Makten wrote:
I've finally decided to start saving, and sell everything I own when it's about time. I don't care about the price anymore. I hate the bulk of my D700 and only use MF anyway. I love fast wideangles, light gear and minimalism. What could go wrong?
I don't know but you better save up for two just in case!
Makten wrote:
I've finally decided to start saving, and sell everything I own when it's about time. I don't care about the price anymore. I hate the bulk of my D700 and only use MF anyway. I love fast wideangles, light gear and minimalism. What could go wrong?
Haha, looks like we have to make our own leica sub-forum soon!
I haven't quite decided yet.
Or rather, I decided I want one. I haven't decided if I need one.
Seriously, a 28 and a 50 would get me far and I was sort of settled there but then I realized the ZM 21/4.5 is really nice. And a finder for it. And then the APO 75/2.
But I would like to keep the Sony A900 +Leica 28/ Contax 60mm lenses. I could actually be so very stupid and sell the 135/1.8 Zeiss, the Leica 100/2.8 and the 180/3.4 APO lenses. I decided I need less stuff but as good as I can afford so two systems with two three top tier lenses is manageable. But I would have to sacrifice some lenses in the process.
My position to invest in the Leica M is quite good, but if I do I can't afford to travel at all for quite some time as it means my traveling funds will be gone with the M-wind. If I soften the blow by parting with three lenses from my gigantic collection of five for the Sony I would at least be able to go somewhere and make good use of the M9.
I remember from last year I was in the same position with leaving Canon and the conclusion was that if I would switch or ditch (which I did, later on) I would have to make sure I would be able to go anywhere (which I couldn't) because during the winter I toss in my camera gear with the nearest bear and allow it to hibernate until the dark and cold winter has passed us by over here. Now I am the same spot and that bear is looking forward to using my camera bag as a pillow again and I am not sure I'd want him to dent the M9...
Hehe, same situation here. If I sell all my nikon gear, get a M9 + 35 1.4 and 50 1.1, I'm at zero. If i spend some savings, I can add a 21 color skopar and have a pretty decent travel kit. In a year or so, I'll get a 75 or 90mm, and be set.
You only need one lens anyway. Word of advice: the 50/1.4 ASPH and the 75 APO are very similar, in all respects. Similar design, similar strengths, etc. Get one or the other. I'd make that choice based on what lens you are pairing up with it. 35 + 75 or 28 + 50. Then go cheap for the rest - the Leica 90/2.8s are all pretty affordable and very good, and there are couple nice CV and Zeiss ultrawides. I went 28 + 50 and couldn't be happier. A lot seem to gravitate to the 35, so the 75 is a natural complement.
Whenever I travel, though I take 2 or 3 lenses, I invariably use one lens 95% of the time and a second one for the other 5%. I never touch the 3rd lens. haha.
I looked around a bit and the M9 seems to be the camera that Leica needs to find new customers. Compared to Canon and Nikon I think the M9 is a real upgrade on all accounts. The improvement in IQ seems to be much more linear compared to a 5D > 5DmkII where the 9mp added pixels do not result in this kind of gain.
And just to give my opintion on ISO. It actually matters how the images was exposed, at least for CCD sensors. Just setting the camera to 5000ISO and overexpose the image doesnt tell a lot on noise, CCD's eat up DR and there is no real gain in setting the camera to higher ISO's compared to the base ISO.
My M9 fever is subsiding. Healthy prescription of reality and keeping away from Ken Rockwell helps.
For a moment I was shopping for a used M8 at $2200, then I would be contemplating on spending a premium on a new M9.
Then it hit me: Leica or not - digital cameras are just consumer electronics with a very limited life span. Depreciation of electronics is legendary - nobody wants to be stuck with "last year's snow".
As a travel camera, both M8 or M9 probably would do the job, but lack of weather sealing keeps me wondering about Leica's durability. Also, with either camera I would be loosing AF and my long lenses, not too thrilled about that.
As my carry camera - I am leaning towards Olympus E-P1 or its descendant.
I came to the conclusion that I would like to have an M9, but just can not justify the expense. I'll shoot my old Canon for a while, and buy a 85mm f1.2 for $2000. Sounds almost like a bargain when you step away from Leica Land.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
I looked around a bit and the M9 seems to be the camera that Leica needs to find new customers. Compared to Canon and Nikon I think the M9 is a real upgrade on all accounts. The improvement in IQ seems to be much more linear compared to a 5D > 5DmkII where the 9mp added pixels do not result in this kind of gain.
