.

That's not going to happen is it? No more than Rolex making a 1962 spec Submariner and changing £1000 for it!!

my mind, carry on the tradition of the M3...

I'd be very surprised if Panasonic had a 1950s Leica in mind when they realised their products, but anything that makes us like our cameras is a good thing

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

My image certainly does not show that Leica is being a run of the mill what a ludicrous thing to say!

It's my opinion and if you don't like it, that's fine by me.

 

[Adam Bonn]

It's my opinion and if you don't like it, that's fine by me.

To be clear, your opinion about Leica is of course yours and me liking it or not is irrelevant.

That one photo taken by one person (and not even edited) using just one model of a brand’s range demotes the entire validity of that brand is ludicrous.

I dunno man, maybe you just phrased your opinion funny or something.. because that was one hell of a sweeping statement!!

What next, Montblanc pens are useless because you saw something that someone wrote with one and you didn't like it?

 

[justpix]

Hi, I find it rather difficult to discuss Leica vs. other brands.

Cameras and lenses are complex technical products with many properties. Depending on the weight attached, and of the degree to which these properties are realized
in a product, there are many different right - and wrong - reasons for preferring a product.

Photography being a hobby of mine, I take a subjective approach. I buy what I like to use, and what I need for certain applications.

I like using my Leicas, and use SONYs and NIKONs when necessary.

A hobby is about fun, not economics. I am looking at TFO (total fun of ownership), not TCO (total cost of ownership), or ROI.

Rationality can be a are asset, and it should be handled with care. Fun eliminating questions, such as:

Is a 60MP camera 12 times better than a 5MP one?

Will a 10000 € camera take pics that are 10 times better than those taken with one for 1000 €?

Will I be 10 times happier with the 10000 € camera?

Similar questions can be raised concerning cars:

Will a 100000 € car take you 10 times faster to your destiny than your 10000 car?

Will you be 10 times happier in your 100000 € car?

Or, take watches: One of the most accurate clocks I own is the 10 € quarz kitchen clock from ALDI. The last service of one of my ROLEX watches was 850€.
Which can be seen as clear case for using ALDI clocks and watches. ---

Rationally, I should take all the money and time used for photography and invest the money. The pics I should have taken by a pro.

This would lead to more money lying around, and having to open and monitor even more accounts to avoid the EUROPEAN negative interest rate
for accounts over 50K €.

Owning and using a Leica M is very much a matter of taste ...

I enjoy it, but I do not try to convince others.

Everybody must find one's own way - and pay for the road tax ...

P.S.: Rereading my long post, I must say I contradict myself. My nic is justpix - I should act accordingly ...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

To be clear, your opinion about Leica is of course yours and me liking it or not is irrelevant.

That one photo taken by one person (and not even edited) using just one model of a brand’s range demotes the entire validity of that brand is ludicrous.

I dunno man, maybe you just phrased your opinion funny or something.. because that was one hell of a sweeping statement!!

What next, Montblanc pens are useless because you saw something that someone wrote with one and you didn't like it?

I'm getting a strong impression that you're unable to cope with people disagreeing with you - so I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

P.S.: Rereading my long post, I must say I contradict myself. My nic is justpix - I should act accordingly ...

I agree with your entire post - I shouldn't have let myself be suckered by the guy.

 

[Adam Bonn]

I'm getting a strong impression that you're unable to cope with people disagreeing with you

that’s the problem I think, it’s not that I can’t cope it’s the strong impression you have.

you don’t seem able to be able to make a separation between

I think that Adam Bonn (that’s me) takes dull rubbish pictures with his M9 (no problem for me with that chief)

and

because Adam takes rubbish pictures the fact is all Leica items are run of the mill me too products

I’ll resist to explain the difference between an opinion and a fact (remember your fact here is that my picture proves your opinion is a universal fact when it merely strengthens your confirmation bias)

so I'm putting you on ignore

Maybe put this entire thread on your ignore too, seeing as it’s brand specific and you don’t like the brand.

Funny how Immo makes basically the same points as me and you agree with every word!

 

[woof woof]

I think the problem in general with digital cameras is that it's hard to accept the cost vs the return and longevity.

