From Canon to Leica M

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17311691
I plan on moving almost completely to Leica M in the next couple of years. Anyone else out there doing the same?

I am a little late to your thread however I felt I should comment.

I moved from a full Canon setup of 6D 24-70 MKII 70-200 MKII 100-400 and a 35 Prime to a M240 and 34 FLE summilux ASPH 1.4. I find the simplicity and the lightness of the package is easier for me to take everywhere. I like only have one focal length as it challenges me to be more creative and take my time to get the shot. When I first missed I can tell you I missed quite a few shots but when I nailed one it was magical. It has a different look and flavor then all of my other shots. I switched back in September and I have never looked back.

Some advise
Start with one lens and learn the focal length before moving to your next. I have taken this traveling and this has been the best thing for my photography. I always felt when traveling with my full canon setup it was more about the camera gear and less about the moment. Now its the opposite. Plus if you only have one lens with you, you cant have the wrong lens on the camera . I see you already made the move by some of the other threads. I will try to be active on this websites Leica section.

Practice!

Freitz,

I have shot a lot with Leica M film cameras and I have had my MM for over 2 years now and over 30K on it. The only lens I own for it is the 35 Lux FLE and it is all I shoot my personal work with. I see at 35mm and in B&W so for all of my personal work and some of my pro work I use it. I have shot some with an M9 and also with an M 240. Your advice is sound. I love my MM and the shooting experience but I have yet to switch over. Still have my Canons for my commercial advertising work but that will change hopefully in the next year.

Thanks,
Allen

My first serious digital camera was 40D with 35 L 1.4, 85 L 1.2 and 200 L 2.8. I mostly shot with 35mm. After 5 years of use, I switched to M9 and discovered the joy of wide angle (15mm and 28mm). Canon got less used to not used at all and finally sold all my Canon lenses. Kept the 40D which I use with R lenses sometimes.

Now I shoot M 240 (mostly 28mm for nature and 35mm otherwise). I am happy but I do miss tele autofocus lenses for shooting birds which I like occasionally. M240 is virtually useless even with excellent tele R lenses. This is why I may go back and buy a 400 5.6L at some point.

There is no one camera as perfect camera.

Just saw this thread but will add my two cents a little late. I bought my m240 because I had been doing a lot of international travel and lugging around my 5D3 and complement of lenses and tripod got real old real quick. I used it for personal pictures but mainly brought it for shooting interior architectural shots of the projects we built. I never bought a tilt shift lens for the Canon but my go to lens was the 14mm L which is a great lens.

I bought the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 lens and tested it side by side with the 5D3 /14mm. The Leica out-preformed the Canon so I took it to Norway for a 5 week business trip. it was such a pleasure working with this kit (also had 35mm and 50mm Summilux + a flash) and carrying it compared to my Canon. The two systems have some major differences and the sensor in the Canon is better at higher ISO's but for what I'm shooting, the Leica system works well. I've been thinking of selling my Canon gear - I just am not using it much and it's a crime to let it sit. Besides if I do sell it I should be able to afford a Mono.

It all comes down to how and what you shoot and which system fits your needs best.

I've often wondered what it would be like to shoot a wedding in perfect lighting with a Mono. I'm guessing in dark reception rooms it'd be a total nightmare.

The Mono is better in low light than a 5DII and as good as a 5DIII. I like the noise a lot better at 10K ISO from the Mono than I do from either the 5DII or the 5DIII.

I also prefer the MM by a lot in low light and contrasty light because of the better DR.

Had I known back in the old film days what I know now, I would have gotten an old M3 and three decent primes. Since the early 1980's I have spent a ton of money on Nikon equipment always wanting a smaller Leica outfit but never taking the plunge due to the higher entry level cost.

Now no matter how I slice it, I simply can't justify spending so much cash on the camera outfit of my dreams.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17342667
There are some rumors about a new CMOS Mono. If that happens the price of the older CCD Monos may come down some. They are really high now. Usually only a few hundred bucks cheaper than new.

Well, I have one more family wedding to shoot so after that I may be taking a serious look at the Leica series in general and a good lens as well.

