p.1 #1 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
Hi everyone,
I am getting a bit frustrated with the Leica camera digital bodies - they are just not reliable and practical. So, I am considering using an alternate body (Sony vs Canon vs Nikon vs Fujifilm). Does anyone have any expereince with that? I like the idea of putting an autofocus adapter for Sony E mount, but I get dizzy when the magnication pops up while focusing.
Any recommendations?
* P.S. Please don't tell me "Leica M bodies are the best for M lenses," I know that!
p.1 #2 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
This is a complicated topic because of the many variables at play, such as your technical expectations, the types of things you photograph, the M lenses you use and how those lenses will play with non-Leica sensors.
Maybe if you could provide some more information about what you hope to achieve and the lenses you're using, it will help guide others in the answers they suggest.
From my point of view, if you're looking at best technical compatibility (least edge image smearing) with the broadest range of M lenses from a non-Leica camera/sensor, pretty much forget stock Sony or Canon (Sony might be an option if you do a Kolari mod). I've also seen questionable results with Fuji. There is a Nikon Z thread here on Alt that has some discussion about this and it seems these cameras play a bit better, but it will still be lens dependent. Another option is one of the new Panasonic FF mirrorless cameras. Also a thread and discussion about that here. On paper, the best stock non rangefinder solution at the moment seems like the new SL2, which is pretty much a Panasonic S1R with a tweaked sensor stack to better accommodate M lenses. Still too early to know if it indeed is comparable to results from an M camera.
If you're not wedded to the Leica lenses, another option is to consider some of the Voigtlander mirrorless lenses, currently only for Sony E mount, that are technically very impressive.
p.1 #5 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
I'm using Leica M lenses on Nikon Z and have produced 105 color cast correction files (including vignette) for three lenses: Summicron 2/28, Summarit 2.4/50, Summarit 2.4/90. 35 per lens for 7 aperture values and 5 distances. The Summarit 2.4/90 at close distances is the only case that does not need a color cast correction, but the vignette correction is still useful, as you don't have EXIF data from the M lenses on Nikon Z. My take is that you need to test every M lens separately. My three lenses work with regard to resolution (corner smearing), but you need to test this - e.g. Elmarit 2.8/28 or Summilux 1.4/35 didn't work for me. Sometimes the same color cast is barely visible, sometimes its really detrimental to an image. So it depends on how much post-processing you are willing to do and what pictures you shoot. I'm right now trying to improve acquiring focus without using the Nikon EVF's zoom, but I don't know how successful this will be.
p.1 #6 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
Fujifilm GFX.
However, for wide angle lenses, unfortunately nothing can replace a digital Leica M. Other cameras just cant handle those steep angles of incidence of the light.
p.1 #7 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
If you are willing to purchase something like a used Sony A7rII and having someone like Kolari Vision install an Ultra Thin sensor cover the camera will perform extremely well however you may need to run tests for the color output. Though not as good as a Leica M camera, performance can be quite high.
p.1 #8 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
I've been shooting M lenses on Sony since the Sony A7 and have owned in the past the A7R, A7RII, A7III and A7RIII and after testing the EOS-R on Friday, I felt ready to make the leap back to Canon. I might get flamed but I've never been a fan of Sony but it was the only option until a year ago.
I ordered a Canon EOS-R online (should be here later this week or early next week) after briefly testing my CV 21mm 3.5 Color-Skopar and 35mm 2 Ultron and satisfied the result. Both are modern lenses and didn't notice any corner issues.
Manual focusing was easy and pops the subject more than with Sony, no need to magnify except for critical focusing.
But activating the magnify button is different as you can't select the area you want to magnify first.
I like Fuji X too but didn't like the idea of shooting my legacy lenses cropped.
Fuji GFX I've read is nice but for the price, I might as well get a M240 or M10.
Never owned the Z6 and no interest as otherwise I would have to invest on native Z lenses too.
With EOS-R, since I own EF lenses and adore the 135L, it was a no brainer to consolidate into one system.
p.1 #9 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
Why are you not a fan? I was looking at the A7iii and seems you can 1) touch the screen to focus with the techart af adapter 2) shut off magnification if needed
Is that true? 🤯
taemo wrote:
I've been shooting M lenses on Sony since the Sony A7 and have owned in the past the A7R, A7RII, A7III and A7RIII and after testing the EOS-R on Friday, I felt ready to make the leap back to Canon. I might get flamed but I've never been a fan of Sony but it was the only option until a year ago.
I ordered a Canon EOS-R online (should be here later this week or early next week) after briefly testing my CV 21mm 3.5 Color-Skopar and 35mm 2 Ultron and satisfied the result. Both are modern lenses and didn't notice any corner issues.
