| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2014 02:24:03 PM · #1 |
The MM is the only camera I truly miss, really I do. I have owned many different machines of our trade but none has given me the feeling more than the MM, you lucky git to have the M240 & MM what a magical combi..
I use the fuji XT-1 and to be fair, its a camera I enjoy using a lot and the images it makes are stunning, I find myself shooting in JPG they are that good.
The M240 is beautiful, the build quality, the lenses, the sensor, the RF, it just gives me a feeling I get from no other camera I have used. I love to shoot the thing at ISO 640 it just has that magic.
I would never buy (could never buy) the M60, its a play-toy for the rich & careless and I imagine it will be a joy to use, but I also imagine that most who buy it will not even open the box it will be an investment, a collectors item sold unopened in 20 years to come so they have a few £K to spend in retirement. I know only that I like to use my cameras, same as you Dennis I do not make money from photography really at all so it HAS to be all about the pleasure and Leica delivers there on every count. The Fuji X system is brilliant and it is my take everywhere camera, it is so light its a pleasure and that 56 f1.2 .... WOW!!! |
|
|
|
09/25/2014 02:13:36 PM · #2 |
I have a Leica M240 and a 5DIII. I barely touch the Canon nowadays and if I do it's to use the 85mm f/1.2.
I wouldn't say my Leica gives me better image quality but it is as good as the Canon - it's full frame and very similar in pixel numbers.
Sure the process of shooting (as in operating the camera) is very different but more than this one's impact on the environment - i.e. one's stealthiness as a photographer is transformed. I can point it at people on the street in a way that would cause me to stand out with my Canon. Also, the lighter smaller form factor with full frame is significant, until the recent offerings from Sony a Leica M was the only game in town - and if good ergonomics is important it still is.
Am I hankering for the M Edition 60? No. But I do prefer the styling. I can after all choose to shoot as purely as the 60 if I want.
And then there are the lenses, I'm the wrong person to talk about Leica lenses, I don't own any - I have two Zeiss lenses and two (cheap) Jupiter lenses. I was building up to buy the Leica 35mm f/1.4 FLE but now Zeiss have just launched an equivalent lens that might be too tempting...
The last time I did a model shoot I shot something like 4-1 Leica-Canon; I never thought it would hold its own in that sort of photographic environment.
I'm going to start a sharing thread now for M users to share their most Leica-esque images and to offer some notes about their views on the images they share and how the camera played a role. |
|
|
|
09/25/2014 01:15:46 PM · #3 |
| Since I do photography solely for the fun of it, (I make no money from it), I am trying to pursue as many different aspects that make me happy. One of those is the RF system. I own both Canon and Leica, it's been quite interesting to own and use both systems side by side. Each has their designed place in the world, and I like the results from both, but each is different and should be treated differently respectively. Leica most certainly has it's own look, due to the lenses. Can one produce that same feel in software? Maybe, but it's just not the same. I am expecting delivery of some colored filters today, so I can create more dynamic results with the MM, in the field, instead on the computer. I really have discovered I don't like to spend hours editing and perfecting an image on the computer, (just my choice). My edit time on the MM images have be cut dramatically. I have discovered the closer I can get the image to a finished product at time of capture, the happier I am. |
|
|
|
09/25/2014 11:20:47 AM · #4 |
For the purists I can see the attraction to Leica. What a legacy and no other camera feels the same in your hands. With photoshop and other digital software is there really a difference in the final result? Can you tell something was captured with a Leica? It seems the emphasis is on process more than results. I'm not downplaying the importance of process. This is when inspiration prompts the photographer to release the shutter. Whatever tool produces the best results seems to be the takeaway.
"Great shot! What kind of camera did you use?" ouch! |
|
|
|
09/25/2014 10:35:34 AM · #5 |
I have no intention of thinking of adding the M Edition 60 to my Leica collection, but I do agree with the "simplicity" concept of the thing. I recently deleted the M Monochrome from my wish list and added it to my "I can't believe I own this!" list. Since using it for the last three weeks, I have been transported back to a time that I did not have the pleasure of experiencing because I started learning photography with a DSLR. The MM is a camera that is truly in a class by itself.  MAK can testify to that. I am very fortunate to own both the M240 and MM now and I won't trade them for anything. Two years ago I participated in a Leica M9 workshop in Vail Colorado and had the chance to use the MM for about two hours. They had brought one with them and they let all the students have a short time with it. Since then, it's always been in the back of my mind to own one. For the last two years, I have said to myself, "don't need it, put it out of your head", but now that I own it, I wish I would have bought it sooner. It's not about how much it costs, it's about what you feel like when you use it. It's brought, to me at least, a whole new experience of photography and one that I am diving into. |
|
|
|
09/25/2014 06:55:19 AM · #6 |
I suspect the box and camera case cost more than my x100 ;)
I have always wanted a Leica and with hindsight I should have bought one years ago instead of 'wasting' my funds on other camera gear.