If you enjoy shooting a rangefinder but want a digital camera then it's a very narrow choice.

That and the handling and the whole manual lens thing.

I personally wouldn't spend the sort of money a Leica set up costs as I have a problem justifying the costs to myself but having said that if I was to tot up what I've spent on my MFT and FF Sony kit it's probably more than a digital Leica RF and one or two more budget end lenses would cost. If I was to buy a Leica I think the RF ones make the most sense and arguably and don't shoot me down for saying this, there's probably a stronger pro Leica argument if looking at RF's and the experience they offer than if looking at a non RF Leica which could possibly be more / just like using something else.

So I don't think you guys should really spend any time in any attempt to justify as, as you say, if looking for a digital RF...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

there's probably a stronger pro Leica argument if looking at RF's and the experience they offer than if looking at a non RF Leica which could possibly be more / just like using something else.

Agreed.

My problem with the Leica digital rangefinder cameras is that, having had a good look at the M8 and M9, they don't measure up to the classic M3. If they did, I'd be prepared to fork out my money because I took some of the film shots I'm most pleased with through the M3.

 

[woof woof]

Agreed.

My problem with the Leica digital rangefinder cameras is that, having had a good look at the M8 and M9, they don't measure up to the classic M3. If they did, I'd be prepared to fork out my money because I took some of the film shots I'm most pleased with through the M3.

I've had a couple of non Leica film RF's in the past and I do/did like using them and I do use manual lenses quite a bit on my digital cameras but something I do like to do is take pictures of flowers, leaves and bits and pieces and things that catch my eye when out and about and RF's have their little issues when doing that sort of thing. So, for me although I do like the RF experience and manual lenses, a digital camera like the Sony A7 is a better fit.

I can see the appeal of the Leica RF's though, and I even look at reviews and write ups of the film era ones even though I wont be going back to film again.

PS.
I don't often look at my film prints but it just so happens that I had some out recently which were taken with a RF and looking at them brought everything back, it was almost like being there again.

 

[Adam Bonn]

Surely the M8/9 was only supposed to "measure up" to the M7.

Anyone in love with an M3 would perhaps find an M7 as lacking (or whatever) as an M9

And the whole USP of the M is that it (basically) works the same as they always did, ie the film RFs

and 'not measure up' is a hell of step back from "to being a run of the mill and somewhat overpriced, "me too" product"

 

[Topsy]

Agreed.

My problem with the Leica digital rangefinder cameras is that, having had a good look at the M8 and M9, they don't measure up to the classic M3. If they did, I'd be prepared to fork out my money because I took some of the film shots I'm most pleased with through the M3.

I don't understand what you mean by don't measure up to the classic M3. The M3 although reveered by many wasn't anything to be measured against it was just a type of camera (a Rangefinder) which is exactly what the M9 is they just record on different media. One could say that the M3 doesn't measure up to the M9 because it isn't as flexible (variable ISO, change from colour to B&W then back etc). I don't think the M3 measures up to my M2 because my M2 has more framelines, or my MP because my MP has a light meter. What exactly are you using as your benchmark in the M3 that the M8/9 doesn't measure up to? Oh and let's not forget that the M9 has the same lens mount as the M3 (and all other Ms) so will take the same lenses.

 

[ecniv]

Leica M10 + 28 voigtlander
Germany, between Ettal and Munich I think...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What exactly are you using as your benchmark in the M3 that the M8/9 doesn't measure up to?

Everything I wish to write on this subject has now been written and I see no point in prolonging it.

 

[ecniv]

Leica M10
Somewhere in Germany, probably in Munich

 

[justpix]

Hi, after the rather lively discussion above we should let the topics rest in peace. Discussing Leica can often become emotional because preferences and tastes are involved.

We could follow the ancients: de gustibus non est disputandum ... ---

The cemetery in Mommenheim/D ... (M9 - Summicron 2/50 f 2 ; crop) :

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Hi, after the rather lively discussion above we should let the topics rest in peace. Discussing Leica can often become emotional because preferences and tastes are involved.

You're quite right. Unfortunately, some people don't know when to let things alone.

However, in the spirit you suggest, here's another Panasonic Leica image, this time of some Geese with a TZ40...

