RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #5 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else? | |
There are a few diff ways to approach this ... I'll take a diff path for the moment.
Having stated that you already have the Fuji, when and why do you choose to shoot your M lenses ... instead of opting for automation? Or, flip the question around the other way.
That said, I'd suggest to not look at the capability of putting M on Alt bodies, rather look at the experience of putting M on M. That (iiuc) is something you already have ... is that something you are TRYING to get RID of?
Then, (as a starting point), ask yourself if you'd think an SL body vs. an M body (both from Leica) is what you desire to put your M lenses on. Point being that OEM designs of OEM on OEM have a distinct "built for purpose" aspect to them that other mfr's simply do NOT. Case in point, that while Leica still requires an adapter for M > L use of M lenses. The SL2-S has a very thin sensor thickness and can be had for $2K (or less). Sure, the SL is larger than the M (as are the other mfr's) ... but you now open up a cadre of L and M mount lens options. At this point, many folks will jump back to the AF diff of a Sony or a Nikon vs. the SL2-S. Which loops us back to your earlier questions about your desire to get rid of the M experience. Decision / comparison migration is easy to slide down that slippery slope ... if one doesn't understand what it is they are trying to achieve. Back to M on M experience or, variant capabilities (which, does AF performance of Sony vs. Nikon vs. SL2-S really matter, anyway for use of M lenses).
Personally, my first recommendation would be that your M on M experience ... is likely to be best served by M on M experience. My second choice for retaining OEM > OEM performance of your M glass is to consider the SL of your choosing. The experience of M on M and M on SL are both satisfying for different reasons (imo). And, while the technical aspects of the SL aren't the same as an M body ... the sensor thickness of the SL2-S is a vastly closer to the M, than the other mfr's (i.e. OEM built for purpose).
Folks are quick to jump on Sony / Nikon, but often make a direct bypass beyond the Leica experience for adapting M lenses onto a non-M body. In doing so, they trade the OEM "built for purpose" of M > L implementation, as well. Do you like the Leica approach of simplification or do you prefer the Sony / Nikon approach. The tricky part is that until you spend some time with each adapted system, it is difficult to personally / directly compare how you'll like the implementation.
That said, having heard many folks talk about their use of M lenses on Nikon, I demo'd one (Sony also) in the store last year. As soon as I picked it up in my hands ... nah, the SL is still the one for me (and, I generally like Nikon stuff, had the FE for a decades with chromes). YMMV, of course, but I do think you have some "questions" to ask yourself, regarding your goals. For the most part, I think it involves an understanding of the difference between experience (implementation / simplicity) vs. the Siren's Song of capability (i.e. TechArt Adapter) vs. performance (OEM > OEM built for purpose).
Just some .02.
Anyway, HTH. GL with your mission of harnessing your M glass onto the digital realm.
P.S. You can also just start with an M > X adapter (with / without helicoid focusing) on your XT5, and shoot the zones A / B of your M lens projection, with less concern for the WA corners. When I had my Leica CL (APS-C), the 28/2.8 Elmarit made a dandy 42mm "normal" lens on the CL and on my Fuji X-Pro3. It's a relatively cheap and quick starting point for you to harness your M's, while you continue to consider (i.e. don't rush it) your longer term route.
|