Now I sit happy with my Fuji x100 and the only upgrade I would make would be to a Leica M Monochrom. I can dream can't I ?
I also agree with scarbrd - in the past with my DSLR'S I would sometimes go into 'machine gun' mode and end up with 100's of images. With my Fuji the opposite is true, the rangefinder style does change the way you shoot, especially with a fixed lens.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2014 09:42:37 AM · #7 |
Leica could come out with a non-limited edition version of the camera that would only cost a small fortune rather than a large one. one real world advantage would be stellar battery life. No LCD, no chimping, no jpg conversion, and of course, no auto focus. I'll bet the battery lasts for days on end.
Leica also released a new film camera, the Leica M-A, if you want to go totally retro. It's only $4750.00
I recently bought into the modern Leica offerings and I must say it is quite a departure from both SLR and autofocus photography. Using the rangefinder you really get a feel for critical focus.
Some observations since I got the Leica 240:
1. Leica makes no less than 5 50mm lenses - 50mm 2.4 Summarit, 50mm 2.0 Summicron, 50mm 2.0 Summicron APO, 50mm 1.4 Summilux, and the 50mm .95 Noctilux. The latter of which retails for $11,000.00. For a 50mm manual focus lens.
2. After joining a few Leica based Facebook pages and web sites, I am amazed at the number of people that own the 50mm Noctilux.
3. To answer the critics saying that their lenses are too expensive, Leica launched a line of budget lenses. 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm all F2.4. The prices range from $1750-$2350. These are for the cost conscience buyers.
4. In the past when I would go on a shoot I would come back with anywhere between 200-2000 images, depending on the situation. With the Leica, it's 10% of that. 20 images from a shoot is not unusual. Plus, I am getting the same number of "keepers" as before. The rangefinder style of shooting forces you to slow down and think about what you're shooting. No zoom lens forces you to position yourself for the best framing. At least it does for me.
5. The image quality from this camera and these lenses is like nothing I've ever seen.
6. If you've never heard of or seen the work of Thorsten van Overgaard, you're missing out.
Leica is not for everyone, that's for sure, but then Leica never tries to be for everyone. |
|
|
|
09/24/2014 02:54:52 AM · #8 |
I have one already
It's called an M7, it was slightly more expensive because they removed the sensor too.
Beautiful machine it is I'm sure and the lens has a nice new jacket too however I'll stick with my M240 for now and turn the screen off. |
|
|
|
09/23/2014 09:27:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
True retro comes at a PRICE, don'tcha know? Anyway, it isn't for the likes of us :-) |
Yes, it does cost a bunch to have what we used to have for cheaper, since we've come so far from where we were when we wished we had more...
uhhh...
Huh?
|
|
|
|
09/23/2014 09:09:53 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I'm with Bear on this. A pox on your LCDs and menus and modes and image stabilisers and autofocus and video and etc. They brutalise and devalue the alchemy of photography. On the other hand, they do permit everyone to achieve a plausible level of mediocrity. If this Leica was made by Panasonic or Sony or Fuji, and was thus $2,000 instead of $20,000 then I'd buy it. Digital should be as analogue as possible, not as digital as possible. |
you outdo yourself with this digital parsimony!
I would love to have this camera. My original objection was to the hype; and my abiding objection is to the pandering to the have too much money crowd. It would be a totally beautiful thing to strip down many of these better cameras/lenses.
I do, however, enjoy shooting with my K-01, my first good lcd screen. Of course it is possible that I have accumulated many more mediocre shots thereby. Always a problem. |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 07:21:04 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Garry:
BTW...what's with the viewfinder on the left hand side? Wouldn't most folks' dominant eye be their right? |
That's the rangefinder way of shooting (and on cameras such as the Fuji x's etc) You still use your right eye but leave the left side of your face clear so you can also use your left eye to see what is coming into the frame at the same time. It becomes quite natural quite quickly due to the small size of the cameras. Can be a bit confusing switching back to a slr way of handling though. |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 07:15:46 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by ubique:
LCD on my beloved old Panasonic/Leica L1-K has been broken and entirely unusable for 5 years. So no image review and no menu access. But camera still works perfectly, lens remains sublime, and it's more satisfying than ever to use. Leica is just now following my lead. |
Broken is the the way to go. I've got a friend who has been taking photos on nothing else but a broken iPhone for the last few years and i'm constantly amazed at the great photographs he comes out with. If it's broken why fix it? |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 07:14:07 AM · #13 |
Beautiful as all get out. I'd buy it in a flash is it had a few fewer zeros at the end.