Manual focusing was easy and pops the subject more than with Sony, no need to magnify except for critical focusing.
But activating the magnify button is different as you can't select the area you want to magnify first.
I like Fuji X too but didn't like the idea of shooting my legacy lenses cropped.
Fuji GFX I've read is nice but for the price, I might as well get a M240 or M10.
Never owned the Z6 and no interest as otherwise I would have to invest on native Z lenses too.
With EOS-R, since I own EF lenses and adore the 135L, it was a no brainer to consolidate into one system.
p.1 #10 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
In fact i have the sunmilux35mm and i use it on the m9. Just not sure m10 will give me a complete diff focusing experience. Wjat did you mean by summilux didn’t work for you?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm using Leica M lenses on Nikon Z and have produced 105 color cast correction files (including vignette) for three lenses: Summicron 2/28, Summarit 2.4/50, Summarit 2.4/90. 35 per lens for 7 aperture values and 5 distances. The Summarit 2.4/90 at close distances is the only case that does not need a color cast correction, but the vignette correction is still useful, as you don't have EXIF data from the M lenses on Nikon Z. My take is that you need to test every M lens separately. My three lenses work with regard to resolution (corner smearing), but you need to test this - e.g. Elmarit 2.8/28 or Summilux 1.4/35 didn't work for me. Sometimes the same color cast is barely visible, sometimes its really detrimental to an image. So it depends on how much post-processing you are willing to do and what pictures you shoot. I'm right now trying to improve acquiring focus without using the Nikon EVF's zoom, but I don't know how successful this will be.
PS. Leica M bodies are best for Leica M lenses....Show more →
p.1 #11 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
To be clear, i want to take pics of moving objects like pets and kids with Leica lens. I found it very difficult with my M9, but I am not sure if M10 will be that different. That’s why I have this question.
rscheffler wrote:
This is a complicated topic because of the many variables at play, such as your technical expectations, the types of things you photograph, the M lenses you use and how those lenses will play with non-Leica sensors.
Maybe if you could provide some more information about what you hope to achieve and the lenses you're using, it will help guide others in the answers they suggest.
From my point of view, if you're looking at best technical compatibility (least edge image smearing) with the broadest range of M lenses from a non-Leica camera/sensor, pretty much forget stock Sony or Canon (Sony might be an option if you do a Kolari mod). I've also seen questionable results with Fuji. There is a Nikon Z thread here on Alt that has some discussion about this and it seems these cameras play a bit better, but it will still be lens dependent. Another option is one of the new Panasonic FF mirrorless cameras. Also a thread and discussion about that here. On paper, the best stock non rangefinder solution at the moment seems like the new SL2, which is pretty much a Panasonic S1R with a tweaked sensor stack to better accommodate M lenses. Still too early to know if it indeed is comparable to results from an M camera.
If you're not wedded to the Leica lenses, another option is to consider some of the Voigtlander mirrorless lenses, currently only for Sony E mount, that are technically very impressive....Show more →
p.1 #12 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
realVivek wrote:
I can tell you that modern Leica M lenses do best on Leica M bodies. Leica keep updating their lenses for their modern digital bodies.
I think nobody here would even consider using a third party MLC body for M-lenses if Leica M bodies wouldn't cost 3x of what the alternatives cost with more provided technology (IBIS, sensor resolution etc). I said it before, I believe if Leica would make a price-competitive digital M-series camera, they would be overwhelmed with demand for it and make a fortune just by quantity of sold cameras.
I have no numbers of data sheets to prove it, but what I heard is that Leica's M-lens sales increased steadily with the rise of other brand's MLC technology. This means that people buy M-lenses without using them on Leica cameras (I suspect the same is true for Zeiss and CV M-mount lenses but they don't make rangefinder cameras independently). Leica is not the only brand where this happens - I know several Sony MLC shooters who bought Canon tilt/shift EF lenses without ever owning a Canon camera. Mirrorless technology allows to mix up between cameras and lens brands very nicely.
p.1 #13 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
retrofocus wrote:
I said it before, I believe if Leica would make a price-competitive digital M-series camera, they would be overwhelmed with demand for it and make a fortune just by quantity of sold cameras.
And we are so glad that you explain what Leica should do over & over.
I have no numbers of data sheets to prove it,
Of course you have not. And you know nothing of Leica history because if you did, you would know that almost every time they launch cheaper but almost as good products, sales were disappointing.
Last example are the Summarit: excellent lenses, cheaper, not a big success.
On the contrary, the Leica Q is very expensive compared to the competition but is a success.
