New Leicas

Yes I have

Before I tried it I thought, Wow, cool, that looks great and should work well being an Oly harking back to glory years

In the hand though, just didn't feel right to me. Trying too hard to look/feel like mini SLR. Didn't get proper long go though so couldn't see images on PC/Print. But I still applaud it for being another option/choice. 

I guess it's a great time for cameras right now, with so much genuine choice. It's a bit like all the music player options these days. You can probably get it how you want it!

Really though I think next realistic move is to swap out the 7d for a 5Diii (!)

In fact...

(Really ought to try an M though...)

FF is luring... Having handled a D600 yesterday, I'd have to say it feels quite a bit smaller than a D800 (good) but otherwise is a pretty boring camera. I want to try the Sony A99, the combination of FF live view, long lenses and no mirror slap make it the king of safari, on paper. 

I'm interested in the D600, but only as a backup lighter travel camera to my D700. The D600 is to the D800, a D7000 equivalent to the D700. It's a lighter consumer full frame DSLR and is compromised in a number of areas to the D700; build quality, AF sensors, function buttons, frame rate etc. The fact that it has more pixels doesn't interest me. I get great images with my D700 blown up to poster size and this can be augmented by resizing in Photoshop if there was any significant cropping of the original image. My D7000 has more pixels than the D700 but doesn't take pictures nearly as good as the D700 and suffers with much greater noise. The full frame in a lighter body is the only thing that attracts me to the D600, not the pixel count. I wouldn't touch a D800, it's no use to me, massive files, slower camera, more money. I think this camera was designed mainly designed for wedding photographers and the like who regularly blow up their images.

I love the Leica's and, as Kevin's pictures show, they take bloody fantastic pictures but with all the Nikon lens's and other kit I have it doesn't make financial sense to buy one.

ATB

Steve

I already have an M3, a pair of M6's an M5 and even with 35, 50, 90 Summicrons (f2), 135mm, even a 50 DR, I can't justify the price of a digital M.

The D800 makes so much more sense at $3,000.

What do the Leicas offer over equivalent cameras. They look beautifully built, very covetable pieces of exotica but does the image quality on offer (or the general user experience) justify the very high pricing ?

James

They offer absolutely nothing above Nikon/Canon. The system offers less flexibility, speed and without the superb Nikon software/firmware, lesser image quality.

Steve, you're spot on with your praise for the Nikon D700. It's a superb camera. It's nice to see someone appreciate quality over pixel count.  

To the non-pixel peeping non-paparazzo amongst us the Leica offers discretion and totally intuitive manual control which I could never give up to shoot intrusive cyclopean Nikanon's ever again - the D700 is a brute by comparison.

So, not 'absolutely nothing' in my experience.  G

In my experience, they're slow and a handicap to the artist. 

Intrusive Nikon? I could take pics of you with my D3 and you'd barely notice or hear I was there.

I like Leica, but the amount of rubbish that photographers write (and subsequently drool) about them is beyond belief.

Look at that M body, it's made to be looked at and not used. The buttons are a farce, the layout is purely for cosmetic reasons and the body shape wants to slip out of your hands. 

Totally agree Graeme - but then the  Count is a bit of an anti-Red Dot snob (that said, I do agree with him that the D700 is a magnificent camera, perhaps the finest digital Nikon ever).

 The Leica is a completely different kind of camera. No good if you're into sports photography; a real faff to shoot macro; poor in low light (unless you have a Noctilux); no good past 135mm; fiddly with wide angle lenses; a hopeless rear LCD screen; a slow buffer.

But once you get used to the manual rangefinder system, the M cameras are a joy to use. I'm only a barely competent snapper but I really enjoy using the M9, I've never had so much fun taking pictures. The Ms are less flexible than big monster DSLRs but in return you get simplicity, fun and you learn how to use a camera - the Leicas don't really do anything for you. Even I'm getting better since I got the M9. And of course you're buying into the world's finest lens system - nothing Canon or Nikon have made can touch the 35 'Lux or the new 50mm 'Cron (if you can afford them, which sadly I can't).

If a Leica is good enough for HCB, Doisneau, both Capas, Arbus, Morath, Winogrand, Freed and Sieff then it's more than good enough for me.

That's rubbish - my M9 gets masses of use (9,000 pics since I got it in May last year). I'm sure there are idiots who buy those ridiculous limited editions and never use them but who cares? Ergonomically it is a joy to use - the menu is also simple and intuitive - and the body shape is great in the hand. You should try using one sometime. I'm not superfast, but I've gotten quicker and I don't find the M slow, especially as I often have the picture in my mind even before I lift the camera to my eye.

