advertisement


The musings (ramblings) of a Leica owner

Gromit

Plasticine Dog
I hope you fine folk won't mind me creating a short blog about my recent foray into getting my first Leica. Well, it's not a 'blog' as such as it will likely be the only post from me on the matter, but (as in the title) 'musings' is probably a more apt description. This is from a completely subjective, personal view based on the last few months spent using this camera. I've probably put ITRO of 5-6k shots through it.

I've wanted to own one of these things for many years - it started when I was a child as my Dad owned an M3 and whilst I never got to even hold it, it was something I knew was supposed to be a bit special. The seed was sown.

Now, I'm not a person of great income (I drive a 14 yr old Pug 107 so don't spend my funds on cars! Mrs G has the nicer car than I :D ) so much was expected when I finally got my hands on my M-P 240; it wasn't entered into lightly. Leica glass was pretty much out of the question, but on doing lengthy reading-up it seemed that Voigtländer was a worthy 2nd best. Watching the YT videos from Matt Osborne and Matt Day, for example, showed what was achievable, even if not by me. The recently-added Ultron 35 f2 has proven what superb value their glass is - a lens which has been causing a big stir in Leica circles, many preferring it to the 35 f2 Summicron - at 1/5th the price. Regarding the price of more lofty Leica glass, it's eye-watering.

As a piece of well-built engineering, the M is very special - the only camera I own which gets near is my beloved Nikon F3 (the Hasselblad is better still but it's hardly a 'carry around' item). Whether the M is as robust, I wouldn't like to say though, and don't intend to test it out. In use, the camera is lovely - not particularly small, extremely heavy (for its size), feeling very 'dense' as if hewn from a solid block. The shutter sound is very mechanical too, and most satisfying. Rangefinder focusing is both quick, and deadly accurate (providing it's calibrated properly). The feel of the Voigt lenses is certainly up with the quality of the M body, the focusing actions beautifully damped and *buttery smooth. (*Copyright: Darren Miles). It really is a gorgeous thing to take out and shoot with - it's not overly fast ('C' mode is I'm sure, Wetzlar speak for 'Can't be bothered'). But quick enough for the occasional grab shot. I'm sure with practice it would be even better though. The frame lines within the VF are spot on and with longer f/l length lenses (35mm and upward) it's nice to see outside that box without removing one's eye from the camera.

IQ is excellent - I'd be a bit p*ssed if it wasn't. Colour and mono jpegs are extremely good, and I just leave all settings at 'medium' and am happy with the results. The film sims (of which there is a grand total of 2) are OK but not exactly Fuji standard. RAW files a reasonably flexible, but packed with detail - achievable with the Voigtländer lenses without issue.

As a tool to use whilst out and about it's nigh on unbeatable. Discreet, quiet, unobtrusive, small and totally non-threatening. The M-P doesn't have the red dot which is a good thing too.

Downsides? Oh yes, more than a few.

High ISO use isn't very good - going above 1600 isn't advised (IMHO) and the noise isn't particularly pleasant. Unlike the D700 where it shows a film-like grain structure, the M isn't great at all. Its DR is poor too, especially for a FF 24MP sensor. For high ISO use the Df murders it - and the D700 gives it a bloody nose too.

Writing to the card is slow - mine is the 'P' version which has a larger buffer than the M240 so Lord knows what that one's like. Still, I don't shoot in rapid succession so it's not a deal-breaker.

VF frame lines are limited to 28mm - any wider and you need live view (or the clip-on EVF). Wearing specs means this is a bit of a nightmare. I use all my other cameras with the diopters adjusted to my eyesight without glasses which means I can chimp easily if needed without farting around - the Leica eyepiece is non adjustable which I think on a camera this price is inexcusable.

Is its IQ better than my Nikons? Hard to say. I do seem to get a lot of keepers, and there's certainly a look to its files which is very appealing - even with the 2nd best glass. The poor DR does prove annoying at times, and doesn't make for an easy time in tricky light. OTOH it provides something of a challenge to be worked around. As to the IQ itself, I'd love to get some serious quality glass on the front of my Df - sadly, none of my Nikon lenses, whilst I'm fond of them, perform in the same league as the Voigtländers so the Df's sensor isn't being let fully off the leash. I've a feeling the Df is equal to, if not actually better than the M. Mattias Burling (a YouTuber I have immense respect for) maintains the Df has just about the finest IQ out there.