My life started with a Canon RF on 35MM film. It was a fixed lens camera but I loved it. Graduated to a used Konica (Autoflex T3). Also show a little twin-lens reflect on a Yashica Mat D. Going to Leica is about the change way I would move from my current Canon gear. It is just too expensive to keep changing from one system to another.

snegron wrote in post #17482516
Had I known back in the old film days what I know now, I would have gotten an old M3 and three decent primes. Since the early 1980's I have spent a ton of money on Nikon equipment always wanting a smaller Leica outfit but never taking the plunge due to the higher entry level cost.

Now no matter how I slice it, I simply can't justify spending so much cash on the camera outfit of my dreams.

And that is what keeps me with my Canon 7D. Now if I won the lottery...

A few years ago I sold most of my Canon gear to fund a M9 body. Leica's got some amazing glass, however, for my purposes I feel that the gap between Leica glass and other quality glass isn't as big as it used to be with digital. Shooting with the M9 was mostly nostalgia for me and I ended up selling my M9 and going back to Canon. I may still go back to Leica, however, at this point I can't stomach the cost of a M body. Digital rots too quickly. There's some amazing technology out there that's super cheap vs Leica.

In a way Leica is like Rolex - both have amazing reputations built in the analogue era. Both are now luxury goods sticking to outdated technology. Both are functional and often serve as jewellry, however, the leica M digital body will be worth close to zero in 10 years, while the Rolex will still hold some value due to it's primary function as jewellery and it's lousy secondary function as a watch

jpto wrote in post #17554082
A few years ago I sold most of my Canon gear to fund a M9 body. Leica's got some amazing glass, however, for my purposes I feel that the gap between Leica glass and other quality glass isn't as big as it used to be with digital. Shooting with the M9 was mostly nostalgia for me and I ended up selling my M9 and going back to Canon. I may still go back to Leica, however, at this point I can't stomach the cost of a M body. Digital rots too quickly. There's some amazing technology out there that's super cheap vs Leica.

In a way Leica is like Rolex - both have amazing reputations built in the analogue era. Both are now luxury goods sticking to outdated technology. Both are functional and often serve as jewellry, however, the leica M digital body will be worth close to zero in 10 years, while the Rolex will still hold some value due to it's primary function as jewellery and it's lousy secondary function as a watch

The MM is amazing and my 35 Lux FLE is sharper at the corners than the 35L is in the center. I have had my MM for a little over 2 years and 30K+ images several exhibits and those are all images I wouldn't have made without it. THe fact it doesn't have a menu that takes a week to get through and the lack of auto everything is worth the price for me. I am so sick of the one size fits all cameras that the big two are cranking out now days and all of those digital cameras have a window of usefulness to and the top of the line are the same price as the M240 or the MM. You wont loose $$$$ on Leica glass either. Not like Canon and Nikon glass.

MM with a 18MP CCD sensor that is insanely good in low light that gets compared sharpness wise to the D800e 36MPs.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17554100
The MM is amazing and my 35 Lux FLE is sharper at the corners than the 35L is in the center. I have had my MM for a little over 2 years and 30K+ images several exhibits and those are all images I wouldn't have made without it. THe fact it doesn't have a menu that takes a week to get through and the lack of auto everything is worth the price for me. I am so sick of the one size fits all cameras that the big two are cranking out now days and all of those digital cameras have a window of usefulness to and the top of the line are the same price as the M240 or the MM. You wont loose $$$$ on Leica glass either. Not like Canon and Nikon glass.

MM with a 18MP CCD sensor that is insanely good in low light that gets compared sharpness wise to the D800e 36MPs.

I'm glad you've found the tools that work for you. It's truly a great experience when you do.

Part of me says to stop typing right now because I'm going to sound like a troll. However, I'm curious, how did the MM let you take images that you couldn't take without it? Didn't Cartier-Bresson have something to say about sharpness

With digital and large prints a certain level of sharpness when it comes to the sensor is necessary. The MM meets my needs in that regard.

