Spyro P. wrote:
BTW thanks for the tip on luxecase, I just bought a strap and its excellent. The guy was really easy to deal with too.
I think the strap I got from them is a little short for the way I carry my camera (diagonally over shoulder, like a camera bag) so I might look at getting the "artist" strap long version from them.

I think the problem with Leica rangefinders is accessorising, it's like buying a new car, I've got a handmade leather case, handmade strap, thumbs up, accessory viewfinder, polariser finder, and a nice domke bag... getting a bit out of hand but I'm enjoying it.

I'm surprised how short some of the waiting lists are in AUS, I spoke to a couple of dealers who literally don't have someone waiting.

lol hopefully soon you'll have a camera to use them on too
hang in there

Spyro, glad you bought a film RF first to try it out. Every time someone on RFF comes on and says, "I've never really used an RF before, but I want to sell all my gear and buy an M8/M9 + $8k worth of lenses" people say to pick up an M6/Ikon/Bessa and a $200-300 lens to see if you even like it. They usually want nothing to do with that advice.

atufte wrote:
Wilfredo wrote:
atufte wrote:
Wilfredo wrote:
atufte wrote:
I also have a Canon kit, but it's not much larger than my Leica M2+50, and get's a lot of use, just because it's so compact... (5D2+Nikkor45P)

Can you say a bit more about that Nikkor 45P on the Canon? How do you like the image quality?




Hi Wilfredo

The Nikkor 45 P is actually my favorite lens for the 5D MKII, and is a stellar performer on this camera, and the fact that it is super compact makes it perfect...(for my liking at least) :-)


How would you say it compares to Leica glass? Can you post a picture or two? Where did you purchase the adapter?

Hi again Wilfredo

I think it performs well compared to Leica glass, the margins/difference is so small you would not notice the difference, and i have been using the best Leica M glass for over 15 years...

(the only difference will be the sensors with AA filter VS without, but i feel i get at least
as sharp images with my 5D2 as i did with my M8's, since the 5D2 files handles USM very well...)

But right now i using the Zeiss Biotar 58, and what a gem this lens is, i don't think i ever have found a lens with so much personality/characteristics, i just wish i had found it before...


Here's the adapter of choice for my alt lenses:

http://haodascreen.com/ear.aspx

Thanks!

kidtexas wrote:
Spyro, glad you bought a film RF first to try it out. Every time someone on RFF comes on and says, "I've never really used an RF before, but I want to sell all my gear and buy an M8/M9 + $8k worth of lenses" people say to pick up an M6/Ikon/Bessa and a $200-300 lens to see if you even like it. They usually want nothing to do with that advice.

good point.. hopefully I'll be OK, I've been using a medium format RF for a while (Mamiya 6). I found it quite slow to use, a lot slower than I was with a digital SLRbut probably because I'm trying not to screw up 8% of a film per shot through operator error!

Cant wait.

kidtexas wrote:
Spyro, glad you bought a film RF first to try it out. Every time someone on RFF comes on and says, "I've never really used an RF before, but I want to sell all my gear and buy an M8/M9 + $8k worth of lenses" people say to pick up an M6/Ikon/Bessa and a $200-300 lens to see if you even like it. They usually want nothing to do with that advice.


This is interesting, isn't it.

Switching from say, Canon to Nikon, is really no big deal. Sure the buttons are in new places and the controls are backwards, but the basic camera function is the same.

However, using a RF is really different than using the slr's that most folks are used to shooting with.

I guess not wanting to listen to good advice is part of being human.

Spyro P. wrote:
lol hopefully soon you'll have a camera to use them on too
hang in there


Might be a while!

I've really started enjoying my M6 though, having a full range of lenses to use has been very nice. I need to get faster and tidier at changing M lenses though, there's no slop in the bayonet so you have to be very precise when remounting and I want to avoid dust if I ever get a DRF.

