RoamingScott wrote:
Probably because both are equally unneeded for the majority of their buyers, who are desperately trying to validate their expenditures
The way I validate my photo expenditures is simple, and it has nothing to do with specs.
Will I enjoy using it? If yes that means I will actually use it and so wil be worthwhile.
Camera systems have now reached a point where most of them deliver more than sufficient IQ for nearly all photographers' needs. In the past, we chased ever-higher MP counts, sharper lenses and better color..Today the sensors and post-processing software are so good that outstanding results are possible even with smaller sensor cameras and much cheaper equipment. Not long ago I cared only about getting the best IQ, DR and higher resolution possible, especially for landscapes. I didn't pay much attention to body feel, camera aesthetics, size or even the overall shooting experience. Now I'm free to pick almost any brand and still get very similar output.
So yes, as Huss said, pick the camera and lens that bring you joy. If a well-built body like a Leica or Hasselblad gives you pleasure, that's absolutely fine. It's just no longer a necessity...it's a choice.
Same goes for the new Leica M EV1. If someone prefers an EVF instead of the rangefinder mechanism for focusing, so what. Pick the tool you prefer and the results won't change. And if the price is too steep or even seemly illogical, there are plenty of other great options out there...today we're spoiled for choice.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Camera systems have now reached a point where most of them deliver more than sufficient IQ for nearly all photographers' needs. In the past, we chased ever-higher MP counts, sharper lenses and better color..Today the sensors and post-processing software are so good that outstanding results are possible even with smaller sensor cameras and much cheaper equipment. Not long ago I cared only about getting the best IQ, DR and higher resolution possible, especially for landscapes. I didn't pay much attention to body feel, camera aesthetics, size or even the overall shooting experience. Now I'm free to pick almost any brand and still get very similar output.
So yes, as Huss said, pick the camera and lens that bring you joy. If a well-built body like a Leica or Hasselblad gives you pleasure, that's absolutely fine. It's just no longer a necessity...it's a choice.
Same goes for the new Leica M EV1. If someone prefers an EVF instead of the rangefinder mechanism for focusing, so what. Pick the tool you prefer and the results won’t change. And if the price is too steep or even seemly illogical, there are plenty of other great options out there...today we're spoiled for choice....Show more →
That’s why today I decided to sell all my Fuji X gear. Even my MFT cameras produce files I can easily print large, so I don’t need the somewhat larger sensor and higher resolution.
I keep the M11 and my other gear because it gives me more pleasure and fills a certain non-redundant role (for me), not because of the higher resolution.
johnvanr wrote:
That’s why today I decided to sell all my Fuji X gear. Even my MFT cameras produce files I can easily print large, so I don’t need the somewhat larger sensor and higher resolution.
Same here: I've printed and displayed pictures shot with MFT and nobody ever noticed or complained that I used a small format camera with a 5 or 10 years old sensor.
I love the output of the M11 but once printed, I hardly see the difference with something out of a Pen-F. Even a 16 Mpix GM-5 gives me good enough pictures. And why not? It has more Mpix than a M8 and almost as much as a M9.
Of course, in low lights or high-contrast, a better sensor will make the difference. But which percentage of my pictures would be better because I had a more expensive camera? Around 0%.
In fact, I'm not sure I shoot better pictures with a M11 or a AF IBIS modern camera than I would with a M4, M6 or any film SLR from the 70s or 80s.
pmeheut wrote:
In fact, I'm not sure I shoot better pictures with a M11 or a AF IBIS modern camera than I would with a M4, M6 or any film SLR from the 70s or 80s.
I'm guessing you mean *creatively/artistically* better images. With respect to technical quality, what I produce now on a consistent basis is significantly better than I produced even 10 years ago, but certainly 15-20+ years ago.
My problem now is that I have too many images after an event, but that's on me, not the gear.
rscheffler wrote:
I'm guessing you mean *creatively/artistically* better images. With respect to technical quality, what I produce now on a consistent basis is significantly better than I produced even 10 years ago, but certainly 15-20+ years ago.
Yes but what I'm saying is also "why do we care about better technical quality if not to produce better images aesthetically?".
For instance, to shoot sports or wildlife, modern gear is a blessing: AF, IBIS, better lenses, more affordable ones, high ISO will really help you produce images you would have a hard time shooting with a manual SLR on film.