 

[Tobers]

Interesting to-and-fro commentary in the posts above. It’s weird that Leica induces such polarisation, but it does so that’s just the way it is.

Having had many cameras including an M9, M240 and M10, my view is that Leica rangefinders provide a unique and (IMHO) lovely user experience that you don’t get with anything else. If that gets your juices flowing, great. If not, don’t worry about it and go do something else with your time.

Leica rangefinders, just like any other camera, can produce wonderful images. The Leica M lenses are pretty sensational in many cases. But the price of them and their quality doesn’t mean that every image will be a winner. This long thread is a very good example of the variety of images that can be produced, and shows that you can get total crap from a Leica quite easily. Just having a Leica doesn’t mean you’ve become a photography god. But that doesn’t matter. People produce totally crap images with Canon, Nikon, Sony etc etc.

I think there’s a weird expectation that just because someone has a Leica their images have to be 3x better than those produced from a 1/3rd price Canikony camera, and they get really wound up about this for some reason. Its odd. Just accept that people make different choices, and move on.

 

[trevorbray]

Interesting to-and-fro commentary in the posts above. It’s weird that Leica induces such polarisation, but it does so that’s just the way it is.

Having had many cameras including an M9, M240 and M10, my view is that Leica rangefinders provide a unique and (IMHO) lovely user experience that you don’t get with anything else. If that gets your juices flowing, great. If not, don’t worry about it and go do something else with your time.

Leica rangefinders, just like any other camera, can produce wonderful images. The Leica M lenses are pretty sensational in many cases. But the price of them and their quality doesn’t mean that every image will be a winner. This long thread is a very good example of the variety of images that can be produced, and shows that you can get total crap from a Leica quite easily. Just having a Leica doesn’t mean you’ve become a photography god. But that doesn’t matter. People produce totally crap images with Canon, Nikon, Sony etc etc.

I think there’s a weird expectation that just because someone has a Leica their images have to be 3x better than those produced from a 1/3rd price Canikony camera, and they get really wound up about this for some reason. Its odd. Just accept that people make different choices, and move on.

Well said Andy

 

[woof woof]

Interesting to-and-fro commentary in the posts above. It’s weird that Leica induces such polarisation, but it does so that’s just the way it is.

I don't think it's just Leica, I think it's a brand and cost thing for example I've had complete strangers harass me and hurl negatives and abuse because of the car I drive. Imagine the thought processes that take place for a stranger to approach me and tell me why my car / camera is XXXX. I think it's that some see some branded products as being OTT and so feel the need to have a pop. Other people with no idea what they're looking at brand or cost wise might just see a nice camera and indeed I've had that comment about a Voigtlander Bessa I had and I think that particular lady would have said the same had the camera been a much more expensive Leica as she didn't know what it was and just thought it looked nice

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I've had that comment about a Voigtlander Bessa I had

Darned good camera, the Bessa, whether you mean the original or the Cosina namesake.

Snap shot made through a Voigtlander 15mm on a Bessa L...

 

[wibbly]

Interesting to-and-fro commentary in the posts above. It’s weird that Leica induces such polarisation, but it does so that’s just the way it is.

Having had many cameras including an M9, M240 and M10, my view is that Leica rangefinders provide a unique and (IMHO) lovely user experience that you don’t get with anything else. If that gets your juices flowing, great. If not, don’t worry about it and go do something else with your time.

Leica rangefinders, just like any other camera, can produce wonderful images. The Leica M lenses are pretty sensational in many cases. But the price of them and their quality doesn’t mean that every image will be a winner. This long thread is a very good example of the variety of images that can be produced, and shows that you can get total crap from a Leica quite easily. Just having a Leica doesn’t mean you’ve become a photography god. But that doesn’t matter. People produce totally crap images with Canon, Nikon, Sony etc etc.

I think there’s a weird expectation that just because someone has a Leica their images have to be 3x better than those produced from a 1/3rd price Canikony camera, and they get really wound up about this for some reason. Its odd. Just accept that people make different choices, and move on.

Nice commentary, at the end of the day one has to shoot what one enjoys shooting with! I enjoy shooting a number of different brands including Leica, and really couldn't give a toss what others think in fairness!