SteveF wrote:
I guess not wanting to listen to good advice is part of being human.

It's also very interesting how much effort some people put into making other people NOT buying the gear of their dreams. In this case, mostly RF camera users. As if they don't want anyone else to have the same very special equipment. They'll say things like "it takes much skill" or similar. Anything to make you reconsider your choice and not buy that rangefinder that you wanted.

However, using a RF is really different than using the slr's that most folks are used to shooting with.

And that's of course the idea of switching. It's a camera, not a spacecraft. Anyone can use whatever camera after some practicing. I started taking the pictures I wanted with the M8 from day one. Without ever having used a RF before. No big deal. Just fun to use something else than an SLR.

Re Rangefinder digital cameras.

Is there any source of digital rangefinders other than Leica? I used Leicas back in my film days and like the size, weight, freedom of the RF style camera but wasn't aware that the format had survived into the digital era. I'm not in a position to drop $10k on a camera and lens setup. Are there alternatives?

Robert

It's not that people don't want others to use RFs. I think it comes down to two things. First, not everyone gets the incredible limitations that come along with using RFs until they've used them - no zooms, nothing longer than 135, imprecise framing, poor minimum focus distance, no macro, simple metering, etc. I don't think it takes any more skill, you just have to be ok living within the confines of those limitations, and the couple of bonuses you get for putting up with those limitations have to be important enough for you to make it worthwhile.

Second, as you put it, they are just cameras. I don't think there is anything particularly magical about RFs in general, or Leicas specifically (lenses included). It just makes me wince to think that someone is selling their $5k SLR kit at a big loss to buy a $10k RF kit that won't get them 'better' pictures and they are going to be frustrated with it. Maybe they just have way more disposable income than me and it's not a big deal.

I see a LOT of pictures on this forum at small minimum focus distances, which is something you have to give up on an RF.

For those that get along with RFs, then they are great. I like mine quite a bit. Way more than my SLR. Which is why I say pick up a used Ikon/Bessa/M6 and a great $200-300 lens. If you like it or hate it, either way you can sell it for about what you paid for. And if you really like it, you might find that you end up keeping the lens anyway.

kidtexas wrote:
It's not that people don't want others to use RFs. I think it comes down to two things. First, not everyone gets the incredible limitations that come along with using RFs until they've used them - no zooms, nothing longer than 135, imprecise framing, poor minimum focus distance, no macro, simple metering, etc. I don't think it takes any more skill, you just have to be ok living within the confines of those limitations, and the couple of bonuses you get for putting up with those limitations have to be important enough for you to make it worthwhile.

Second, as you put it, they are just cameras. I don't think there is anything particularly magical about RFs in general, or Leicas specifically (lenses included). It just makes me wince to think that someone is selling their $5k SLR kit at a big loss to buy a $10k RF kit that won't get them 'better' pictures and they are going to be frustrated with it. Maybe they just have way more disposable income than me and it's not a big deal.

I see a LOT of pictures on this forum at small minimum focus distances, which is something you have to give up on an RF.

For those that get along with RFs, then they are great. I like mine quite a bit. Way more than my SLR. Which is why I say pick up a used Ikon/Bessa/M6 and a great $200-300 lens. If you like it or hate it, either way you can sell it for about what you paid for. And if you really like it, you might find that you end up keeping the lens anyway.

Big +1 this should be some kind of sticky. well said.

kidtexas wrote:
It's not that people don't want others to use RFs. I think it comes down to two things. First, not everyone gets the incredible limitations that come along with using RFs until they've used them - no zooms, nothing longer than 135, imprecise framing, poor minimum focus distance, no macro, simple metering, etc. I don't think it takes any more skill, you just have to be ok living within the confines of those limitations, and the couple of bonuses you get for putting up with those limitations have to be important enough for you to make it worthwhile.