Do I regret the purchase?

Yes and no. Yes, because I don't think the system is worth the outlay for the pure results and - speaking with 100% objectivity - if I was forced to sell it, I'm not sure I'd miss it.

No, because - speaking with 100% subjectivity - I have never felt so 'connected' with a camera since my days of using film. In use, it really does feel like a digital *F3 and I cannot praise it any higher than that.

*I've owned my F3 since 1985; it went everywhere with me and will have to be prised from my cold, dead hands.

Oh - and there are some right twats on the Leica M Facebook group (many great people too - and some superb images in display). :D

Oh (no.2) - and the box it comes in is something else. :D
 
I hope you fine folk won't mind me creating a short blog about my recent foray into getting my first Leica. Well, it's not a 'blog' as such as it will likely be the only post from me on the matter, but (as in the title) 'musings' is probably a more apt description. This is from a completely subjective, personal view based on the last few months spent using this camera. I've probably put ITRO of 5-6k shots through it.

I've wanted to own one of these things for many years - it started when I was a child as my Dad owned an M3 and whilst I never got to even hold it, it was something I knew was supposed to be a bit special. The seed was sown.

Now, I'm not a person of great income (I drive a 14 yr old Pug 107 so don't spend my funds on cars! Mrs G has the nicer car than I :D ) so much was expected when I finally got my hands on my M-P 240; it wasn't entered into lightly. Leica glass was pretty much out of the question, but on doing lengthy reading-up it seemed that Voigtländer was a worthy 2nd best. Watching the YT videos from Matt Osborne and Matt Day, for example, showed what was achievable, even if not by me. The recently-added Ultron 35 f2 has proven what superb value their glass is - a lens which has been causing a big stir in Leica circles, many preferring it to the 35 f2 Summicron - at 1/5th the price. Regarding the price of more lofty Leica glass, it's eye-watering.

As a piece of well-built engineering, the M is very special - the only camera I own which gets near is my beloved Nikon F3 (the Hasselblad is better still but it's hardly a 'carry around' item). Whether the M is as robust, I wouldn't like to say though, and don't intend to test it out. In use, the camera is lovely - not particularly small, extremely heavy (for its size), feeling very 'dense' as if hewn from a solid block. The shutter sound is very mechanical too, and most satisfying. Rangefinder focusing is both quick, and deadly accurate (providing it's calibrated properly). The feel of the Voigt lenses is certainly up with the quality of the M body, the focusing actions beautifully damped and *buttery smooth. (*Copyright: Darren Miles). It really is a gorgeous thing to take out and shoot with - it's not overly fast ('C' mode is I'm sure, Wetzlar speak for 'Can't be bothered'). But quick enough for the occasional grab shot. I'm sure with practice it would be even better though. The frame lines within the VF are spot on and with longer f/l length lenses (35mm and upward) it's nice to see outside that box without removing one's eye from the camera.

IQ is excellent - I'd be a bit p*ssed if it wasn't. Colour and mono jpegs are extremely good, and I just leave all settings at 'medium' and am happy with the results. The film sims (of which there is a grand total of 2) are OK but not exactly Fuji standard. RAW files a reasonably flexible, but packed with detail - achievable with the Voigtländer lenses without issue.

As a tool to use whilst out and about it's nigh on unbeatable. Discreet, quiet, unobtrusive, small and totally non-threatening. The M-P doesn't have the red dot which is a good thing too.

Downsides? Oh yes, more than a few.

High ISO use isn't very good - going above 1600 isn't advised (IMHO) and the noise isn't particularly pleasant. Unlike the D700 where it shows a film-like grain structure, the M isn't great at all. Its DR is poor too, especially for a FF 24MP sensor. For high ISO use the Df murders it - and the D700 gives it a bloody nose too.

Writing to the card is slow - mine is the 'P' version which has a larger buffer than the M240 so Lord knows what that one's like. Still, I don't shoot in rapid succession so it's not a deal-breaker.

