Contemplating a switch from Canon to Leica...

I'm slowing down my "business," and want to pursue other photographic endeavors, namely documenting family things, memories with my wife, etc. I find that toting around a 5DmkII, even with a little 50/1.4 is still too cumbersome. Street and candid photography in the PJ style is looking more and more appealing to me as well.

Granted, I've never held a Leica M or anything of the sort, but the image quality from something like the Summilux lenses seems to be outstanding and unmatched, though the prices are outlandish.

Specifically, portability, discretion, and being unobtrusive and unintimidating with a camera is the name of the game here.

Has anyone ever given any thought to a system changeup like this?? I can get so much camera for the money with the Nikon and Canon systems, but the quality of the Leica lenses along with the portability and non-assuming nature of the camera itself make that system seem more appealing. Granted, the learning curve will be steep...I've shot with a rangefinder ONCE in my entire life...

I've thought about getting a Leica M before, and have even used one, it's definitely a very different experience. Alas, work dictates that I still need the speed of a DSLR, so no Leica for me yet.

That said, if you are thinking of taking things slow, getting a Leica and a 35/2 or 50/2 lens can be a liberating thing.

Cue the airfrog!

He will convince you.

The M (240) rangefinder with liveview capability can definitely ease the transition, since you can always use the screen or an add-on EVF to use the camera with. The digital focus mechanism is actually kinda clever in that it does an automatic 5x or 10x zoom whenever you focus the lens, and goes back to the full frame when you stop.

What some M users recommend doing is using the optical VF to focus since it's faster and more accurate, and then the EVF to compose the shot. You can feasibly use both at the same time.

Definitely have a look at the Summicron lenses first, as they are the most "practical" lens line, not too expensive, but pure Leica quality. They are the sharpest lenses. Typically f/2 max aperture.

The "Summilux" and "Noctilux" lenses are faster than crons, from f/1.4 to 0.95, but they are horribly expensive, heavy for this type of camera, and block a portion of the rangefinder view. These are the lenses collectors go for. The Leica M is a very sensitive camera, f/2 is easily enough to shoot in the dark.

If going for a portrait lens, you have the choice of 75mm and 90mm focal lengths, both are some of the sharpest lenses that exist for any camera, so it's a personal choice. 75mm isn't as liked because it's close to 50mm and because there are no frame lines in the rangefinder for 75mm, but 90mm is harder to focus. Your call.

Do be aware that all rangefinder lenses have very poor close-focus distances, you're never going to have a macro lens unless you adapt a Leica R lens, and you'll definitely have to use the EVF for that.

Buy an analog rangefinder (should be easy to find for like $30) and shoot some rolls of film on it. That way you can see if you like the rangefinder mechanism. Personally, I think Leica is way overpriced. I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference between a Leica and a cheaper mirrorless on a 20x30cm print.

jefzor wrote in post #16261850
Buy an analog rangefinder (should be easy to find for like $30) and shoot some rolls of film on it. That way you can see if you like the rangefinder mechanism. Personally, I think Leica is way overpriced. I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference between a Leica and a cheaper mirrorless on a 20x30cm print.

Interesting...

I've sorta felt the same way about this, using a mirrorless camera system, but for some reason feel that the image quality, resolving power of the lenses, color rendition, edge-edge sharpness and exposure variances, etc, will VERY much be sub-par compared to the Leica system. Granted the Leica system in every aspect is orders of magnitude more expensive.

Sigh. Too bad there's no cheat code to have infinite credits...

I had an M9 and loved it. 80%+ of the time I used a 50mm Summicron lens, the other 20% I used a 35mm Summicron. It's a beautiful system that takes technology out of the process of taking a photo which is actually a big thing when you've tried it.

If I wasn't shooting weddings professionally I would probably have an M240 with 50mm Summilux (and Noctilux just because ) and that would be it. Perhaps down the line I'd get a 75mm for portraits and a wider lens so I have them for the occasion I want to use those lengths.

As it happens I sold my M9 and bought an X100s, while it's not quite in the same league, once set up in a particular way it's good enough for me and what I use a camera for. I worried when I took the M9 anywhere, for fear of damaging it or it being stolen. This isn't the case with the X100s plus I reclaimed a chunk of money.

Money no object, I'd go back to an M9 or M240 but it's no HUGE loss plus I'm thinking that the next generation or the one after of the X100 or similar is going to be so close that at that point it just won't be worth the premium unfortunately (since I love Leica build quality and craftsmanship).

sacral wrote in post #16261378
I'm slowing down my "business," and want to pursue other photographic endeavors, namely documenting family things, memories with my wife, etc. I find that toting around a 5DmkII, even with a little 50/1.4 is still too cumbersome. Street and candid photography in the PJ style is looking more and more appealing to me as well.

Granted, I've never held a Leica M or anything of the sort, but the image quality from something like the Summilux lenses seems to be outstanding and unmatched, though the prices are outlandish.

Specifically, portability, discretion, and being unobtrusive and unintimidating with a camera is the name of the game here.

Has anyone ever given any thought to a system changeup like this?? I can get so much camera for the money with the Nikon and Canon systems, but the quality of the Leica lenses along with the portability and non-assuming nature of the camera itself make that system seem more appealing. Granted, the learning curve will be steep...I've shot with a rangefinder ONCE in my entire life...

