Digital M In Light Of Nikon D200

[mike dixon]

If I were going to buy a digital M, the two primary reasons for doing so would be that 1) it allows me to use the Leitz glass that I alreay have, and 2) it allows me to shoot digital with a rangefinder. I don't think I'll be buying one until they come out with a full-frame sensor, though (and even then it's questionablbe whether I'd spend what it will cost).

 

If I'm going to shoot with an SLR, I'll stick with my full-frame 5D--it has great performance in low-light, manual focus is good (for an SLR), image quality is comparable to medium format film, and (best of all) it's already paid for.

[Jochen_S]

My 2nd system is Pentax. - Manual focusing DSLRs isn't what I'd call fun.

 

I picked RFs up with digital in mind and hope I'll be able to make it there, at least to some Epson for the 15mm... - If shooting SLRs is the really right thing, why are we able to enjoy our film RFs at all?

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>Eliot Rosen Photo.net Patron, apr 24, 2006; 06:18 p.m.

Depreciation of an M digital in an industry that is still experiencing rapid changes in technology is an issue. However, if history is guide, Leica still made and sold film cameras despite the advancement in film camera technology, addition of AF, built-in motors, multi-pattern metering, etc. etc.</i></p>

 

Exactly. Leica has not paid any heed to the specifications of other marques, has not given a whistle that technology has passed them by. The loyal fanciers continue to line up with cash in hand for each successive product introduction and maintain staunchly if not rabidly that Leica is irrefutably superior.

 

</p><i>Wealthy doctors, dentists, and collectors are the only Leica users who could possibly be interested in a digital M. Well, maybe a chiropractor here and there. Or possibly a veterinarian. No one else.</i></p>Perhaps in the states, but over here with socialised medicine I doubt the average practitioner can be quite so cavalier.

[ruben_osuna_guerrero]

"Does an f/1 lens on full frame still remain f/1 on a cropped sensor?"

 

In terms of luminosity the response is "yes".

In terms of minimum DoF the response is "no". You must to multiply by the crop factor:

1*1,33 = 1,33. So you have the equivalent of a f/1.4 lens in terms of DoF.

[nels]

Thanks for the clarification, Ruben.

 

So how would the Leica loyalists feel about their cherished Nocti's becoming f/1.33 as regards DOF? What will they have to brag about then?:-)

[EricM]

"You must to multiply by the crop factor: 1*1,33 = 1,33. So you have the equivalent of a f/1.4 lens in terms of DoF."

 

I don't think so? What ever dof you have at a given f stop you still have regardless of sensor crop or film. If for arguement sake you shoot 50mm at f4 on film and have say 8 inches of in focus dof, when you put that lens on say a 1.5 crop factor digi, you have 75mm focal length with the same 8 inches of in focus dof. That's my take. It sure is nice though having this crop factor and longer focal lenghts with fast f stops.

[akochanowski]

Hey Eric, it's getting closer... I may be a yellow and black Nikon man soon.

[EricM]

I think you'll like this camera Andy. No one's complaining about a thing with it. The viewfinder is great, not the best, but great. They say the D2x has the brightest and largest finder on all the dslr's, not sure about that or if it's Nikonian hype, but I hardly notice a diff when I pick up the two cameras and I'm in low light all the time. But whatever makes one shoot and play is my slant on it all.

 

Max, sorry just noticed your valuable Canon info re lenses. Thanks man! But what a drag, even the latest Canon lenses don't fit on the latest bodies? And the best wide primes are offered by third rate third parties? Hmm...no wonder everone gets an adapter for Leica glass!

[max_fun]

Eric, the lens does not fit the 5D because it's meant for APS-C sensors, not full frame; using it on a full frame camera will give you severe vignetting. Digital is a whole different kettle of fish that needs quite a bit of research before it actually makes sense. Also, I recommended the Sigma 20mm lens because it's the fastest 20mm lens for Canon/Nikon systems. Heck, I don't even know of any other manufacturer that has a 20mm lens that's f/1.8 or faster.

 

Still, your argument for the lack of wide angle lenses doesn't seem to make sense with a full-frame camera, since using fast wide angle lenses is one of the benefits of using full-frame.

 

Andy, I see that you're sellilng your 1yr old M7. I guess this really show the difference in style; some people likes SLRs, some prefer rangefinders.

[akochanowski]

Or it could be that I have another M body...

 

Max, I know the difference between RF and SLR's quite well. I also know something about digital imaging. In my opinion, whatever minor differences there are bewtween lenses are trivial compared to the processing and post-processing software, and even the choice of sensors and anti-aliasing filters that come into play in digital photography. As far as I was concerned, the only thing that made the DM remotely appealing-- though only at a second-hand price-- was the idea of a smallish body that could crank out 10MP files (good enough for 16x20 prints) coupled with good quality manual focus lenses. Hence my original question.

[max_fun]

<i>As far as I was concerned, the only thing that made the DM remotely appealing-- though only at a second-hand price-- was the idea of a smallish body that could crank out 10MP files (good enough for 16x20 prints) coupled with good quality manual focus lenses.</i>

<p>

Andy, have you read all the stuff that the various RF users have listed as the differences between the RF and SLR? These are some of the reasons why people buy and use the M. If you don't find these 'appealling', then you might as well just sell your other M and get a Hassy.

