... as a present for my dad, perhaps for Christmas. He used to love his Zorki, always wanted a Leica (like most), and will hopefully have more time on his hands next year (he works too hard). I've done some brief research but I figure I'd be better off asking real users. My main concern is straight out of camera performance... I don't know why, but I assumed with it being a Leica it would be excellent in this area, but dpreview seems to report awful JPEGS. Is there anyway to overcome this (tweaking settings), or was there some sort of improvement via firmware?
This is the one area his Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D is great in, excellent JPEGs. He is not a computer person at all, so even shooting RAW with minimal processing isn't really an option. As much as the 7D is good with JPEGs, even the controlls (which are great for direct input) are really too much for him. Shutter release, shutter speed dial, aperture ring and focus are really more comfortable for him. He previously used a Zorki and (mainly) Nikon F for around 30 years with manual meter. Just casual stuff, but this is what he's used to.
I was thinking the 35/2 would be a good standard, would this match up okay? Focusing well?
Wow, that doesn't sound good! Will give this a look, thanks Edward . I'm not sure he really likes the workflow of film anymore though, so will have to think it through.
ricardovaste wrote:
Wow, that doesn't sound good! Will give this a look, thanks Edward . I'm not sure he really likes the workflow of film anymore though, so will have to think it through.
Well, he finishes a film, sends it to a lab for processing and printing/scanning. Done! He can email low resolution scans to his friends and put the prints in an album, like good old days. Alternatively, if you think he would like well cooked jpgs not needing any PP, I think the Leica X1 is the way to go. Beautiful files out of the cam.
Anyhow with the Leica new product announcement imminent, I would wait a couple of months. You will get great deals on the older models.
Betacamman wrote:
Have you considered an X100?
Although ticking many good boxes, the fact that it doesn't have a focusing scale on the lens would be a major failure for him. Also it would be a touch too wide for him.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well, he finishes a film, sends it to a lab for processing and printing/scanning. Done! He can email low resolution scans to his friends and put the prints in an album, like good old days. Alternatively, if you think he would like well cooked jpgs not needing any PP, I think the Leica X1 is the way to go. Beautiful files out of the cam.
Anyhow with the Leica new product announcement imminent, I would wait a couple of months. You will get great deals on the older models.
The thing is there are no good places near us anymore to get your processing done. So it's easy when you can just drop it off somewhere in town but anything else and I think it becomes too much of a fuss for him. Or rather, packing it up to post, taking to the post office, sorting out payment, waiting for it to come back in the post... is a bit too much. Not something he really has time for, maybe in the future, but such a process could make such a gift left unused I think.
Hadn't thought of the LX1. It's not what he'd want (live view, no focusing scale) but like you say definately worth waiting to see what announcement are made from Leica on the 10th of May. If I could sort out an easier way of getting film done locally (perhaps there is somewhere new I'm unaware of) then I think an M6 would be a good solution.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Richard, forgot also to mention the magenta problem with the M8, requiring expensive IR filters on the lenses.
B+W UV/IR's are about 50 euro, so thats not that expensive. The leica's are 100 euro, and might be found used, since people who transfer from a M8 to M9 don't need them any more.
The ones expensive are the special lenses ones. The UV/IR filter for my 18mm was 250 euro.
As for the jpg's, I actually never used the JPG setting from the M8, only activate the B/W jpg setting to show the shots in B/W on screen.
What I see from those b/w jpg's, they aren't bad, but there is a lot more in de DNG file. So if you want to take advantage of the M8's strong point, the 160 iso shots, it would be a bit of a shame to only use the jpg's
As for the 35/2, the asph is stunning, but I think the perfect lens for he M8 is a 28mm. Gives a real nice 37mm.
JPG's on the M8 usually don't cut it for me - even for everyday shooting. I'm not sure if it is the WB or the adjustments made in camera but I always get more out of the DNG's.
The M8 is a great camera for B&W photography, and with a bit of care, for colour too, but I used RAW only. The B&W JPGs are probably fine.
For someone who always wanted the Leica experience, I am not sure if the M8 is the right thing. It is quite a quirky camera in several ways. When you get everything right, the results punch above their weight, but there are a lot of little things to get right.
sirimiri wrote:
If he'd used a Nikon F for 30 years, is his vision still acute enough to accurately focus a rangefinder? I don't mean to sound callous...
A good point & no offence taken. His eyes have changed over 30 years but I think he's still fine. I gave him my A900 & 58/1.2 in the summer to play with and he picked it up, took a photo at 1.2 and it was perfectly in focus. So as long as it's a good VF I think he'll be okay.
carstenw wrote:
The M8 is a great camera for B&W photography, and with a bit of care, for colour too, but I used RAW only. The B&W JPGs are probably fine.
For someone who always wanted the Leica experience, I am not sure if the M8 is the right thing. It is quite a quirky camera in several ways. When you get everything right, the results punch above their weight, but there are a lot of little things to get right.
Thanks for your thoughts, and to everyone else who has added. It does indeed seem that the "quirkyness" only grows the further I look into the M8, so I think it's safe to rule that out. Sure, an M9 would probably work, but an M8 + 35/2 would already take a LONG time to save up for me, I think an M9 would be too much, atleast at this point. Perhaps it'll come down in a couple of years? Probably not that much though.
Thanks for the input all. I'm going to hold off until after some announcements and reassess then.
ricardovaste wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts, and to everyone else who has added. It does indeed seem that the "quirkyness" only grows the further I look into the M8, so I think it's safe to rule that out. Sure, an M9 would probably work, but an M8 + 35/2 would already take a LONG time to save up for me, I think an M9 would be too much, atleast at this point. Perhaps it'll come down in a couple of years? Probably not that much though.
Thanks for the input all. I'm going to hold off until after some announcements and reassess then.
I don't think a M9 will be any better looking at the jpg's. Still needs the DNG's for the most result.
But, like I said before. The jpg quality is good enough strait out of the M8. Especially when they are only printed on a small format.
Most people here (myself included) are extremely keen on quality. Way more than average. Thats why we buy lenses of thousands of dollars. So when we say the jpg quality isn't up to the DNG quality, it doesn't mean the jpg's are bad and not usable.
Leica's are a real joy to use, reading how you describe your dad as a photographer, I think a M will fit him very well.
If you decide to go with a fixed-lens compact instead of an M, I think I'd choose a Fuji X100 over the Leica X1. Perhaps there will be a new development in the next few months, though.
There just are not that many digital options that offer the "rangefinder" experience.
If using good manual focus lenses with proper scales printed on them is the primary need, and if using a rear LCD or EVF or both for composing (and focus when not using zone or hyperfocal technique), then you have a few more options including cameras like the Sony NEX-5N or NEX-7 with a third party M -> E mount adapter, or the Ricoh GXR with its dedicated A12 M Mount module.
Both will deliver very good JPGs. The GXR's most obvious advantage over the NEX is that it will deliver very good results, edge to edge, corner to corner, with pretty much any M lens; on the NEX-7 more than the NEX-5N you need to pick your wide angle lenses more carefully if edge detail is important to you - but it can be done and there are plenty of happy Leica / Zeiss / CV lens owners shooting various NEX models. A NEX-5N (or 7) with the right manual focus lens mounted can be a pretty small package. The GXR isn't much bigger.
Neither the NEX or GXR are rangefinders of course but they do let one get at least some of the "rangefinder" experience back if not the rangefinder-focus method and the optical see-more-than-the-final-frame viewfinder.
. I'm not sure he really likes the workflow of film anymore though, so will have to think it through.