Reading mode: Light Dark

Anyone here switch to Leica system?

Go to last post
bpalme

bpalme

Senior Member
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
31
Location
Charlotte NC, US
And then switch back to m43?

Please ... no need to get into a debate over whether or not it's worth it for Leica products... just wandering if any folks made the round trip to Leica land and back to m43. If you could share your experience please share.
I've been drooling over some of the amazing crisp images and may try out a M8.

There of course are compromises I'm aware of.
 
No, have not done this, but M8 with Leica lenses IS unquestionably a superior photographic tool. The only questions is whether it is worth the cost multiplier. For me the m43 still provides the best compromise, but if I had the funds, I would have owned the M9/35mm combo.
 
bpalme said:
And then switch back to m43?
Click to expand...
I've been a Leica user for more than three years now, firstly with an M8 and now an M9. And I have been in and out of Micro Four Thirds ownership in that time period. So far I've owned two G1s (at different times) and an E-P1 (now gone) and presently a G2. My son now seems to have run off with my G2 and I'm presently pondering cashing my Micro Four Thirds chips in and buying a Leica X1 or staying in the game and buying a GH2 (on the assumption I will never see my G2 back from my son).

I'm having a lot of trouble with this decision. I love the handling of the Lumix G series cameras and the touch screen on the G2 (and now the GH2) just makes them even better. I also like the ability to swap lenses - and that they are all very small. And it's versatile enough to take me from macro to telephoto.And I can even use my leica glass with an adapter. And though I don't use it very often, it's great that I can take video too.

BUT when it comes to image quality, then I can tell at a glance which shots were taken with my M9 (or my little-used 5D Mk2) and which were taken with any of the Micro Four Thirds cameras I have owned. There is just a lot more subtlety in the shots from the Leica - with much more detail available in the shadows and highlights, more natural graduations of tones, better colour fidelity (all this is subjective of course, ymmv!). I liook at images from the G2 on my computer screen and I just know it would have looked better if I'd pointed the Leica at it! And once we get beyond ISO 400 the difference is even more marked (though the M9 falls a long way short of the 5D2s low light performance ultimately).

There just doesn't seem to be any way round the small sensor vs big sensor issue so far as image quality is concerned so if that is your key criterion, then you will gravitate toward a big sensor camera (maybe Leica, maybe something else).

But if you want convenience, value for money, versatility, compactness then it is very hard to argue against the Micro Four Thirds format.

The problem is I want all of that AND image quality. But it isn't available.

I'm in London tomorrow - so will have have to decide on GH2 vs X1 by then. At the moment the X1 is ahead.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gDallasK
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gDallasK
 
alexzn said:
No, have not done this, but M8 with Leica lenses IS unquestionably a superior photographic tool.
Click to expand...
As a general-use photographic system, Leica M isn't very good at all. There is actually a reason that around 1960 all camera manufacturers changed from rangefinder to SLR... I used an M5 for a short while, long ago.

some RF drawbacks: No DoF check, no zoom-lenses, no macro or even close-up images, no supertele images, superwide images difficult with extra finder without focus info, no polarizer or grad filter use, with 90mm lens the VF image is already miniscule, and the list even continues a bit...

Basically a camera like the M8 does only 1 thing, and does that very well. (street photography with 35mm lens) After you get used to the focusing, that is. (everything looks sharp, always.... except the small focusing patch of course)

So, think a bit about what you would like to do, before spending the $$$$.
;-)
Lourens
 
Personally i've put off moving countries for 4 - 5 months to save enough for M9 and lenses, i'm getting excited actually, I think the E-P2 is a great back up cam to it as well. Yes it's so true the Leica M's are not very versatile, but I shoot street, and they're also good for varying landscapes (not the ultimate best but more than adequate with the lenses available it seems).

It'll take a lot in the end to hand over $10,000 for the system but I have minimal responsibilities in my life right now and it seems like a good opportunity, i'm just worried about getting insurance for it now.. carrying it round various countries seems a little worrying but then what is it truly worth if you don't.

For me, M43 has been the gateway drug!
 
bpalme said:
And then switch back to m43?

Please ... no need to get into a debate over whether or not it's worth it for Leica products... just wandering if any folks made the round trip to Leica land and back to m43. If you could share your experience please share.
I've been drooling over some of the amazing crisp images and may try out a M8.

There of course are compromises I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
I use both. I started with an M8 and now have an M9. For m4/3 I have GH2, GH1, GF1, GF2.