VF frame lines are limited to 28mm - any wider and you need live view (or the clip-on EVF). Wearing specs means this is a bit of a nightmare. I use all my other cameras with the diopters adjusted to my eyesight without glasses which means I can chimp easily if needed without farting around - the Leica eyepiece is non adjustable which I think on a camera this price is inexcusable.

Is its IQ better than my Nikons? Hard to say. I do seem to get a lot of keepers, and there's certainly a look to its files which is very appealing - even with the 2nd best glass. The poor DR does prove annoying at times, and doesn't make for an easy time in tricky light. OTOH it provides something of a challenge to be worked around. As to the IQ itself, I'd love to get some serious quality glass on the front of my Df - sadly, none of my Nikon lenses, whilst I'm fond of them, perform in the same league as the Voigtländers so the Df's sensor isn't being let fully off the leash. I've a feeling the Df is equal to, if not actually better than the M. Mattias Burling (a YouTuber I have immense respect for) maintains the Df has just about the finest IQ out there.

Do I regret the purchase?

Yes and no. Yes, because I don't think the system is worth the outlay for the pure results and - speaking with 100% objectivity - if I was forced to sell it, I'm not sure I'd miss it.

No, because - speaking with 100% subjectivity - I have never felt so 'connected' with a camera since my days of using film. In use, it really does feel like a digital *F3 and I cannot praise it any higher than that.

*I've owned my F3 since 1985; it went everywhere with me and will have to be prised from my cold, dead hands.

Oh - and there are some right twats on the Leica M Facebook group (many great people too - and some superb images in display). :D

Oh (no.2) - and the box it comes in is something else. :D
Interesting musings. Keep the great pics coming...
 
Keep the musings coming, a Leica is 'always' on my radar, but I keep swerving, got distracted by the GFX at the moment. IQ can be very subjective, without a constant lighting environment we can't really compare, and thats pixel peeping and not real world, and as you know glass is really king, get some decent glass on that DF :) A big area sensor with relatively few 'quality' photosites (16MP) should be really special

IMO the handling of the camera is a very important aspect and increasing the keeper ratio, as does slowing down and taking a more positive attitude to framing/composition
 
I was brought up with Leica envy due to two teachers at school being Leica-ists, when I had sufficient spare cash to consider buying into the Leica I was put off by the limited focal range of the lenses.
However I did buy the big Leica Pradovit slide projector and some Leitz binoculars. The image quality from the projector was superb.

and now it is too late to jump ship..
 
Thanks fellas - I could probably ramble on all the more but think even I would get bored. :)

David makes a very good point (as usual) regarding the handling of a camera. A good example IME; I have the upmost respect for the big Sony Alpha cameras (7R2/3) for their image quality, but find them anodyne regarding any desire to actually pick up and use.
 
I used to own a M6 0.85 with summicron 50, 35 and 90 f2.8. The summicron 50 was something else. The pictures were always fantastic to look at. It was never really about the IQ. You take that for granted. Just picking the thing up and shoot was a joy. I use a sony a7r2 now. No fun at all. Full of nonsensical buttons designed for kids.
 
Interesting thread. I’ve always liked the idea of a Leica, or at least my idea of a Leica. The idea of someone who has never used one!

To my mind it is one thing: a fairly compact very high quality 35mm film camera with one very high quality lens. That lens is a 35mm*. I don’t know the Leica range well enough to know which specific body or which particular lens is correct, but it will be ergonomic, fast, and I would learn to use it blind (maybe even just leave it set to the hyperfocal distance most of the time). It is a street camera and it contains a black and white film (I don’t know enough about black and white film to know what type). That is what I would want from it anyway. Beyond that I’d choose an SLR.

*I do realise Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm, so I may possibly have to reconsider the lens choice, but I do know the correct quantity of lenses is one.
 
50mm gives correct perspective so that`s what you must have and why it`s the proper standard lens for all standard format 35mm cameras. 55mm and 58mm were sometimes used on SLRs because of space problems with the mirror.

Cartier-Bresson was never wrong.
 
50mm gives correct perspective so that`s what you must have and why it`s the proper standard lens for all standard format 35mm cameras. 55mm and 58mm were sometimes used on SLRs because of space problems with the mirror.