This may be true, but you are also paying a lot more for the Leica upgrade than the Canon one. The price from M8.2 to M9 went up from $5400 to $7000, while the price from 5D to 5D mkII went down from $3200 to $2700.
agnius wrote:
I came to the conclusion that I would like to have an M9, but just can not justify the expense.
You are far from alone. In fact, people just like you way out number the people that can justify the expense. Therein lies the market potential for a more affordable, high-quality digital rangefinder. I suspect that this potential is not lost on Zeiss/Sony...
kidtexas wrote:
You only need one lens anyway. Word of advice: the 50/1.4 ASPH and the 75 APO are very similar, in all respects. Similar design, similar strengths, etc. Get one or the other. I'd make that choice based on what lens you are pairing up with it. 35 + 75 or 28 + 50. Then go cheap for the rest - the Leica 90/2.8s are all pretty affordable and very good, and there are couple nice CV and Zeiss ultrawides. I went 28 + 50 and couldn't be happier. A lot seem to gravitate to the 35, so the 75 is a natural complement. ...Show more →
Nice advice. I have a 28 Elmarit pre-ASPH and 50 Summicron that I was hoping to use on a M8. You didn't spec the camera. Are you talking 28/50 for the M8 and 35/75 for the M9?
In general. I shoot 28/50 on film. Maybe some day on an M9. Just in general, I feel that 35 and 50 are too close to use both a lot, as are 50 and 75. A lot of M8 shooters seemed to gravitate towards the 28/50 combo, which with the crop was kind of like a 35/75 combo. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I like my focal lengths to roughly double between my lenses. Anything else is too close for me. 15-28-50-90 is a nice progression. There's something similar with 21-35-75, or something like that
Yes, I do agree. I was thinking either the 15 Heliar or 21/4.5C Zeiss ZM to add to a 28/50 set for the M8. Problem is shifting to the M9 in a few years with 35/75.
kosmoskatten wrote:
My position to invest in the Leica M is quite good, but if I do I can't afford to travel at all for quite some time as it means my traveling funds will be gone with the M-wind. If I soften the blow by parting with three lenses from my gigantic collection of five for the Sony I would at least be able to go somewhere and make good use of the M9.
Dude, you dont need to travel, you're already in Sweden.
But it all depends on your photographic philosophy. Do you make photos or do you take them? If you make them ie you have a specific image on your mind, you then try to change the camera and the world to match it, therefore you need lenses.
If you take photos, then you're basically sorting out the visual chaos around you, plucking what looks interesting and matches your aesthetic. Seeing the world through a specific size frame helps heaps, you start to see photos everywhere and when your one shows up, you just press the button Having many options during that process can get confusing.
I'm clearly the latter, a 28 or 35 is fine. I bought the Ikon with the Biogon 35/2 because I wanted the f2. I know it will take me about a year to learn to work it properly and decide if the lens and generally the rangefinder experience works for me, then I'll decide if I want to jump on the Leica bandwagon. I dont wanna spend $10k on a kit that I might regret and I'm not in any hurry anyway (I luv my film )
I was kind of joking around about needing one lens. However I do think a careful selection of lenses will get you pretty much all you need. Much more than 3 or 4 lenses and you are just hauling around lenses and changing them all the time.
I think your plan is good. I started RF with just a 50 for a year. I found it a bit restricting, so I shot with just a 35 for a year. That was pretty good, but still a bit restrictive. So I sold it and got a 28. Now I'm good. A 28 gets me most of my shots, and I've got a 50 for the rest. I've picked up a 90 and 15 along the way, and though I like them, they would be the first to go, and are the first to be left home.
kidtexas wrote:
I think your plan is good. I started RF with just a 50 for a year. I found it a bit restricting, so I shot with just a 35 for a year. That was pretty good, but still a bit restrictive. So I sold it and got a 28. Now I'm good. A 28 gets me most of my shots, and I've got a 50 for the rest. I've picked up a 90 and 15 along the way, and though I like them, they would be the first to go, and are the first to be left home.
28 would probably be my first choice too, I can frame a 28 behind my back. But I wanted the f2 and some dof manipulation occasionally, the 28 dof starts getting a little a little too deep. And zeiss doesnt make a 28/2... bah, small differences anyway. Both good