But if I look at the best pictures I've produced in my life, some of them I've sold, exhibit or even won a photo competition with, they have nothing to do with the gear I've used. In fact, of them were shot with a M6 or a R6.2.
Of course, I hardly use this kind of camera anymore but my point is that we spend to much time obsessing over our camera and lenses. And when I say "we", I include myself of course.
Definitely daily joy (and motivation) is most important. That being said, I see a pretty big difference in output with the cutting edge stuff. A9iii lets me catches unseen slices of life that I could never before. With 102mpx 44x33 I can project in both IRL seamless stitch and high-res VR environments at nose-point viewing significantly larger (bigger advantage here than print imo).
Anyway back on topic, Map Camera has the EV1 posted for $7,950 tax-free and EU would be $7,150 or so tax free? The EU price seems relatively reasonable if you're already in the area.
ftllens wrote:
Definitely daily joy (and motivation) is most important. That being said, I see a pretty big difference in output with the cutting edge stuff. A9iii lets me catches unseen slices of life that I could never before. With 102mpx 44x33 I can project in both IRL seamless stitch and high-res VR environments at nose-point viewing significantly larger (bigger advantage here than print imo).
Anyway back on topic, Map Camera has the EV1 posted for $7,950 tax-free and EU would be $7,150 or so tax free? The EU price seems relatively reasonable if you're already in the area.
That's why I said that I still have multiple systems. I use my Fuji GFX almost exclusively for panoramic and square format. I use Canon for studio and for low light action. And I keep Nikon to be able to AF or fine tune the focus of my M lenses if I want to. But for me, Fuji X and MFT fulfill the exact same role and I prefer MFT, despite the smaller sensor and lower resolution.
Btw, I do wish there was one system that could do it all, but there just isn't, at least not for me.
johnvanr wrote:
That's why I said that I still have multiple systems. I use my Fuji GFX almost exclusively for panoramic and square format. I use Canon for studio and for low light action. And I keep Nikon to be able to AF or fine tune the focus of my M lenses if I want to. But for me, Fuji X and MFT fulfill the exact same role and I prefer MFT, despite the smaller sensor and lower resolution.
Btw, I do wish there was one system that could do it all, but there just isn't, at least not for me.
For me there is one system that can do everything you describe. Leica.
My M11 is my primary manual lens platform. Super high image quality, great form factor. Elegantly executed. I am very comfortable with the Range Finder and when I need another way to focus or compose there is the rear screen or Visoflex. Works great with either on or off camera lights in manual mode. My most used camera.
My SL3 is my AF, studio, event, bad weather camera. Again great with lighting, and tethers with Lightroom. With APO-SL lenses it delivers what I feel is the ultimate in FF image quality. It also serves as a fantastic EVF based M lens platform.
Convenience MTF camera is the little D-Lux 8.
All three cameras offer very similar menus, configurations, and workflow. With a great deal of cross compatibility between lenses and supporting equipment.
In the rare instances I need high speed and very advanced AF there is the Sony A1 and a few high performance zooms. But this is not a use case you mentioned, and one I haven't used in over a year, so could likely be left out for both of us and rented on the rare occasions we need it.
I find this much more simple and cost effective than 4 cameras from 4 manufacturers with all the different workflows, menus, lens mounts, and accessories to deal with. I like to keep things as simple as possible.
1bwana1 wrote:
For me there is one system that can do everything you describe. Leica.
My M11 is my primary manual lens platform. Super high image quality, great form factor. Elegantly executed. I am very comfortable with the Range Finder and when I need another way to focus or compose there is the rear screen or Visoflex. Works great with either on or off camera lights in manual mode. My most used camera.
My SL3 is my AF, studio, event, bad weather camera. Again great with lighting, and tethers with Lightroom. With APO-SL lenses it delivers what I feel is the ultimate in FF image quality. It also serves as a fantastic EVF based M lens platform.
Convenience MTF camera is the little D-Lux 8.
All three cameras offer very similar menus, configurations, and workflow. With a great deal of cross compatibility between lenses and supporting equipment.
In the rare instances I need high speed and very advanced AF there is the Sony A1 and a few high performance zooms. But this is not a use case you mentioned, and one I haven't used in over a year, so could likely be left out for both of us and rented on the rare occasions we need it.