Cartier-Bresson was never wrong.

I think a 50mm on a full frame is two narrow, to me a 35mm (or 24mm on a crop) gives a more natural view.

Pete
 
@Gromit - Very interesting. As someone who has never even touched (let alone shot with) a Leica, that made for a great read.

I would love to try one some day!

Lefty

Thanks Amar :)

I suppose that Leica cameras (and their lenses) have attained a mystique that puts them on a lofty pedestal - whether that's deserved or not is open to varying opinion. The way I see it, the M is a really nice thing to have in the hands, and is clearly designed with a particular job in mind and its form hasn't changed since the M3 (excepting the thicker bodies of the M9/M240). It's no sacred deity though <insert parallels with the LP12 here> as some would have us believe (such folk really need to get out more). :D :D

Sure, Leica cameras have recorded some of the most iconic images ever captured on film and I suppose one should probably remember (to be fair) the 35mm camera was relatively young in those times - nothing really competed, simply because no one really made anything to do so. The TLR was the go-to for many photographers, making a Leica the dream ticket for the photographer on the move. Easy to see why it soon became the tool for street. The Japanese hadn't really got in on the act yet, but of course they soon made cameras of high quality that the average man (or woman) could afford, finding their place in the hands of millions of photographers.

It's worth watching Tom Barnes' review of the M240 on YouTube - a professional photographer's experiences with his first Leica on the streets of London. His normal weapon of choice is Nikon so he's clearly a man of perfect taste from the outset. :)
 
I must admit I got the bug soon after the M9 came out, as I was never any good with complex SLRs and wanted to get back to aperture priority from my youth.

Firstly, the Voightlander 35/f2 Ultron is a fine lens. I bought one for my son on graduation, together with an unused M6 0.72 TTL. That was a bargain find. The 35/f2 ASPH is my standard lens and has been for some years. Everything about it is right.

The collection has grown a bit, a 1935 Leica III with 50/f3.5 the original case and meter, a 1957 M3 0.91 and 50 rigid with NF goggles, my own M6 0.72 TTL from the same batch as my son, an M10, 28/f5.6 Summaron, 50/f1.4 ASPH, 90/f2.8 Tele and a Q2. Also have the Zeiss 21/f2.8 and Voightlander 15/f4.5 Mk3, both of which are superb ultra-wide angles that only get occasional use so Leica glass would be excessive. The Zeiss 21 is faster and as good as the Leica 21/f3.4.

I haven't regretted the change for a minute. Each body and lens has its own personality. I love using them and they hold their value or go up, including the digital bodies if purchased used. The only lenses I've tried and sold were the 135/f3.4 (too heavy, not fast enough and difficult to focus) and the 90/f2 ASPH, which is an utterly brilliant lens but just too big. I stick to the small lenses.
 
@sls4321 thanks for the input - I too have tried longer lenses on my M and found they just don't suit the system, although having the Visoflex EVF makes focusing a lot easier. The tiny lenses (the VM 35 Ultron being the best example) are a joy.

I really am tied at the moment, and whilst I haven't been given an ultimatum (yet!) by Mrs G, there is definitely an element of having more gear than I really need, and the associated guilt. I also shoot an Olympus Pen F which is a lovely little camera and its IQ in real terms stands up very well against the FF kit I own. Having owned a larger array of Mu43 kit in the past, it does hold up perfectly well and as a system can easily stand alone. The small size ties in nicely with the Leica stuff, and of course my M mount glass will work nicely on the Oly bodies when needed. The Nokton 50 is particularly good.

My attachment to Nikon is as much emotional as practical - I shot Nikon in the film days (I was a fanboy before the term became common :D ) and find it hard to look at them simply as tools made from metal and plastic. I could of course move the lot on, for the most part the M and the Pen F are becoming my go-to's; one reason being they fit in a small shoulder bag together, with all the glass. The D700 is a beast, and with the 24-70 fitted takes up the space of all the Leica and Oly kit in one go. It's probably heavier too. :D

One thing I haven't tried yet is shooting a wedding with the Leica. I know people who do (I follow Benj Haisch on YouTube) and get wonderful results, showcasing what the M system is capable of in the right hands. Not sure I'm brave enough yet though!