I use both systems for work, as I make my living from photography shooting travel and landscape. I like m4/3 very much, it gives me AF and a lot more versatility than the Leica system, though not the same image quality, which to me is unsurpassed on the M9.

The GH2, particularly when paired with M-Mount lenses, has narrowed the gap between the two somewhat, and it produces very sharp images.

The vast majority of my work is shot at base ISO in good light, and I usually don't have to work in a hurry or under any kind of pressure, so both systems suit me very well. For low light and "deadline" work neither system is particularly useful, though again the GH2 improves things somewhat. I also prefer to work with small, relatively unobtrusive systems that allow me freedom of movement and the ability to walk quite long distances without collapsing under the weight of a large DSLR and lenses.

Neither m4/3 or the Leica system are in any way suitable as "all-round" photographic tools, capable of handling any job, but in the right situation can be just what I need.

Leica image quality is everything its reputed to be, with levels of sharpness that are amazing to behold, but it does come at a price. Both literally in terms of its financial cost, and in terms of the limited options it offers a photographer.

If I could only have one system I may not choose the Leica to be that, because of its limitations. But for shooting landscape in a great location with great light there's nothing better.

If its of interest I have lots of pieces on my blog about using both systems and even some comparisons between the two.

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/

--
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/
 
Disclaimer: I've never shot with, or owned a Leica.

I absolutely love the detail from the Leica images I've seen, but it seems to me that it has a very specific purpose. I can't see it being used as an everyday camera (birthdays, events etc).

The manual focusing seems like I'd end up missing a LOT of shots, compared to fast and accurate Auto-focus.

Throw in HD video recording, and the M4/3rds seem like much more versatile cameras for everyday normal photography and use.

Leica's seem to be good for either more static images, or street photography (or more stylized imagery in general).

My 2cents.
 
Geoffrey Kitt said:
bpalme said:
And then switch back to m43?
Click to expand...
There is just a lot more subtlety in the shots from the Leica - with much more detail available in the shadows and highlights, more natural graduations of tones, better colour fidelity (all this is subjective of course, ymmv!). I liook at images from the G2 on my computer screen and I just know it would have looked better if I'd pointed the Leica at it!
Click to expand...
No argument from me, but I wonder if the GH sensors would improve some of the issues with graduations and tonal range over the G2, since they seem to have a significantly better DR.
 
moss_toss said:
Leica's seem to be good for either more static images, or street photography (or more stylized imagery in general).
Click to expand...
Lots of photojournalists - including war reporters - used (and still use) Leicas from choice. Not all that many landscape photographers do though.

That tells me something about whether Leicas are more suited to "static" images or something else... ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]
 
90% of what leica makes leica is the lens.

i can't tell much diff between the bodies using the same lense.
 
I have not seen such a thing, from documentaries which showed "war journalists and photographers" to actually knowing some who do field reports, and one who is trapped in Egypt right now.

They use Canon and Nikon, with the latter seeming to be the bigger choice. Reasons cited are availability of parts and service throughout the world and if the camera is damaged or stolen, it is not essentially a one of a kind type camera (again, advantageous for service while overseas).
John Bean (UK) said:
moss_toss said:
Leica's seem to be good for either more static images, or street photography (or more stylized imagery in general).
Click to expand...
Lots of photojournalists - including war reporters - used (and still use) Leicas from choice. Not all that many landscape photographers do though.

That tells me something about whether Leicas are more suited to "static" images or something else... ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]
Click to expand...
 
jimboyvr said:
90% of what leica makes leica is the lens.
Click to expand...
Thats not actually true. The sensors on the M8 and particularly the M9 are unique in terms of sharpness and clarity. Leica made the decison to source sensors that allow their lenses to be used at their optimum and that goes for all M-Mount lenses.

Its difficult to find a lens that doesn't look good on an M9. I've used Nikon and even a Samyang lens on my M9 and the images are just wonderful. Voigtlander and Zeiss look good and often equal and sometimes even surpass the quality from Leica lenses.

Conversely Leica, Zeiss etc. lenses look good on the GH2 but there is much less difference over "native" when you use them on other m4/3 cameras. On a G1, G2, GF1, E-P1, E-P2, E-PL1 etc. its often difficult to see the Leica advantage, over the best of the m4/3 lenses or other high-quality legacy lenses.

