p.3 #1 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else?
Mystik wrote:
Out of curiosity because I no longer own any EF glass, what happens if you use the metabones adapter, set the camera to AF, but hit the switch on the lens to MF? If you half press the shutter, does the body get tricked into thinking AF is working, and then focus confirmation via MF works?
Unfortunately it doesn't - the rectangle disappears completely. It is possible that your idea might work if one or several of the pins in the metabones adapter are covered. I haven't tried this.
p.3 #2 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else?
lens_payoff_0l wrote:
Another thought - from a NEWBIE - and I intend to create a separate post about this - how about SL2 or SL3 and then continue to use it with M lenses ? The adaptor is so skinny - you would not notice a difference.
The SL sort of takes me in same direction as the Nikon's, Sony's etc but with, I think, even a bigger body. I'm stuck between the two options:
1. getting a mirrorless that I just use as a test camera to see what the lenses do digitally, because I prioritise film anyway, or,
2. going for a Leica and alternating that as my primary everyday carry camera for when I'm not shooting film.
I'm starting to think if I do the later I will more prone to taking it out and shooting it more because I like the experience of that and not the adapted lens setup.
p.3 #3 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else?
Mystik wrote:
Oh yeah I have a ZF and the manual focus confirmation is a nice feature. The body is just kind of bulky and flange distance is longer so M mount lenses feel a bit awkward to use on it vs a compact body like the Ms or even the a7cr. Missed opportunity for sony not to include manual focus confirmation on their bodies. A z mount body will be harder to shrink down to rangefinder type dimensions because of the size of the mount.
Didn’t like the Zf body and sold it for the Z6 III. Have sold that too after the Shoten adapter came out. Still have the M11, but it’s up for sale.
p.3 #4 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else?
M246
Keeps you in the rangefinder experience.
Dedicates you to monochrome, in certain ways similar to the commitment to a roll of film once loaded.
Retains a certain "special" feeling to shooting it, that you aren't just following the masses with another adapted, techno-gizmo.
Certainly, could go M10M or M11M or Q2M / Q3M for a pure monochrome approach, but I think the M246 represents a very nice entry point, that allows you to retain the RF experience (in digital) and use of your M lenses (natively) ... M on M.
From there, you can make further decisions, but the M246 is a choice that doesn't have a lot of competing considerations from the non-Leica world regarding your use of M lenses. Could get a Pentax monochrome (APS-C) and adapt your M lenses maybe, but otherwise, it is a pretty targeted option that doesn't get confused by competing options.
Granted, dedicated monochrome takes color off the table, from a "general use" perspective. But, it strikes me that you aren't looking for a general use case ... use your Fuji for that. Rather, it seems you are looking to breathe new (digital) life into your beloved M glass with a rangefinder experience. The M246 does that in a way you may not have even considered ... not just retention of your RF + M ... but, also reinvigorating your mindset toward the attentiveness of monochrome, similar to the attentiveness of RF experience.
p.3 #5 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else?
damonnomonon wrote:
1. getting a mirrorless that I just use as a test camera to see what the lenses do digitally, because I prioritise film anyway, or,
I think you'll find a huge difference in how your lenses perform on film vs. digital. I had a bunch of M and LTM lenses that I had been using on digital for years before I started shooting film again and I was shocked at how different they looked on film. I almost stopped shooting film after my first roll, because so much of the subtlety and character that I love with those lenses on digital seemed to be completely missing from my film shots. I stuck with it and now mostly shoot film, but I think you'll find that the differences will be quite big.
So then it boils down to whether you want a rangefinder digital camera or a standard mirrorless. I chose standard mirrorless (in my case Sony but I'd probably choose Nikon Z if starting over) for two main reasons:
1. Different experience. I have a film Leica so I get the rangefinder experience that way. I like having a completely different experience in digital; I end up taking different kinds of photos and it keeps things fresh and offers different possibilities. For example, on digital I use a close-focus helicoid adapter for my M and LTM lenses that allows me to get much closer than I could with a rangefinder, which also results in beautiful and surprising changes to the rendering, especially bokeh. Standard mirrorless also opens the door to other kinds of lenses, including longer lenses or macro lenses that aren't practical on a rangefinder.
2. Cost: I have a self-imposed price limit for any camera, new or used, and all the digital Leicas are way over that limit. This is just my personal priority, not so much about affordability but practicality and other jobs that the money could do.
p.3 #6 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else?
RustyBug wrote:
M246
Keeps you in the rangefinder experience.
Dedicates you to monochrome, in certain ways similar to the commitment to a roll of film once loaded.
Retains a certain "special" feeling to shooting it, that you aren't just following the masses with another adapted, techno-gizmo.
Certainly, could go M10M or M11M or Q2M / Q3M for a pure monochrome approach, but I think the M246 represents a very nice entry point, that allows you to retain the RF experience (in digital) and use of your M lenses (natively) ... M on M.
From there, you can make further decisions, but the M246 is a choice that doesn't have a lot of competing considerations from the non-Leica world regarding your use of M lenses. Could get a Pentax monochrome (APS-C) and adapt your M lenses maybe, but otherwise, it is a pretty targeted option that doesn't get confused by competing options.
Granted, dedicated monochrome takes color off the table, from a "general use" perspective. But, it strikes me that you aren't looking for a general use case ... use your Fuji for that. Rather, it seems you are looking to breathe new (digital) life into your beloved M glass with a rangefinder experience. The M246 does that in a way you may not have even considered ... not just retention of your RF + M ... but, also reinvigorating your mindset toward the attentiveness of monochrome, similar to the attentiveness of RF experience.
+1. I second this statement from my own experience and using the M246. It is a fantastic monochrome camera which flies a bit under the radar these days with newer M10M and M11M models on the market. Even the newer models have better performance at high ISO, the M246 shines when it comes to getting punchy B&W images straight in camera and also in DNG format. It is the closest digital camera which comes to B&W film (I shoot both!). Hidden option with the M246 - the bit older sensor allows to take fantastic handheld IR photos with R72 filter attached to the lens and unmodified/original sensor just by cranking up ISO a bit. It works so well that I rarely use my IR-modified DSLR anymore for IR photos.
p.3 #7 · Should I buy a Leica M or something else?
damonnomonon wrote:
I'm interested in starting to use all of my M-mount lenses on more than just my film camera. What's your opinion on the best method for this? Should I buy a Leica that's within my budget, at this stage an M10 probably? Or should I get something else and use an adapter and save the cash? Will using a modern digital body (I'm not sure of the options here, is Nikon Zf one?) lead to the same results, image wise?
No correct answer here: weigh the factors acording to your needs and tolerance. Based on feedback from many owners, digital Leica M has too many problems and would never work for me. I do own two film Leica bodies, and a ton of M/LTM/V lenses. I have adapted Leica lenses since the Canon 1Ds, and the current MILC bodies are a dream for this purpose. Some WA are suboptimal optically (e.g. Elmarit 28 ASPH), but any standard or longer FL lenses work perfectly. That includes the problem child Sony Alpha and its thick sensor cover.