Because it is a rangefinder and it is manual focus the lenses actually have useful DoF scales. I get shots I couldn't get with an auto focus DSLR. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused. I find it to be much faster and initiative than a DSLR. Rangefinders aren't for everyone and certainly B&W only camera goes against the current mindset of most but if you are a B&W street photographer there isn't a better digital tool than an MM.

jpto wrote in post #17554082
A few years ago I sold most of my Canon gear to fund a M9 body. Leica's got some amazing glass, however, for my purposes I feel that the gap between Leica glass and other quality glass isn't as big as it used to be with digital. Shooting with the M9 was mostly nostalgia for me and I ended up selling my M9 and going back to Canon. I may still go back to Leica, however, at this point I can't stomach the cost of a M body. Digital rots too quickly. There's some amazing technology out there that's super cheap vs Leica.

In a way Leica is like Rolex - both have amazing reputations built in the analogue era. Both are now luxury goods sticking to outdated technology. Both are functional and often serve as jewellry, however, the leica M digital body will be worth close to zero in 10 years, while the Rolex will still hold some value due to it's primary function as jewellery and it's lousy secondary function as a watch

any digital camera you buy is going to drop in value, and be worth nearly zero in 10 yrs time.
the M cameras seem to retain their value a bit better than other manufacturers though.

as an example, Leica's top of the tree digital from 2006 - the M8, vs Canon's top of the line 2006 digital, the 1Dmk2N (i can't find list prices from 2006 for either, but the prices of the M9 & Mk4 and M240 &1DX have been fairly close when new, so i am going to make an assumption here)

the cheapest M8 i can find on eBay is $1200 USD - most are in the 1700-1900USD bracket
the only 1Dmk2N i can find is $325 USD buy it now - they are going for 600-800AUD from dealers around here.


theres an article on the M9 vs other cameras here - http://www.stevehuffph​oto.com …s-time-by-karim-ghantous/

As for the Leica being a luxury good - yes, it is.
but it is also enjoyable to shoot, has outstanding image quality, and compact and much lighter than my work issued 1DX (its about the same weight as entry level Canons though)
It all depends on what you shoot, and how you shoot it, as to whether an M is the camera for you.
i use my M a lot at concerts, shooting from the Pit, and for that its great, i shoot portraits, my kids, and just take it out for a walk, it goes everywhere with me.
It is not an ideal camera for shooting sports though, for that a 1DX with a 600f4 or 400 f2.8 is the weapon of choice.

Echo63 wrote in post #17554864
any digital camera you buy is going to drop in value, and be worth nearly zero in 10 yrs time.
the M cameras seem to retain their value a bit better than other manufacturers though.

as an example, Leica's top of the tree digital from 2006 - the M8, vs Canon's top of the line 2006 digital, the 1Dmk2N (i can't find list prices from 2006 for either, but the prices of the M9 & Mk4 and M240 &1DX have been fairly close when new, so i am going to make an assumption here)

the cheapest M8 i can find on eBay is $1200 USD - most are in the 1700-1900USD bracket
the only 1Dmk2N i can find is $325 USD buy it now - they are going for 600-800AUD from dealers around here.

theres an article on the M9 vs other cameras here - http://www.stevehuffph​oto.com …s-time-by-karim-ghantous/

As for the Leica being a luxury good - yes, it is.
but it is also enjoyable to shoot, has outstanding image quality, and compact and much lighter than my work issued 1DX (its about the same weight as entry level Canons though)
It all depends on what you shoot, and how you shoot it, as to whether an M is the camera for you.
i use my M a lot at concerts, shooting from the Pit, and for that its great, i shoot portraits, my kids, and just take it out for a walk, it goes everywhere with me.
It is not an ideal camera for shooting sports though, for that a 1DX with a 600f4 or 400 f2.8 is the weapon of choice.

I totally get why people shoot Leica but when you take away the red dot and take away the human machine interface, digital rot is digital rot. The less you spend on a body, the better, silicon doesn't age gracefully.

Put another way, look at the pricing of a M240 body - $6380 at B&H at time of posting. The A7II pricing is 4X cheaper. At the end of 10 years both cameras will be useless. However, with the Sony you could purchase the latest Sony A7 body every 2.5 to 3 years. At the end of 10 years you'd have spent the same amount but you'd have the latest A7 body, potentially using the same Leica glass as the M240 or using some native potentially cheaper Zeiss glass.

I love Leica I also love Rolex, but both brands in my opinion have gone from premium brands built on the strength of their products and innovation to luxury brands that market heavily on their past. I'll never sell my M6 or my 5513, but it's highly unlikely I'll buy a M240 or a 114060.