Try one. A rangefinder and Leica in particular are a much different shooting experience that Canon and Nikon. I have an MM and love it. I will be moving to all Leica M in the next few years. I am totally sick of the direction the big two are moving in. There is nothing in the Canon or Nikon normal and wide lenses that come close to Leica m glass period. They are small and they get so little attention as compared to a DSLR.

jefzor wrote in post #16261850
Buy an analog rangefinder (should be easy to find for like $30) and shoot some rolls of film on it. That way you can see if you like the rangefinder mechanism. Personally, I think Leica is way overpriced. I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference between a Leica and a cheaper mirrorless on a 20x30cm print.

Why not shoot a Holga then? Don't expect anyone to seriously dick around with film, it's not practical anymore; this dinosaur has gone to pasture. The Leica M and lenses are serious imaging tools of high quality, if you're thinking of getting one, then cheaper options shouldn't even be a consideration.

The best advice I can give is to try it out for yourself. I certainly wouldn't mind using one, but for now I need the AF and tons of frames per second. It's a very subjective thing, especially Leicas, there's nothing more subjective than that.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16261959
There is nothing in the Canon or Nikon normal and wide lenses that come close to Leica m glass period.

Gotta agree with that, try the super-elmar 21mm f/3.4 asph, it will change your life.

jefzor wrote in post #16261850
Buy an analog rangefinder (should be easy to find for like $30) and shoot some rolls of film on it. That way you can see if you like the rangefinder mechanism. Personally, I think Leica is way overpriced. I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference between a Leica and a cheaper mirrorless on a 20x30cm print.

When he's shooting he will see and feel the difference. I tried Fuji X pro 1 and many others before I settled on Leica. Took my buds M9 the Keys last year with me and after about a day I was sold. Took me 6 months to get my MM and it was worth ever minute of waiting. The best, by far, wedding photographer I ever knew shot with 2 Leica M3s. Had a 35 on one and a 50 on the other. his work was amazing. He died some years back. I see nothing today that had the soul and the timing of his images.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16261960
Why not shoot a Holga then? Don't expect anyone to seriously dick around with film, it's not practical anymore; this dinosaur has gone to pasture. The Leica M and lenses are serious imaging tools of high quality, if you're thinking of getting one, then cheaper options shouldn't even be a consideration.

The best advice I can give is to try it out for yourself. I certainly wouldn't mind using one, but for now I need the AF and tons of frames per second. It's a very subjective thing, especially Leicas, there's nothing more subjective than that.


Gotta agree with that, try the 21mm f/3.4, it will change your life.

They have several 50mm lenses that are just amazing and the fact you can use almost every Leica M lens that was ever made on the digital M is just a huge bonus.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16261969
They have several 50mm lenses that are just amazing and the fact you can use almost every Leica M lens that was ever made on the digital M is just a huge bonus.

Well sure, you don't exactly have to buy the latest, even the older or cheaper lenses would still knock the socks off of anything you can get on Canikon.

sacral wrote in post #16261378
I'm slowing down my "business," and want to pursue other photographic endeavors, namely documenting family things, memories with my wife, etc. I find that toting around a 5DmkII, even with a little 50/1.4 is still too cumbersome. Street and candid photography in the PJ style is looking more and more appealing to me as well.

Granted, I've never held a Leica M or anything of the sort, but the image quality from something like the Summilux lenses seems to be outstanding and unmatched, though the prices are outlandish.

Specifically, portability, discretion, and being unobtrusive and unintimidating with a camera is the name of the game here.

Has anyone ever given any thought to a system changeup like this?? I can get so much camera for the money with the Nikon and Canon systems, but the quality of the Leica lenses along with the portability and non-assuming nature of the camera itself make that system seem more appealing. Granted, the learning curve will be steep...I've shot with a rangefinder ONCE in my entire life...

non-assuming?
learning curve?

all it takes is a pile of $$ !

all celebrities shoot with Leica
http://www.nytimes.com ….html?ref=techn​ology&_r=0

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16261960
Why not shoot a Holga then? Don't expect anyone to seriously dick around with film, it's not practical anymore; this dinosaur has gone to pasture. The Leica M and lenses are serious imaging tools of high quality, if you're thinking of getting one, then cheaper options shouldn't even be a consideration.

The best advice I can give is to try it out for yourself. I certainly wouldn't mind using one, but for now I need the AF and tons of frames per second. It's a very subjective thing, especially Leicas, there's nothing more subjective than that.


Gotta agree with that, try the super-elmar 21mm f/3.4 asph, it will change your life.

The point of trying an analog rangefinder is testing if he likes the rangefinder focus mechanism. Or he could just invest $5k+ right away because film is impractical.

And yes, Leica lenses are good, very good, the best in the world, but mirrorless cameras are getting to a point where you really can't find much difference in IQ without pixel peeping. The build quality and feel of the Leica is in a league of its own, no competition there, but not worth the price for me. If you really want it, get it. It's a great piece of craftmanship, there's people spending more on their cars, jewelry, boats, antique etc.

I had a chance to play with a Leica for an afternoon, and my plastic rebel with sigma held up nicely in comparison. Yes, the Leica had ever so slightly better IQ if you look at 100%, but I found the DSLR more practical in use. If you want, I could post some real life samples at 1900px width and you guys can guess which is which, but I don't want to lead this thread too much off topic.

Again, this is my personal experience, ymmv, I don't mean to bash Leica.

watt100 wrote in post #16262088
non-assuming?
learning curve?

all it takes is a pile of $$ !

all celebrities shoot with Leica
http://www.nytimes.com ….html?ref=techn​ology&_r=0

No more $$$$ than top of the line Canon or Nikon. And its worth every penny. I know I have one and have shot a lot with both Nikons and Canons and just about every format.

And there are a lot of incredible photogrpahers that shoot with them to.