BTW...what's with the viewfinder on the left hand side? Wouldn't most folks' dominant eye be their right? |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 07:02:16 AM · #14 |
| LCD on my beloved old Panasonic/Leica L1-K has been broken and entirely unusable for 5 years. So no image review and no menu access. But camera still works perfectly, lens remains sublime, and it's more satisfying than ever to use. Leica is just now following my lead. |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 06:14:32 AM · #15 |
| I think it's a lovely looking thing and I'd imagine it would be a total pleasure to use. I can totally understand the thinking behind it...I tend to 'cripple' my cameras in various ways as well including hardly ever using the back screen. Creativity through limitation and all that. The cost is irrelevant really...some people think it's crazy spending a lot of money on a lens or an antique teapot or a first edition book or a car. Saying that though, if I had a spare 20 grand I would probably go for a Leica M Monochrome and a Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux before one of these. If I had a spare 20 grand after that I might get one though. |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 05:56:53 AM · #16 |
Apparently there are times where being an ignorant pleb is a good thing. I am NOT drooling over this thing, I won't lose any sleep, and I feel ZERO envy.
Phew. |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 04:11:02 AM · #17 |
Would something electronic/digital hold it's value and become collectible?
For example, I can't think of any digital watches from 30 years ago that have increased in value, versus mechanical watches like Rolex.
Part of the joy of analog and mechanical objects is the beauty of the engineering, the moving parts, the fact they are repairable and will outlast changes in technology or file formats. |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 02:51:38 AM · #18 |
| I'm with Bear on this. A pox on your LCDs and menus and modes and image stabilisers and autofocus and video and etc. They brutalise and devalue the alchemy of photography. On the other hand, they do permit everyone to achieve a plausible level of mediocrity. If this Leica was made by Panasonic or Sony or Fuji, and was thus $2,000 instead of $20,000 then I'd buy it. Digital should be as analogue as possible, not as digital as possible. |
|
|
|
09/19/2014 01:09:50 AM · #19 |
I definitely appreciate the practical elegance of simplicity here. After all, you don't need much else if you have a good pair of hand-made shoes and a sturdy par-dessus that works striding or astride. But without the horse, without the lcd, I don't see the point.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2014 11:31:13 PM · #20 |
Speaking in the abstract (that is, not referring to this particular grossly inflated bit of conspicuous consumption), there's something immensely appealing about a bit of bare-bones-simple kit using the best sensor and lenses available. I love rangefinder, manual focus cameras. I'd be happy with no controls but aperture on the lens, shutter speed dial, and ISO dial on a high-quality rangefinder camera. The sensor is necessary since film is a dying thing, and anyway going directly from media to computer would be a hard habit (and I say this as a long-time, diehard large-format darkroom-nerd guy) to give up.
That's all I ever had, back in the day: even my Nikons were F and F1 models, no automatic exposure or focus. They worked fine without batteries even :-)
So I wish there was something akin to this Leica available at a rational price point :-( |
|
|
|
09/18/2014 10:47:16 PM · #21 |
| I saw this camera 3 days ago and thought...why make it digital if you can't control it through a screen? I'm sure you can see the same things in the viewfinder as the normal M 240, like exposure arrows, and shutter speed, but that is not everything you need. Maybe a very good investment though since they are only producing 600 of them. Like Paul says, 10 or 20 or more years from now, someone would buy it for more than it costs today. |
|
|
|
09/18/2014 10:00:13 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by tnun:
This is a camera for men who wear the Peterman horseman duster, no socks, bespoke shoes and think that on Thursday they might try on a little Cartier Bresson. There is no homage, nor anything original. |
huh? |
|
|
|
09/18/2014 08:20:17 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tnun:
"The set consists of a Leica M-P digital camera (Type 240) and the fast Leica Summilux-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH lens, both in special versions that pay homage to the essence of photography and carry it back to its origins." |
Translation: "There is NOTHING "digital" about this camera except that it uses a sensor instead of film." No menu, no LCD screen, no autofocus, no "modes", no nada. Zipperoonie. Why it COSTS more to do this is a mystery, but there ya go :-) |
I disagree. There IS no translation. This is a camera for men who wear the Peterman horseman duster, no socks, bespoke shoes and think that on Thursday they might try on a little Cartier Bresson. There is no homage, nor anything original. |
|
|
|
09/18/2014 08:04:11 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
09/18/2014 07:32:42 PM · #25 |
What's an M8 worth these days?
Maybe that's not really apples-to-apples because it's a run-of-the-mill camera and not a limited edition, but still. |
|
