rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #20 · Do you also shoot non-canon gear? | |
Apologies in advance for what turned out to be a very long post. 
Pre and post 2010 I shot with Canon 1D series DSLRs. They did what I needed for most of what I photographed, but they were PITAs for casual use; for fun. I was also getting somewhat frustrated with AF not performing well with wide angle focal lengths - often focusing behind the intended subject because something in the background was a higher contrast target. And the manual focusing experience with DSLRs was degraded compared to the pre-AF days, due to various compromises made to focusing screens in AF cameras, so that wasn't a generally viable solution for the AF problem (prior to live view). Plus I didn't want to add a bunch of huge Zeiss ZE manual focus lenses to the already huge 1D cameras and EF lenses I was hauling around.
In 2009 Leica released the M9, their first full frame digital rangefinder camera. A camera several years earlier they said they didn't think they could ever produce.
I had owned a Leica M3 and a couple M lenses about 20 years previously and in the naivety of my youth, didn't really give myself the time to gel with it. I was keen on cutting edge technology of the time (AF capable SLRs) and didn't appreciate the niche capabilities of the rangefinder system.
But fast forward to 2009 and I was intrigued by the M9 and started to look into it as a serious complementary system alongside my Canon gear for actual 'work' work. And specifically, a system that would allow me to easily and accurately focus high quality wide angle lenses (this was at the tail end of the period during which Canon generally had lackluster wide angle lenses). I was also intrigued by the size of the camera, but more so, the very small size of the lenses, combined with the very high image quality of those lenses. Basically, it would be a small system I could easily carry around for 'found' photography opportunities and generally just for fun.
In 2010 I got lucky and found an M9 being retired by Lens Rentals from their rental pool, at a fair used price, when otherwise anything Leica new or used was selling for above MSRP due to price speculators jumping into the huge availability vacuum caused by the unprecedented (for Leica) popularity of the M9, which also caused a massive shortage of lenses. Because of course many who had previously been into Leica M and now wanted to get the M9, had sold off their previous M lenses because it seemed to be a dead end dying system. A shortage later compounded by the introduction of Sony FF mirrorless and the rush to adapt anything and everything legacy/vintage to those cameras. I added a few Zeiss ZM lenses because they were affordable, available and the easiest way to flesh out a mini system at a reasonable price so that I could put the concept of the M system as an accompaniment to my Canon system to real world evaluation.
And this time, the M system clicked with me. I really enjoyed using the M9 for a more 'contemplative' approach. Indeed, as hoped and expected, rangefinder focusing of wide angle lenses was extremely easy and precise. And the whole concept of looking through a window rather than seeing the actual view of the lens, like with a DSLR, added an interesting interpretive layer to composing images. Because I couldn't exactly see what I was composing, I had to imagine how I wanted it to be based on what I saw through the viewfinder window (things like depth of field consideration, parallax compensation, the inherent framing imprecision of the viewfinder frame lines for a given focal length, etc.). This generally meant actual results were usually slightly different than what had been imagined. Which was kind of a small nostalgic step back to the days of shooting film and not really knowing what you had until you developed the film. With the M9, of course being digital, one could check the LCD to confirm composition. So that delayed gratification was only perhaps a few seconds instead of hours, days or weeks. But it was different and enough of a step back towards a more 'analog' photographic experience that made it feel like you had to work harder to get the results you expected. In other words, it was more challenging. And when everything aligned, felt a lot more rewarding. And that point in the digital M evolution, IMO, was not the (relatively) refined process it is now. The M9 was slow and buggy. The UX was that of a very early 2000s digital camera. You couldn't force it to work the way you wanted it to, or faster than it wanted to. Rather, you had to find its limits and conform your approach to stay within those limits. Otherwise the camera might lock up while writing to the card and send those images into the great ethereal beyond. It was a camera that could and would bite you, sometimes badly. It didn't have umpteen nanny systems to keep you from photographically crashing and burning. That meant it forced you to find its limits and use those experiences to push it to the edge of those limits without pushing it too far.
This was quite the contrast to the 'safe' and sanitized DSLR experience where everything was generally a lot more predictable. IOW, somewhat boring. Yeah, the M9 and those tiny jewels of lenses were thrilling to use in a certain way that a DSLR couldn't touch.
The added bonus, from the perspective of a GAS gear-head, Leica's deep M system history meant there was a massive back catalog of intriguing lenses not only from Leica, but also from Canon, Nikon, Konica, Minolta, Voigtlander, Zeiss... each with often interesting characteristics. Otherwise, how else could one justify acquiring 10+ 50mm lenses?  Because of course, each one has unique character!
Anyway, the inevitable slide down the slippery slope that is stepping into Leica ownership meant that those initial Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses were gradually replaced by their Leica equivalents. By that point, the shock of spending 3, 4, 5,000+ for a 'mere' 28/2, 50/1.4 or 90/2 lens, let alone approaching Canon 'big white' pricing for a 28/1.4 or 21/1.4, had been numbed to that of the required cost to play.
Yes, I do think Leica's glass can be special. It's difficult to quantify and IMO a situation one has to try for oneself to understand. And yes, if the M system gels with you, it's a very rewarding system to work with. I still enjoy it, but I do not use it now as much as I did between 2010 and 2022. More recently I've been building out my Canon mirrorless system as I transitioned from those 1D series DSLRs. And that has dominated the budget and my attention. Mirrorless has addressed many of the shortcomings I experienced with DSLRs, to the point where it effectively does what both DSLRs and the Leica M system did when I used them side by side for 'work' work. And it's no longer necessary to buy a 1D-sized camera to get the performance of a 1D class camera. The R5/R6 class does that now very competently. And those are much smaller than a 1 series camera, which means I'm now more likely to also use mirrorless for fun, which in turn means it's more likely to displace the M system.
As @burningheart touched upon: the more systems, the more choice, the more choice paralysis. Leica purists are often very good at taking a camera and one lens on their months long adventures or projects. I’m not built that way. I like lens choices. And with Leica M, the small lenses meant the space penalty for carrying 3 or 4 wasn’t that great. I still like the M system lenses but the next project will be to see how well they adapt to the R5II, as it’s a much better camera than my most recent Leica, the M240. IBIS for one thing, is for me at least, a big benefit. But there are still situations where the rangefinder has an advantage. And the aesthetic of the M camera can also have certain advantages. I plan to keep using it and just have to figure out how it will mesh with my Canon mirrorless collection.
|