I must offer an apology for the slight rambling, thinking-out-loud thread, but in many ways it's good to air one's joys and frustrations with kit we own.
 
@sls4321 thanks for the input - I too have tried longer lenses on my M and found they just don't suit the system, although having the Visoflex EVF makes focusing a lot easier. The tiny lenses (the VM 35 Ultron being the best example) are a joy.

I really am tied at the moment, and whilst I haven't been given an ultimatum (yet!) by Mrs G, there is definitely an element of having more gear than I really need, and the associated guilt. I also shoot an Olympus Pen F which is a lovely little camera and its IQ in real terms stands up very well against the FF kit I own. Having owned a larger array of Mu43 kit in the past, it does hold up perfectly well and as a system can easily stand alone. The small size ties in nicely with the Leica stuff, and of course my M mount glass will work nicely on the Oly bodies when needed. The Nokton 50 is particularly good.

My attachment to Nikon is as much emotional as practical - I shot Nikon in the film days (I was a fanboy before the term became common :D ) and find it hard to look at them simply as tools made from metal and plastic. I could of course move the lot on, for the most part the M and the Pen F are becoming my go-to's; one reason being they fit in a small shoulder bag together, with all the glass. The D700 is a beast, and with the 24-70 fitted takes up the space of all the Leica and Oly kit in one go. It's probably heavier too. :D

One thing I haven't tried yet is shooting a wedding with the Leica. I know people who do (I follow Benj Haisch on YouTube) and get wonderful results, showcasing what the M system is capable of in the right hands. Not sure I'm brave enough yet though!

I must offer an apology for the slight rambling, thinking-out-loud thread, but in many ways it's good to air one's joys and frustrations with kit we own.

People ramble about Leica endlessly.

My son started on a Voightlander Bessa and the Voightlander 35/f2.5 Skopar. I think the whole package cost $430 new, in the most amazing camera store in Bangkok.

The Voightlander 35/f2.5 is a true pancake lens. The original pancake was the Nikon Ais 50/f1.8. I had one until recently on an FM2N, just too noisy for me, but a neat and petite camera.

Leica do some very small lenses. I love the 28/f5.6 Summaron, 18mm body length and about 166g, a great walkabout lens. The 28/f5.6 Summaron does not make sense compared to the modern 28/f2.8, which is Leica's smallest modern lens and £300 cheaper.

If you want Leica, the 35/f2.5 performs much the same as the f2, save for the loss of half a stop, and is cheaper. The Zeiss 35 and 50 f2 Biogon are much cheaper and optically faultless, but they just don't feel the same.

For sharpness and value, I don't think anything beats the standard Leica 50/f2. That said, I paid less for my 50 Rigid and it's perhaps the best lens they ever made.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f2-dr.htm
This the 1957 50/f2 on an M10
 
I'm also interested in Leica (to see what the fuss is about mainly) although in my case it's more the lenses I'm interested in than the cameras. I've got quite a few Leica mount bodies (all film bodies and all screw-mount) including a Voigtlander Bessa R and a Bessa L, plus a variety of lenses including a Voigtlander Snapshot-Skopar which is a 25mm F4 and gets around the viewfinder issue by having its own dedicated external viewfinder. It's on my to-do list to add a Leica lens to that set-up, probably just a 50mm, and see how it is. They are quite a lot of cash even for old lenses though!
 
The Voightlander 35/f2.5 is a true pancake lens. The original pancake was the Nikon Ais 50/f1.8. I had one until recently on an FM2N, just too noisy for me, but a neat and petite camera.

GN-Nikkor 45mm f2.8 was the original Nikkor pancake, it came along a couple of decades before the E-Series 50mm, and was much flatter.