So no numbers, no data sheets, no knowledge of the brand... But of course "you are sure".
p.1 #14 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
Rynleung wrote:
Why are you not a fan? I was looking at the A7iii and seems you can 1) touch the screen to focus with the techart af adapter 2) shut off magnification if needed
Is that true? 🤯
just personal taste but I've always found Sony cameras boring and more an electronic device first and camera second.
I had a TAP and tested it on my Leica lenses and while it works seamlessly with wide and normal lenses, not so much with tele lenses as you have to aid its focus sometimes
I also didn't want to rely too much on it as it is bulky with the motor on the bottom and have read wobbling issues with it.
You're better off getting an AF lens to catch movement and use your MF lenses for everything else.
MF with peaking and magnification is fine on Sony, for critical focusing especially with fast lenses magnification is a must.
In regards to manual focusing between M9 and M10, you probably wont notice any difference, unless the low magnification on the M9 0.68x vs the M10 0.72x was your issue.
p.1 #15 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
Rynleung wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am getting a bit frustrated with the Leica camera digital bodies - they are just not reliable and practical..
* P.S. Please don't tell me "Leica M bodies are the best for M lenses," I know that!
I had an M9(mE) and yes that was not reliable. But my M240 has been bulletproof and much easier and better to use with M (or other rf lenses) than my z7.
I would get nice used M240 or use an AF camera with its native AF lenses if your goal is to chase around your kids.
Hey, did you know that M lenses are best on an M body?! Cuz frankly they suck on my Z7.
p.1 #16 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
There are better mirrorless systems for that. No need for anything Leica.
Rynleung wrote:
To be clear, i want to take pics of moving objects like pets and kids with Leica lens. I found it very difficult with my M9, but I am not sure if M10 will be that different. That’s why I have this question.
p.1 #17 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
Desmolicious wrote:
I had an M9(mE) and yes that was not reliable. But my M240 has been bulletproof and much easier and better to use with M (or other rf lenses) than my z7.
I would get nice used M240 or use an AF camera with its native AF lenses if your goal is to chase around your kids.
Hey, did you know that M lenses are best on an M body?! Cuz frankly they suck on my Z7.
Gee, you have the wrong M lenses for the Z7. At least some of the M lenses are phenomenal on Z7, although all M lenses are best on M bodies.
p.1 #18 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
rscheffler wrote:
This is a complicated topic because of the many variables at play, such as your technical expectations, the types of things you photograph, the M lenses you use and how those lenses will play with non-Leica sensors.
Maybe if you could provide some more information about what you hope to achieve and the lenses you're using, it will help guide others in the answers they suggest.
Rynleung wrote:
To be clear, i want to take pics of moving objects like pets and kids with Leica lens. I found it very difficult with my M9, but I am not sure if M10 will be that different. That’s why I have this question.
Well, this is not an easy thing to do with a rangefinder camera if your plan is to shoot longer lenses wide open. That said, I doubt you'll find it much easier to do with an EVF in realtime. AF is probably the best/easiest solution and I have no idea if the Techart with a Leica lens will perform this well. Native AF lenses are likely the best solution...
Where an M10 will be better than the M9 is at being more responsive and giving you a higher fps rate so your odds of getting something in focus should be higher. It's really a matter of practice, practice, practice with a steep learning curve and relatively low odds of success... It's a use scenario that is not exactly the strongest aspect of rangefinder cameras.
p.1 #19 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
AcuteShadows wrote:
Gee, you have the wrong M lenses for the Z7. At least some of the M lenses are phenomenal on Z7, although all M lenses are best on M bodies.
18mm asph, 28mm 2.8 asph, 35mm cron asph, 50 1.4 asph, various old Cron 50s.
I havent tried my non Leica M lenses - wait I did try the 7A 50 1.1. That was ok
Maybe these are the wrong M lenses for the Z7 but I already had them. And no way would I buy M
lenses specifically for the Z7....
p.1 #20 · Alternate camera bodies for Leica M lenses
Rynleung wrote...Leica camera digital bodies - they are just not reliable and practical...
If you want autofocus, you should consider using a camera system that has autofocus cameras and lenses.
I would note that M cameras and lenses are perfectly adequate for capturing images of moving subjects like kids, cats but need to be used in certain ways to best realise that goal.
Personally I think putting an M lens on some kind of 3rd party autofocus mechanism on a different 3rd party digital camera is the wrong way to go about things, it's taking one thing and trying to make it into another and at no small expense either. It's never going to satisfy entirely or realise your requirements fully.
I'd just stick my M9 on ISO800, scale focus and embrace the beauty of sometimes missing focus on a shot, kids and cats are sometimes blurry imho. Otherwise, good luck, get some awesome Fuji camera perhaps?
