I've been debating selling all my gear and getting a Leica M.

I have just enough gear that I'll be able to pay for one body. I'll spend some money on the EVF and perhaps one lens to get me started. Right now that's looking it'll probably be the Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 II. i'll eventually fill out my bag with a standard, an ultra wide, and a tele macro.

Anyone know a good place I can order one outside of New York state (no Adorama or B&H)?

Maybe Dale photo & digital? They have a good rep in Leica circles in part due to Dave Farkas, who works there. He's at all the key Leica events and has some good reviews. He was one of the first with a comprehensive write up of the new M from Photokina and runs the Red Dot Forum site: http://www.reddotforum.com/

http://www.dalephotoanddigital.com/_e/gdept/15/Leica_Store.htm

I haven't bought anything from them though, being in Canada... just going by reputation.

FlyPenFly wrote:
I've been debating selling all my gear and getting a Leica M.

I have just enough gear that I'll be able to pay for one body. I'll spend some money on the EVF and perhaps one lens to get me started. Right now that's looking it'll probably be the Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 II. i'll eventually fill out my bag with a standard, an ultra wide, and a tele macro.

Anyone know a good place I can order one outside of New York state (no Adorama or B&H)?

Dale should be a good place. Popflash is another. Camera west should be good too

I assume you are getting M240, then, I would suggest you get a new or 2nd hand 35cron.(because of better ISO performance) Most people get VC and Zeiss lens started and sooner or later , change to Leica glass. (unless you are after Zeiss look like Edward ) you might save the first step.

The whole idea of leica is size, so I am against VC35. And I always feel f2 is good for rangefinder.

FlyPenFly wrote:
I've been debating selling all my gear and getting a Leica M.

I have just enough gear that I'll be able to pay for one body. I'll spend some money on the EVF and perhaps one lens to get me started. Right now that's looking it'll probably be the Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 II. i'll eventually fill out my bag with a standard, an ultra wide, and a tele macro.

Anyone know a good place I can order one outside of New York state (no Adorama or B&H)?

I'm in doubt to. One day I think the M its perfect for me since its gives me the opportunity to use Tilt Shift lenses with an adapter. But than I use the M9 and feel its perfect. For the M I really just want a rangefinder with standard lenses. Besides I like the look of the M9P way more than that of the M.

Buying a canon 6D and keep the M9P almost costs me as much money as buying the M, and than I could use the 17 TSE without any problems (canon's electronic aperture). And since that combo is used on a tripod for specific project, size isn't really a problem.



If I read Ur text, being able to just barely buy the M and perhaps one lens I really would consider it twice. Not knowing if u can afford a lens sounds a bit like u are buying a ferrari buy can't afford the tires and petrol.

Sure the M is a nice camera with its full frame sensor, but u really limit yourself for the first time. And besides that, U know its gonna cost way more than the price of the M itself with one lens.
I started with the idea of just an M8 and some ZM lenses and now have a "kit" from 20.000 euro. And thats still without a 1.4 lens, or a tele.
Every accessory from leica is way expensive, buying just one extra lens costs a fortune and its add up pretty quickly.

For example. I bought the 18/3.8 super elmar from 2495 euro. With the M8 I needed a UV/IR filter. Added 225 euro. To use other filters u need a adapter. Adds 80 euro. To use it u need a external finder, adds 700 euro.
So that 2500 euro lens is in working shape 3500 euro.
Off course with other lenses its less since they don't need the finder. But every thing from a spare battery, to a service cleaning costs a lot.

Not trying to scare u away, but be aware before u have the leica virus



But ff the M is what u really want, I would reconsider the VC 35/1.2 for a 35 cron, 35 summarit or even a ZM 35/2 or 35/2.8.
Such big lenses might be fun for some time. But to me the smaller 35's suit the M body's way better. I never really needed a faster than f/2 35mm.

I would wait until RAW files will be available from final body.. maybe few reviews. Early adopting is usually pretty risky and sometimes not exactly worth it.

Spend ur $$ on a good lens and a used m9... u dont need an evf for a 35mm lens..
Example: 35 asph cron + m9

Yeah, I'm not sure that the 35/1.2 is a good first lens, considering its size.

FWIW, I got a used M9, 50mm Summicron V, 28mm Elmarit-ASPH, and 90mm tele-elmarit (thin) for about $7500. Had I gone the ZM route instead, it would have only been around $6500.

I think I'd rather just have the latest M and build up the system later.

I just need to sell one of my watches... the other hobby.

One thing that was painfully obvious to me during my recent trip was that lens speed gains you flexibility and shots you just can't have otherwise.

I'll look more into the lens situation but honestly the 35mm F1.2 doesn't seem That big. I'm not a size queen, not obsessed with size here.

If size isn't an issue, I'd consider asking myself whether getting something like a D600 or A99 or whatever might be a better option. The three most appealing things about the Leica M system to me is the size, the rangefinder mechanism and the Leica lenses. Using the M 240 with an EVF and Voigtlander 35/1.2 would kind of be the exact opposite of what is appealing to me about the system, considering the you'd be spending SO much more than a FF DSLR/SLT. Just a thought.

I've been toying with the idea as well, not so much because I'm serious about buying one, but because the thought of its release keeps me from spending money I don't have on the a99. I'd love to use my M lenses on a FF camera, but their MFD on a rangefinder I find very limiting. That, the price, and their choice of EVF will likely keep me from buying an M, even if it's the "greatest camera ever made."

You could always go to the source, Jae. There's the Leica store in DC.

I've thought about the A99... but that SLT mirror still just bothers the hell out of me.

I think at this point in the hobby for me, I'm ready to try out Leica and see where that takes me. I've tried Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Konica, etc. All the camera companies.