The lack of an anti-aliasing filter helps enormously, but its hard to get right. There have only been a few attempts at this by Kodak and by Sigma with their Foveon sensor. The M9 sensor is by far the best but it still produces the odd bit of moire. However thats a small price to pay for the chance to produce images that show just what digital photography is capable of. I've not used any other camera that comes close to it.

--
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/
 
jimboyvr said:
90% of what leica makes leica is the lens.

i can't tell much diff between the bodies using the same lense.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised to read that.

But... well, gratulations! Then you get away from paying the premium for a large sensor camera.

Jonas
 
jimboyvr said:
90% of what leica makes leica is the lens.

i can't tell much diff between the bodies using the same lense.
Click to expand...
While it is certainly true that the Leica glass is very good in general, the sensors on the M8 and M9 make a big difference as well. And it's not just the fact that they do not have an AA filter. These sensors have unique microlenses are offset to compensate for the edges of the image due to the closeness of the lens to sensor distance.

Extreme WA lenses (e.g. 16-18-21 WATE) do very well on the M8/M9 because of this. The same WA lenses don't do so well on my mFT bodies or my NEX for that matter.

I also see excellent colors from my M8/M9 that I don't really see in my GF1.
 
no further comment
 
I admit to Leica envy, even lust, and I'd love to try the M9 out.

But...honestly...do any of you Leica owners really think you could tell the difference between a pair of tripod shots from a GH1 and M8 or M9 that were taken under identical conditions with similar length prime lenses?

And no peeking at the exif? Wouldn't it be a very weak hunch at best, even after considerable pixel peeping? gp
 
Leica is nice, but it's overblown and almost mythical now and the myth surpasses what they really do. For many, it's just a chance to be able to show off that they have a Leica and nothing more. Even more since the bulk of the Leica line is a facelifted Panasonic, which is no slouch in itself, but Leica isn't making too much of an effort anymore to hide that they are overpriced panasonics, made by panasonic and never touching the Leica factory, if one even really exists anymore, rather than just an assembly station, like most German manufacturers are now.
gary payne said:
I admit to Leica envy, even lust, and I'd love to try the M9 out.

But...honestly...do any of you Leica owners really think you could tell the difference between a pair of tripod shots from a GH1 and M8 or M9 that were taken under identical conditions with similar length prime lenses?

And no peeking at the exif? Wouldn't it be a very weak hunch at best, even after considerable pixel peeping? gp
Click to expand...
 
I bought a used M8 after using the VC Nokton 1.1. for some while with my GH-1. I have not switched systems, but I use both my M8 and GH-1, depending on the shooting enviroment, though I must admit I enjoy shooting much more with my M8 ( I have the luxury of shooting for pure enjoyment as an amateur :) )
 
moss_toss said:
Disclaimer: I've never shot with, or owned a Leica.
Click to expand...
I had a IIIc from 1962-65 and a M3 from 65-99, when I started there was no zoom available for 35mm, and the early zooms were never as good as prime lenses. So quality was what one was after.
moss_toss said:
I absolutely love the detail from the Leica images I've seen, but it seems to me that it has a very specific purpose. I can't see it being used as an everyday camera (birthdays, events etc).
Click to expand...
Really? I used my gear for everything, from micro from family to field sports to landscape!
moss_toss said:
The manual focusing seems like I'd end up missing a LOT of shots, compared to fast and accurate Auto-focus.
Click to expand...
You've no idea how quick a rangefinder can be focussed, or how accurately. Even my fastest Panny lens is still slower than my M3 was. And, of couse, you didn't have to focus if the shot was already in focus!
moss_toss said:
Throw in HD video recording, and the M4/3rds seem like much more versatile cameras for everyday normal photography and use.
Click to expand...
Can't argue about video!
moss_toss said:
Leica's seem to be good for either more static images, or street photography (or more stylized imagery in general).
Click to expand...
Sorry - the only problem was that lenses had to be changed - I had a 21, 35, 50, 90 and 135mm lenses. But I've now got 4 micro4/3rds lenses and it's becoming a nuisance - but the range is now 30:1 compared with the 7:1 with my Leica.

Ultimately there were two reasons why I got rid of my Leica -

a) Too much gear to carry around, so I found myself using a pocket Olympus r/f camera, and

b) digital was around the corner, so I bought a film scanner, and then a digital camera.
moss_toss said:
My 2cents.
Click to expand...
Worth every penny! :-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 50 years
http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top