Second, as you put it, they are just cameras. I don't think there is anything particularly magical about RFs in general, or Leicas specifically (lenses included). It just makes me wince to think that someone is selling their $5k SLR kit at a big loss to buy a $10k RF kit that won't get them 'better' pictures and they are going to be frustrated with it. Maybe they just have way more disposable income than me and it's not a big deal.

I see a LOT of pictures on this forum at small minimum focus distances, which is something you have to give up on an RF.

For those that get along with RFs, then they are great. I like mine quite a bit. Way more than my SLR. Which is why I say pick up a used Ikon/Bessa/M6 and a great $200-300 lens. If you like it or hate it, either way you can sell it for about what you paid for. And if you really like it, you might find that you end up keeping the lens anyway.

You are certainly right about the limitations, but those that are willing to sell their current (heavy) gear are probably well aware of that. It could actually be a reason in itself.
Most "pro" cameras of today are so full of features and gimmicks that it to some extent takes away the joy of photographing. You don't HAVE to be able to take every possible shot, whether it's about macro, tele or perfect framing.

I haven't touched my D700 for several weeks. Instead I'm enjoying the very simple M8 with only one lens (CV 28/2). I'm sure many would be pleased to do the same, and I know that I wouldn't have regretted selling the D700 to get an M9. I'll probably do that next year.

Makten wrote:
You don't HAVE to be able to take every possible shot, whether it's about macro, tele or perfect framing.


Word. I haven't shot a frame on my SLR since... May?

kidtexas wrote:
Spyro, glad you bought a film RF first to try it out. Every time someone on RFF comes on and says, "I've never really used an RF before, but I want to sell all my gear and buy an M8/M9 + $8k worth of lenses" people say to pick up an M6/Ikon/Bessa and a $200-300 lens to see if you even like it. They usually want nothing to do with that advice.

That's funny. Does it still count if you don't sell all your digital gear?

Having said that, what do you recommend as a $200-$300 lens for a M6/Ikon/Bessa?

OntheRez wrote:
Re Rangefinder digital cameras.

Is there any source of digital rangefinders other than Leica? I used Leicas back in my film days and like the size, weight, freedom of the RF style camera but wasn't aware that the format had survived into the digital era. I'm not in a position to drop $10k on a camera and lens setup. Are there alternatives?

Robert

The Leica M8/8.2 , M9 and the EPSON R-D1 are the only three truly RF digitals. I had the EPSON and it was my favourite camera. It's a 6mp camera that shoots up to ISO 1600 but that was never a hinderance for me as it is for pixel-peepers. I have seen them go used for 1200-1400.

smartblur wrote:
That's funny. Does it still count if you don't sell all your digital gear?

Having said that, what do you recommend as a $200-$300 lens for a M6/Ikon/Bessa?

Then you have more cash than me

Depends on what focal length you like. For 21-28mm, I'd look at the Cosina Voigtlander lenses. The 21/4, 25/4, and 28/3.5 go for about that used. The 15/4.5 screw mount CV lens can be had for that used too. The 28/3.5 has recently been discontinued but is great. I've heard good stuff about the 21/4 too.

For 35mm... I think the CV 35/2.5 is $300 new, or one of the older Canon 35s maybe.

For 50mm, again, one of the CV 50/2.5 are about $300 new, or look for a CV 40/1.4 used (new $400) or a used 50/1.5 (new $400). There are a lot of options here though. I got a Nikkor 50/1.4 for $250. Canon and Nikkors are available - f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4, etc. They should all be around this price. Older Leicas are usually a bit more, but you might find an old Summicron for around that price if you get lucky. Of course, you could always go even older than that - I think the Summars go for pretty cheap, and some people really love them. There's also a plethora of 50/2.8 Elmars. The newer Elmar-Ms go for about $6-700, so if you are willing to buy one that's 30 years old or so, you might be able to drop down to $300.

For 90's, the older Leica 90/4s are dirt cheap. You can pick up the CV 90/3.5 APO Lanthar for cheap too. I don't know if it is the same formula/performance as the one mentioned in the APO thread.