Part of the fun for me besides the images is the tool itself. If I had to to compare it to something, it's like being a chef who really enjoys a good chef's knife.

FlyPenFly wrote:
I've thought about the A99... but that SLT mirror still just bothers the hell out of me.

I think at this point in the hobby for me, I'm ready to try out Leica and see where that takes me. I've tried Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Konica, etc. All the camera companies.

Part of the fun for me besides the images is the tool itself. If I had to to compare it to something, it's like being a chef who really enjoys a good chef's knife.

Oh, I hear you. I'm just saying $8200 is a lot to spend on a single camera and lens, when you could get your feet wet with a used M8 or M9 to see if the rangefinder thing makes sense to you.

You could, of course, remove the mirror of the A99 and only use Leica R lenses on it, which would give you a similar concept for much cheaper, since size isn't an issue.

Just trying to help you by playing devil's advocate a bit.

Totally appreciate it.

You make a good point.

Bijltje wrote:
I started with the idea of just an M8 and some ZM lenses and now have a "kit" from 20.000 euro.

Haha... I can sympathize.

FlyPenFly wrote:

One thing that was painfully obvious to me during my recent trip was that lens speed gains you flexibility and shots you just can't have otherwise.

I'll look more into the lens situation but honestly the 35mm F1.2 doesn't seem That big. I'm not a size queen, not obsessed with size here.

And I can agree with this... I was somewhat skeptical about the day-to-day usefulness of the 21 Lux, but found myself actually using it wide open a fair amount, both because of low light situations and also to gain the subject/background isolation that wasn't possible with a 21/2.8 or slower lens.

That said, I have hardly use the 35/1.2 since getting the 28 Cron, which is about half the size. So far I haven't suffered too much in low light situations, perhaps in part because I can better hand hold the 28 at slower shutter speeds.

douglasf13 wrote:
Oh, I hear you. I'm just saying $8200 is a lot to spend on a single camera and lens, when you could get your feet wet with a used M8 or M9 to see if the rangefinder thing makes sense to you.


I think this is sensible if the rangefinder approach is a key reason for wanting to try Leica. But the M will be a considerably different body with live view/EVF, better high ISO, better responsiveness, more modern and much more hybrid in capability... Depending on what Jae wants, an M8 or M9 could be a turnoff from the system when the new M might actually check all the boxes.

And of course, on the M you can use all the R lenses and those from pretty much any other system out there. The biggest tradeoff for this really, is price.

Jae, are you sure you want to give up all of your gear for a Leica M? I mean, we have learned to know you as a great creative photographer who knows how to use the OM-D and a set of great lenses. To give up all of your lenses just to get a Leica M with one single lens, .... As much as I love full frame shooting and of course Leica quality is beyond any discussion great, I would never ever make a step like that. The jump from m43 to full frame has only one thing in common: compact size. For everything else it seems to be a quantum leap. What is it exactly that you are looking for? Full frame image quality? Simple ergonomics and back to the essential elements of photography? The rangefinder? I read you are looking for fun in the instrument, but beware. This chef's knife is sharp, but it can cut deep into your own flesh. During film Leica M was a product with a very high price level and small amortization over and beyond it's own product life cycle. But that has changed since digital. If this is really what you want and if you think you get the fun out of Leica, go ahead. There is nothing wrong with the M, but there are so many alternatives for this amount of money. I would definitely consider alternatives that offer more creative possibilities because you could afford more different lenses than a one lens solution. Think twice. Leica is just for a happy few, and even those happy few often have additional photo gear to complement their Leica setup.

rscheffler wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
You could, of course, remove the mirror of the A99 and only use Leica R lenses on it, which would give you a similar concept for much cheaper, since size isn't an issue.


I think this is sensible if the rangefinder approach is a key reason for wanting to try Leica. But the M will be a considerably different body with live view/EVF, better high ISO, better responsiveness, more modern and much more hybrid in capability... Depending on what Jae wants, an M8 or M9 could be a turnoff from the system when the new M might actually check all the boxes.

I listed 3 common things appealing to the M system: the rangefinder, the size, and the Leica lenses. It didn't appear that any of those three things were at the top of Jae's list, so that's why I was saying that other, less expensive options could potentially make more sense. I certainly wouldn't buy the M as a primarily EVF camera with a largish lens, myself, but YMMV.

rscheffler wrote:
Bijltje wrote:
I started with the idea of just an M8 and some ZM lenses and now have a "kit" from 20.000 euro.

Haha... I can sympathize.

FlyPenFly wrote:

One thing that was painfully obvious to me during my recent trip was that lens speed gains you flexibility and shots you just can't have otherwise.

I'll look more into the lens situation but honestly the 35mm F1.2 doesn't seem That big. I'm not a size queen, not obsessed with size here.

And I can agree with this... I was somewhat skeptical about the day-to-day usefulness of the 21 Lux, but found myself actually using it wide open a fair amount, both because of low light situations and also to gain the subject/background isolation that wasn't possible with a 21/2.8 or slower lens.

That said, I have hardly use the 35/1.2 since getting the 28 Cron, which is about half the size. So far I haven't suffered too much in low light situations, perhaps in part because I can better hand hold the 28 at slower shutter speeds.

Ron, I agree that at f1.4, 21mm is very easy to focus for its DOF.

I have found for 50lux, It could be challenge to nail focus at all distance. Under controlled test, I find my 50lux now perform extreme good up to 10M distance, but realworld, I mis focus often once distance is further than 5M. 35mm maybe less so, again, for its DOF.

Doug: I originally included the wrong part of your post in my quote above and have changed it to what I intended, though I don't think it will change your reply... just wanted to fix it.

rscheffler wrote:
Doug: I originally included the wrong part of your post in my quote above and have changed it to what I intended, though I don't think it will change your reply... just wanted to fix it.


No problemo.