45mmGNnonAia.jpg
 
Thanks Amar :)

I suppose that Leica cameras (and their lenses) have attained a mystique that puts them on a lofty pedestal - whether that's deserved or not is open to varying opinion. The way I see it, the M is a really nice thing to have in the hands, and is clearly designed with a particular job in mind and its form hasn't changed since the M3 (excepting the thicker bodies of the M9/M240). It's no sacred deity though <insert parallels with the LP12 here> as some would have us believe (such folk really need to get out more). :D :D

Sure, Leica cameras have recorded some of the most iconic images ever captured on film and I suppose one should probably remember (to be fair) the 35mm camera was relatively young in those times - nothing really competed, simply because no one really made anything to do so. The TLR was the go-to for many photographers, making a Leica the dream ticket for the photographer on the move. Easy to see why it soon became the tool for street. The Japanese hadn't really got in on the act yet, but of course they soon made cameras of high quality that the average man (or woman) could afford, finding their place in the hands of millions of photographers.

It's worth watching Tom Barnes' review of the M240 on YouTube - a professional photographer's experiences with his first Leica on the streets of London. His normal weapon of choice is Nikon so he's clearly a man of perfect taste from the outset. :)

Sorry for the late reply Richard - sadly, now that school have gone back, I've been called back into the office and that treadmill / rat race lifestyle :(

Indeed - it's the mystique that surrounds Leica which has made me slightly wary of the brand. (well, that and the loft price tag!). Also, on a related note, I have been guilty of being dismissive of Leica stuff based purely on the price tag. (i.e. there seems very little on the surface to justify the price). However, as we know from the value we attribute to the ergonomics of Nikon vs something like a Sony, the value of a tool which just feels 'right' in the hand cannot be overstated. My recent acquisition of the Fuji X-E3 (and it's wonderful ergos compared with the RX100 III) have only confirmed this.

Also, the quality of the images you have been getting from the M-P 240 are as good a proof as any that it's an extremely capable tool in the right hands.

Thanks for the tip on the Tom Barnes video - I will seek it out and give it a watch. (making sure that I give my wallet to my wife before I do so :D )

Lefty
 
Hardly any commercial photographers use a Leica. Possibly the SL, certainly not M. There are famous exceptions. Leica cameras are about as useful as high-end hifi, overpriced to any sane person, but produce great sound/images, give a lot of pleasure using them and pride of ownership. The main difference is that most Leica products go up in value. You will lose on buying new digital bodies. That said, I owned a Leica Q for 4 years, used it extensively, bought it for £2,900 and sold it for £2,000. That’s far less depreciation than a similar priced Sony or Canon. It was a brilliant camera because of the amazing 28/1.7 lens and the fact that most of the rest of it was made by Panasonic. I now have the Q2, same lens, everything else pimped up, just a great camera.
 
Sorry for the late reply Richard - sadly, now that school have gone back, I've been called back into the office and that treadmill / rat race lifestyle :(

Indeed - it's the mystique that surrounds Leica which has made me slightly wary of the brand. (well, that and the loft price tag!). Also, on a related note, I have been guilty of being dismissive of Leica stuff based purely on the price tag. (i.e. there seems very little on the surface to justify the price). However, as we know from the value we attribute to the ergonomics of Nikon vs something like a Sony, the value of a tool which just feels 'right' in the hand cannot be overstated. My recent acquisition of the Fuji X-E3 (and it's wonderful ergos compared with the RX100 III) have only confirmed this.

Also, the quality of the images you have been getting from the M-P 240 are as good a proof as any that it's an extremely capable tool in the right hands.

Thanks for the tip on the Tom Barnes video - I will seek it out and give it a watch. (making sure that I give my wallet to my wife before I do so :D )

Lefty

Thanks for the kind encouragement, Amar :)

The Tom Barnes video is quite good, I found it struck a nice balance between object/subjectivity and whilst not in his comfort zone in terms of photographic environment, he clearly enjoyed his time with the camera.

I too have to wince at the cost of Leica kit, it's truly horrific what they charge for some items (including things like straps/filters etc). The brand is obviously strong enough to make people pay out for it and good luck to them I suppose - it's hardly rubbish when all's said. Reminds me of an advert for Arai motorcycle helmets several years ago where the line was 'The value of a thing is set by the desire for it'. Helps that they also make some of the very best helmets in the world.

Struck lucky today though - chatting to one of my work colleagues (who also owns a Leica and is partially responsible for me getting one), he's going to drop a Summicron 50 f2 off at my place on his way to work tomorrow morning for me to have a play with over the weekend.
 


advertisement


Back
Top