Interestingly I have always found non-Leica users far more snobbish than Leica users. The latter  generally seem to be more interested in their pics than in specs of cameras.

With those lenses shoot6x7, surely a decent secondhand M8, M8.2, M9 or even a new M-E would be a wiser investment than a D800? Can you get an M-mount adapter for that camera?

FWIW I wouldn't try the M8... had it for about two years, and it's the reason I left the M system (this was before the M9 was announced). Apart from the need to use Leica (B+W) IR/UV filters that made the camera very prone to flare, the sensor had horrible low light performance. Not just noise, but heavily patterned (vertical and horizontal banding) at long shutter times and ISO 640 and above. 

Cheers,

EJ 

I know a couple of people with M8s and they shoot exclusively in B&W for those very reasons. The M9 sensor is a bit ropey above 800 ISO and virtually unusable above 1250 - it's the camera's biggest fault.

Thanks chaps. Not wanting to start a war, just interested in user opinions.  Very interesting reading 

James

Without doubt the Leica lens are some of the best and I agree that the Nikon/Canon lenses don't compare quality wise. But, the range of lenses available by these 2 companies is far greater than Leica and along with the greater versatility of the top end DSLRs suits the type of photography that I'm into. In particular the fantastic ISO capabilities I have with the D700, and also with the D3 the Count has, means I can take very useable photos at 1600 and above without too much noise. This has more to do with pixel size rather than pixel count as the larger the pixel the more light sensitive it is. This is useful for wildlife and action photography and also allows me to use a fast lens without an obtrusive flash in low light situations as I did at my sons recent graduation ceremony. I also do macro photography which as Kevin mentions the Leica is not so good. 

The Leica's are terrific in normal light situations and, if I could justify the expense of buying one, I would use it as my 'carry with me, go anywhere' camera.

I hope that this thread doesn't degenerate into 'my camera is the best........'. Both types of camera have their uses and their fans. For me, and the type of photography that I do I'd have to choose my D700 if I could only have one camera. For others it would obviously different.

From the proud owner of a "beast",

Nah the biggest fault is that it somehow feels more lightweight and is substantially bigger than an M6 Only joking, but after handling M3 and M6 for years, it was hard to fall in love with the digital Ms with their metal shutters. Well, enough of this - it's a beautiful camera, put a 50 cron or 90 elmar on it and no need to ever look further. (Although I think the EVF option of the Typ 240 is brilliant for those times you want to accurately focus a 135 - in fact, the 135/2.8 with goggles is the only M lens I still have - even with the magnifiers, it is a difficult beast to tame).

Well, unless you want to go long. My most used lens now is the 300/4, which is really small for what it does. Enough reason to have a Nikon as 2nd body. (But secretly hoping Sony will make one, given that I like their fixed mirror approach to SLRs - the cameras are almost as quiet as an M).

Cheers,

EJ

M8, 90 f/4, Vancouver Island 2007

The M's are an utter joy to use.  My comment on a D800 is based on price and utility.  The Nikon is half the price of an M9.

I can use the D800 to earn more money than the M9.  My wife and I shoot weddings.

Having said that and if I could persuade my wife, I'd love to shoot a wedding with a digital M.

Btw I just got my D2H back after a shutter replacement.  The shutter now responds correctly to the meter.  I love it !

I have a 1995 vintage M6 and lenses from 24-90.  I have resisted the other digital rangefinders, but I have put my name on the list for the new M.  I want to hear about the new CMOS and other features, see reviews, and handle one of them.  I hope I am glad I waited.

Along with my M8 I've a 1931 Leica 1(c) with separate (vertically fitted) rangefinder - before they fitted it on top to create the ditinctive stepped top plate - It is in perfect mechanical order and the collapsible 50mm still produces crisp contrasy images.  G

Graeme, out of interest, do you process your own film? If not, where do you get them done?

Cheers

K

Photofilmprocessing.co.uk I've used but I'm wary of recommending anyone incase it backfires!

G

Seconded++I've tried others which have nice websites and offer a .professional. service but for professional just read bloody expensive. Results have been iffy from others but never had any probs with this one.

If anyone doubts just how good a Leica is in the hands of a decent photographer, check this guy's M9 pics out:

Here

and here