I find this much more simple and cost effective than 4 cameras from 4 manufacturers with all the different workflows, menus, lens mounts, and accessories to deal with. I like to keep things as simple as possible....Show more →
I feel much the same way. My M11 has been my most used camera and feel it can do everything except sports and wildlife. I'm starting to transition away from my Sony gear for the Leica SL3 which I recently purchased. It will fulfill my AF needs but still allow me to use M-mount lenses. I've had Fuji GFX for a few months primarily for landscape shooting and the various crop modes. But that system will be sold very soon for the Hasselblad X2D II. The Hassy is so much more fun to shoot and I love the simplicity of the camera and its menus. Besides the M11, it is the mst fun camera to use. And there it is, the Fuji GFX system is a great medium format digital system but I get so much more joy when I shoot the Hassy and the files that it produces. And like you, Steve, the little Leica D-Lux has its place when I go skiing or biking or hiking. It gives me wonderul images in such a small package.
With over 55 years with camera in hand I've become camera manufacturer agnostic. Although my needs could be seen as simplistic and undemanding there is no one camera model, system or manufacturer that meets all my needs.
1bwana1 wrote:
For me there is one system that can do everything you describe. Leica.
My M11 is my primary manual lens platform. Super high image quality, great form factor. Elegantly executed. I am very comfortable with the Range Finder and when I need another way to focus or compose there is the rear screen or Visoflex. Works great with either on or off camera lights in manual mode. My most used camera.
My SL3 is my AF, studio, event, bad weather camera. Again great with lighting, and tethers with Lightroom. With APO-SL lenses it delivers what I feel is the ultimate in FF image quality. It also serves as a fantastic EVF based M lens platform.
Convenience MTF camera is the little D-Lux 8.
All three cameras offer very similar menus, configurations, and workflow. With a great deal of cross compatibility between lenses and supporting equipment.
In the rare instances I need high speed and very advanced AF there is the Sony A1 and a few high performance zooms. But this is not a use case you mentioned, and one I haven't used in over a year, so could likely be left out for both of us and rented on the rare occasions we need it.
I find this much more simple and cost effective than 4 cameras from 4 manufacturers with all the different workflows, menus, lens mounts, and accessories to deal with. I like to keep things as simple as possible....Show more →
We’re all different. While I’d love to have one brand to do it all, it wouldn’t work for me. The SL line is too slow and too large for me and I don’t need the resolution it provides. I also consider it too expensive. Both my Canon and MFT kits are much faster than any Leica and since I do shoot protests, moving models and wildlife, speed sometimes matters.
I also realized that I’m much more comfortable carrying a kit that I fully trust and can easily afford over a kit that I feel I have to treat gingerly in order not to knock thousands of its resale value. For example, only Leica and OM System adhere to an official weathersealing norm, but I can buy three OM-1s for one Leica.
The M is the exception to this thinking, because I do like it. And I love its small footprint combined with stellar IQ, even though I don’t need that resolution most of the time.
I don’t like the different menus and I try to assign similar roles to similarly positioned buttons on each camera, but also generally, once you set up the gear for a particular use case, it’s not that hard.
johnvanr wrote:
We’re all different. While I’d love to have one brand to do it all, it wouldn’t work for me. The SL line is too slow and too large for me and I don’t need the resolution it provides. I also consider it too expensive. Both my Canon and MFT kits are much faster than any Leica and since I do shoot protests, moving models and wildlife, speed sometimes matters.
I also realized that I’m much more comfortable carrying a kit that I fully trust and can easily afford over a kit that I feel I have to treat gingerly in order not to knock thousands of its resale value. For example, only Leica and OM System adhere to an official weathersealing norm, but I can buy three OM-1s for one Leica.
The M is the exception to this thinking, because I do like it. And I love its small footprint combined with stellar IQ, even though I don’t need that resolution most of the time.
I don’t like the different menus and I try to assign similar roles to similarly positioned buttons on each camera, but also generally, once you set up the gear for a particular use case, it’s not that hard. ...Show more →
My usage:
70% Leica M both film and digital
10% Sony A7R - for macro/close-up and sometimes landscape with Canon 17-40/4 EF L lens
10% Canon 5D MkII - one IR-converted and use with EF L lenses, my regular 5D MkII for everything when I actually need AF for wildlife/bird/event photography which doesn't happen often. Also for rare night/star photography with Canon 100-400 lens with teleconverter.