If you are willing to stretch the lens budget a bit to $400-500, a couple of other 50mm options become available. The Konica Hexanon M 50/2 ($400ish?) and the Zeiss ZM 50/2 Planar ($500ish), both used. More 50 Summicrons should pop up in this price range too. A couple of years ago I got a latest version Summicron for a hair more than $500. Probably more of the old, more esoteric Canon and Nikkor lenses too.

There are some other brands that are available too that I don't know much about, like Kobalux. Oh yeah, the Jupiter lenses can be had for like $100 and from what I hear, aren't all that bad.

Whooo. $200-300 does limit you to used CV lenses and older Canon/Nikkors, but they are still pretty good, some quite amazing. Going up to $500 opens a lot more up, and $800ish gets you pretty much any new Zeiss ZM lens, which, depending on your income, could be totally reasonable. You DO NOT have to spend $4.5k on a Leica 50/1.4 ASPH though just to try things out

thrice wrote:
Spyro P. wrote:
BTW thanks for the tip on luxecase, I just bought a strap and its excellent. The guy was really easy to deal with too.
I think the strap I got from them is a little short for the way I carry my camera (diagonally over shoulder, like a camera bag) so I might look at getting the "artist" strap long version from them.

I think the problem with Leica rangefinders is accessorising, it's like buying a new car, I've got a handmade leather case, handmade strap, thumbs up, accessory viewfinder, polariser finder, and a nice domke bag... getting a bit out of hand but I'm enjoying it.

I'm surprised how short some of the waiting lists are in AUS, I spoke to a couple of dealers who literally don't have someone waiting.

Unfortunately, the supply is shorter than the waiting lists in the US.

dasrocket wrote:
OntheRez wrote:
Re Rangefinder digital cameras.

Is there any source of digital rangefinders other than Leica? I used Leicas back in my film days and like the size, weight, freedom of the RF style camera but wasn't aware that the format had survived into the digital era. I'm not in a position to drop $10k on a camera and lens setup. Are there alternatives?

Robert

The Leica M8/8.2 , M9 and the EPSON R-D1 are the only three truly RF digitals. I had the EPSON and it was my favourite camera. It's a 6mp camera that shoots up to ISO 1600 but that was never a hinderance for me as it is for pixel-peepers. I have seen them go used for 1200-1400.

I've seen references to the M8 for around $2,500, the M8.2 for around $4k and I gather the M9 is yet to arrive. A bit a research on the R-D1 suggest that it takes both Leica M and L mounts. I M is the current system is L the old screw mount? I have several of those sitting around.

Where would on look for a R-D1. Also I saw a reference to An EPSON R-D1X. Is that available in the US?

Robert

OntheRez wrote:

I've seen references to the M8 for around $2,500, the M8.2 for around $4k and I gather the M9 is yet to arrive. A bit a research on the R-D1 suggest that it takes both Leica M and L mounts. I M is the current system is L the old screw mount? I have several of those sitting around.

Where would on look for a R-D1. Also I saw a reference to An EPSON R-D1X. Is that available in the US?

Robert

Any M camera can use LTM lenses (which are indeed Leica Screwmount) with a M-LTM adapter. Note that Cosina-based designs like the Voigtlander Bessa's and the Epson RD-1's have manually selected framelines and so which adapter you have doesn't matter. The Leica's select framelines based on mechanical coupling in the bayonet mount and so you need to match the adapter to the lens (They come in 28/90, 35/135 and 50/75 versions. 24/25mm lenses may need a specific adapter for the M8/M8.2 so read a good M8 FAQ before selecting an adapter if you're a M8 shooter).

The R-D1X is the latest update of the R-D1. It's essentially an R-D1 with a larger fixed LCD rather than the smaller flip-out LCD the R-D1s and R-D1 have. The R-D1's are not currently marketed outside Japan.

