The Leica growth and hype over the last 10 years has been undeniable, driven by bearded young men with flat caps wearing M bodies on short straps like necklaces while documenting every coffee break on YouTube.
But for photographers getting started with Leica M — where should they start? Does the mythical "Leica look" with bokeh, light fall-off, center sharpness, micro-contrast, etc. of the lenses lead the way, or is it the Leica M rangefinder body and its particular way of shooting/seeing that marches upfront?
I fully understand people who say "body first" because they want that rangefinder experience. They might be street photographers who want to use zone focusing, and they care less if there is a Voigtländer, Ttartisan, Light Lens Lab, 7Artisans, or TTArtisans in front. Ultimate sharpness or rendering is never the primary goal — capturing the moment is.
Then there is the Leica lens enthusiast. It is all about the glass. And the manual focusing experience. It is about carefully crafting the photograph vs. capturing the moment, and they particularly enjoy the rendering.
Some people are lucky enough to have deep pockets and can load up on both Leica M bodies and lenses to maximize the combo.
I am curious — which camp do you fall into, and why? If you were to start over with Leica, would you invest in a Leica lens first, even shooting on your current mirrorless platform, and eventually end up on a Leica M or even SL body? Put it on a Nikon Zf even? Or would you happily spend the money on a digital M first and be happy with that — say, a Voigtländer 35/2 Ultron up front — and call it there?
Jun 11, 2026 at 01:45 AM
Previous versions of patotts's message #17053837 « Are you a Leica M camera or Leica lens person? »