Peace out!

 

[Adam Bonn]

I think to be fair everyone except one was saying the same thing about Leica as a brand and a tool.

It is what it is, it costs what it costs and if you want a digital rangefinder it -and now the PiXii- are the only gig in town.

People pays their money, makes their choice and on a sub-forum dedicated to one particular brand shouldn’t be heckled about it.

As we all know, content, light quality, framing etc make better photos than camera brand X, Y or Z

So we can all just buy the cameras we want and be left alone to use them no?

And there’s a big difference between not liking someone’s photo and saying that someone’s photo proves (sic) a fallacy.

 

[ecniv]

Not heard of the pixii... french made?
Slightly high price... Leica M mount, but not full frame. Not sure.
Could be nice to compare but I (personally and only on specs) think it falls a bit short now...

Apparently, according to a wiki via google search, there is a Zenit M (russian camera, based on leica m240 but with l39 mount) with a limited run of cameras.

 

[Adam Bonn]

Yeah I didn't mention the Zenit because 1) I forgot and 2) AFAIK it's more of a re-badged M240 rather than a new design (and I thought M mount)

PiXii is probably French, the guy I know that was given one to test certainly is!

 

[justpix]

Hi, one of my favourite U.S. cars, with other admirers ... (M9 - ZEISS Planar 2/50 f 2,8 ; crop) ... :






(I often asked myself why there are - and were - so few M mount bodies. Could it be that bodies having many parts are complicated in manufacturing, and supporting
them makes them less profitable ? This could explain CV and ZEISS lens making. Mirrorless bodies for M mount lenses are also scarce. What I see are varying degrees of almost-there
functionality. Why not build a new rangefinder body for M mount lenses? The market is very small, one could not get economies of scale, which means working with standard
components (no innovation) or finding manufacturers for very small numbers of components (high prices).

In my IT days I also had contacts with Leica. Leica is an SMB company with a great name - and great products, like MORGAN. ---

My ideal M having:

-same size

-higher res

-higher shutter speed

-IS

-tilt screen

will never come, I fear. )

 

[wibbly]

Hi, one of my favourite U.S. cars, with other admirers ... (M9 - ZEISS Planar 2/50 f 2,8 ; crop) ... :



View attachment 337018


(I often asked myself why there are - and were - so few M mount bodies. Could it be that bodies having many parts are complicated in manufacturing, and supporting
them makes them less profitable ? This could explain CV and ZEISS lens making. Mirrorless bodies for M mount lenses are also scarce. What I see are varying degrees of almost-there
functionality. Why not build a new rangefinder body for M mount lenses? The market is very small, one could not get economies of scale, which means working with standard
components (no innovation) or finding manufacturers for very small numbers of components (high prices).

In my IT days I also had contacts with Leica. Leica is an SMB company with a great name - and great products, like MORGAN. ---

My ideal M having:

-same size

-higher res

-higher shutter speed

-IS

-tilt screen

will never come, I fear. )

You never know, most of those features appear to be in many M users wish lists looking at the LUF M11 forum threads

 

[justpix]

Hi, a few more ... (M9 - ZEISS Planar 2/50 f 2,8 ; crop) ... :

 

[Topsy]

Hi, a few more ... (M9 - ZEISS Planar 2/50 f 2,8 ; crop) ... :



View attachment 337084



View attachment 337083



View attachment 337085



View attachment 337086



View attachment 337082

That is a very nice car and that Pickup is nice too.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Looking for an opportunity (Panasonic G9 / Leica DG-Vario-Elmar 100~400mm)...

 

[trevorbray]

Hi, a few more ... (M9 - ZEISS Planar 2/50 f 2,8 ; crop) ... :



View attachment 337084



View attachment 337083



View attachment 337085



View attachment 337086



View attachment 337082

Thanks for these Immo. Beautiful motor.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Looking through the old files turned up this shot, made on a Leica M3 through (probably) an Elmar 90mm...

 

[justpix]

Hi, in the Kurpark in Wiesbaden/D ... (M9 - ZEISS Biogon 2,8/25 ; f 5,6) :







I like the "full version" betterthan the crop :