Makten wrote:
JimBuchanan wrote:
My M8 cost a third of a M9. I loose a stop due to the more advanced M9 sensor sensitivity. I loose an effective 1/2 stop due to the fact that a wide angle leica lens gets less wide on a M8. I loose an effective 1/2 stop of shallow DOF due to the 1.33x crop. But I have a M8 and love it.

Those half stops are actually closer to one stop each. Further more, you can lose another stop because there are no affordable 28/1.4 lenses for M8 (not even unaffordable)

Yes, that was what I was trying to say, that the equivalent normal lens on a M8 costs more than the 50mm on a FF M9, and it will therefore cost more to maintain the shallow DOF with faster lenses, than the M9.

The premium on a digital full frame Leica M is still much too high for most people for what you get over a comparable DSLR.
Especially for someone new to RF's, I really would not jump in with the M9, unless you've thoroughly demoed one.
You might hate the long close focusing distance. You might hate the framing accuracy. In fact you might even hate manual focus.... the list goes on. There's a long list of things that most people new to RFs don't even consider.
Sure, there's a certain allure and romantic attraction to Leica M's... especially on paper, but if you haven't lived it, you have no idea.

If you want a good digital camera, there are many that are comparable and even better, for less. I would not drop down that much money on one unless I was absolutely sure I wanted to go the RF route- that's just foolish and I would try to rent or demo a setup before committing. It's most certainly not for everyone.

The image quality seems very good but a D700 or 5DII are comparable, if not better in some areas.

What you are paying for is the ability to use M mount lenses on a digital FF sensor- no other company makes one. In addition, your dealer is making a much larger margin off of these simply because it's a luxury item and people are simply willing to overpay- the margin is around 25% if I remember correctly (as opposed to ~7% for a Nikon/Canon DSLR).

The 5DII with a small MF lens isn't that much bigger as another member pointed out- and micro 4/3s cameras like the GF1 look very, very good as well- especially since you can actually adapt M-mount lenses to the system (albeit with a 2x crop) and you could buy almost 8 of those for the price of an M9. Sure, the M9 seems great- I'm just not sure it's worth it unless you absolutely know what you're doing.

Let's face it- most current DSLR users will not reap the advantages of having a rangefinder in most situations they encounter. They don't need the discreetness, the size advantages, or the optical quality of M lenses. If you need it for your professional work or your shooting environment, you would have had a film M body far before any of the digital M's came out.

If you want a digital camera- just own a darn good one like the D700 or 5D II- these are really darn good cameras and it's hard to find fault with them or the lenses, especially considering the price compared to the M9. Consider picking up a good compact camera like the GF-1 and a 20/1.7 for lightweight shooting, or for RF's, and for the occasions you need one, consider an MP, M7, or M6. The film M's is really where you should learn the beauty of the M system.

If you haven't already, play with an M8/.2/9 and then the MP. You will be surprised how much better the MP feels in build quality and discreet operation.

My opinion is that if you want to get into the Leica system, the film M's are where the Leica's are worth it currently. A film M just feels right, sounds right, and works right. The digital ones, while nice, still have some small shortcomings and with the accompanying price tags... the M9 is not something I would do without fully understanding the beauty of the system.

After reading this last post, I feel like I just read the phone book.

Desirable though an M9 kit looks, when I think of the money I recoil. There are other ways of achieving lightweight and excellent manual focus full-frame outfits. My lightweight kit comprises 5D2, Olys 21 f3.5, 28 f3.5, 40 f2, and Contax 85 f2.8 (or Oly 90 f2 macro). The extra iso helps a lot.

once a grip is on an M9, there can't be a significant size difference b/w brainiac's 5D and the leica. brilliant kit!

The difference in size between kits cannot be denied, I've got both, a Leica M kit of body + 4 lenses is significantly smaller than the 5D with 4 lenses. But whatever kit justifications one has to make to enjoy photography are necessary