10% Medium format film with mostly my Hasselblad 500 C/M.
The EV1 camera would replace at this point my A7R and some work I am doing with my digital M rangefinder cameras. But my usage of it does not jutify its current cost by far. Pretty much a nice-to-have at some point but not a must for me - I can use my current tools.
70% Leica M both film and digital
10% Sony A7R - for macro/close-up and sometimes landscape with Canon 17-40/4 EF L lens
10% Canon 5D MkII - one IR-converted and use with EF L lenses, my regular 5D MkII for everything when I actually need AF for wildlife/bird/event photography which doesn't happen often. Also for rare night/star photography with Canon 100-400 lens with teleconverter.
10% Medium format film with mostly my Hasselblad 500 C/M.
The EV1 camera would replace at this point my A7R and some work I am doing with my digital M rangefinder cameras. But my usage of it does not jutify its current cost by far. Pretty much a nice-to-have at some point but not a must for me - I can use my current tools. ...Show more →
Interesting. Over time my usage has changed considerably.
1.Some years ago when I felt safer in my main big cites and landscape = M 100%
2.Tried a Phase P45+ on an old Hasselblad SWC then landscape became 85% that and 15% M
3.Now as I shoot more landscape that an "street" if one wants to call it that =last year SL=98%, street =M 2%
4.So far this year after getting the X2Dii for landscape=100%, but later this year will be adapting old Hasselblad lenses I assume have nice character on the SL3 and X2Dii for general use and portraiture.
70% Leica M both film and digital
10% Sony A7R - for macro/close-up and sometimes landscape with Canon 17-40/4 EF L lens
10% Canon 5D MkII - one IR-converted and use with EF L lenses, my regular 5D MkII for everything when I actually need AF for wildlife/bird/event photography which doesn't happen often. Also for rare night/star photography with Canon 100-400 lens with teleconverter.
10% Medium format film with mostly my Hasselblad 500 C/M.
The EV1 camera would replace at this point my A7R and some work I am doing with my digital M rangefinder cameras. But my usage of it does not jutify its current cost by far. Pretty much a nice-to-have at some point but not a must for me - I can use my current tools. ...Show more →
Depends how I'd count that. In terms of what camera I carry, the M11 is up there. But in terms of shots taken, my OM1 II reigns supremely, because that's the camera I mostly take to fast-moving events, followed by the Canon R6II. The R5 ranks behind those, but only when I shoot models.
johnvanr wrote:
But in terms of shots taken, my OM1 II reigns supremely
Indeed. Great camera and fantastic set of lenses. If only it would fit in a PEN-F body...
Hasselblad 60%
Sony A1ii 20%
GFX100sii 10%
Everything else 10%
From this you'd think Leica (most of the 10%) isn't preferred but the reality is that after the X2D's I'd really like to be using the Leica's more. Just that I took a 3-week trip to Botswana and the A1ii took a LOT of frames. I did actually carry my M's a bit more this year it's just that the frame count was low. I still prefer to have the build and menus of an SL3 over an A1ii but you're not shooting BiF with a Leica unless you enjoy a low hit rate. The GFX will get less use next year as I now have a fast focusing zoom for the Hasselblad.
My general impressions going forward are that I'll use the X2D2 even more this year. It's shooting envelope is really quite big now. Until a longer zoom comes the GFx100Sii will get used as well. I have another wildlife trip coming so the Sony's will get a go. I do intend to see how the S1Rii shoots animals as well. I generally don't need the high frame rates. But I guess I'll want the superior pre capture of the Sony. I do want to see what I can get on the 500mm on the GFX though.
I see the EV1 increasing my M usage. I'm enjoying it and I've pulled the WATE and 135 telyt out of the cupboard. I have my setting dialed in now and it's a fun daily carry. It won't shoot a huge number of frames but it will be a daily companion alternating with my M11 Safari (which will never go on safari) and my Q3-43. Again, the M has a larger shooting envelope, for me with the EV1. And I'm having a good time with it.
I see the M EV1 Facebook group now over 900, currently 943. As suspected I think as more and more buy and use the latest Leica camera the M EV1( actual owners) the tone will shift toward positive experience.
One (Gareth Brown) Facebook Leica M EV1 Facebook group member wrote, "8 reasons why I bought an EV1"