<p>

I really can't understand why you can't or don't want to acknowledge the differences. I found that moving from DSLR to M was a huge paradigm shift in how I see and approach my photos. Maybe because it has a lesser impact on you that all you can recognise is the physical size difference. But even then, people who 'needs' to work light would say that the size difference is great enough incentive to replace the DSLR with a digital rangefinder. Obviously not your case. Still, if you have to look so hard to find a 'reason' to buy a Digital M, probably the whole rangefinder thing is not for you. If all you really want is the Leica experience, then just get an R; great range of lenses including zooms.

[beau 1664876222]

"In my opinion, whatever minor differences there are bewtween lenses are trivial compared to the processing and post-processing software..."

 

I feel just the opposite. For me the look of a wide-open summicron is a central part of the effect I'm after for my pictures. If I could start with that look, I feel like all the other variables could be more or less managed (at least for color pictures). But there's no way my Nikon lenses, or my Pentax lenses, or my Hasselblad lenses, nice as they all are, can create that specific look no matter what I do post-exposure.

[akochanowski]

Max, I guess I find the whole "RF experience" to be largely contrived. I quite like the Leica M as it is because it feels very nice in the hand and is small and takes small, fast, wonderful lenses. The viewfinder experience is fine, but it just doesn't make or break the process of taking photographs. For every situation where it's nice to see a bit beyond the frame lines, one could also be limited by not seeing the available DOF. A good film SLR viewfinder like the OM4T I also shoot with is enormous, clean, and bright. Anyone who thinks they miss a shot because they have a 35mm SLR next to their eye instead of a Leica is fooling themselves-- they missed the shot because they weren't good enough to take it. (I speak from plenty of experience there)

 

I've shot hundreds of rolls of film on the street, literally getting in people's faces and never had the snik-snik of a mirror in my OM cause me to lose a shot I "would" have gotten if I had used a Leica that day. With all due respect because I don't know what you shoot, but much of the RF "advantages" I read about on this forum seem to come from people who read each others' posts-- certainly the photographers I know who shoot with Leica M's will tell you they like the heft and the lenses, but never have I heard of a photographer who actually uses one in the street say they use a Leica M because of the viewfinder, sorry.

 

I guess I just don't get the whole quasi-mystical experience that seems to turn up when you mix Leicas and Internet forums. Why can't people just admit they like a nice, well-turned out camera and leave it at that?

 

As for the DM, I think it will be purchased almost entirely by people like Elliott Rosen, who don't like blobby cameras. Enough said about that.

 

 

Beau, let's agree to disagree on this issue. Shooting RAW with a good converter program allows a whole lot of fine tuning.

[dennis_couvillion]

"...but never have I heard of a photographer who actually uses one in the street say they use a Leica M because of the viewfinder, sorry."

 

One of the reasons I use a Leica M on the street is the viewfinder. I just prefer a rangefinder to an SLR and IMO the Leica M viewfinder is top notch. To each his own...

 

Dennis

[robert_clark]

I tend to agree with Max, in that you obviously don't read other peoples reasons for using M's well enought to actually digest them Andy. Ironic since you complained of this to someone earlier in the thread.

 

I've spoken to a number of street shooters who do use M's for the better viewfinder, and I'm one of them. I also use a Pentax LX, which, like the OM4ti has a great, bright viewfinder - with the newer screen it seems to me even brighter and easier to use than the OM and is just as bright as the Leica M6.

 

However, in dull light, at wide apertures, it is much more difficult to focus accurately than the M. A good rangefinder snaps positively into focus and even at f1.4 you know you've got the focus. With an SLR, my experience is that often there is manual hunting, since the focus aids become far less distinct, and then the focus can be marginally out.

 

A good example of this for me was photographing at f1.4 women moving around and lighting candles in a Kathmandu temple , the M was much, much more accurate than the SLR. This is for me an important difference and one that many people say keeps them using M's. If you don't shoot in low light it might not be important to you, but don't dismiss its value to others.

 

I've also, consistently, found that I can hand-hold the M at shutter speeds lower than any SLR - sometimes up to two stops. This can also be important to low-light photographers.

 

These strengths should be carried over just as well into the digital model, making for a small, quiet, low light instrument, a very positive advance for some of us.

 

If you're into action photography where you need to focus on things on the move, and can't easily prefocus, then the ground glass focusing of an SLR makes it much easier for rough and ready accuracy. As does auto focus.

 

The best point you make, is that both cameras have strengths and that some will appeal more to some than to others, depending on shooting style and shooting circumstances.

 

Good luck with the D200.

[rj]

I would like to respond to Terence Mahoney's response up above when he says "Leica has not paid any heed to the specifications of other marques, has not given a whistle that technology has passed them by."

 

This is the superiority of the Leica M, for me. It is the fact that Leica hasn't jammed the technology and the specifications of the other camera makers into their cameras, forcing another "me too" product into the marketplace. They have thankfully kept the cameras functionally similar over the years and have kept the operational controls simple and the lenses great. I would never had bought a Leica if they had gone down a different route and competed with Nikon and Canon or whatever new technological wonder laden camera is at the top.

 

The loyal fanciers line up with cash in hand precisely because the M camera system is different than other slr systems, and that it is a camera system that is built with professional robustness and reliability.

[mike dixon]

<i>Why can't people just admit they like a nice, well-turned out camera and leave it at that?</i><P>

Why can't you accept that other people have legitimate reasons for prefering to work with a rangefinders instead of an SLRs? Or is any rationale for doing things differently than you do a matter of contrivance?

[max_fun]

Just another note, I'd spoken with Alex Webb, a Magnum photographer, why he exclusively uses an M, and he told me that it was because of the viewfinder. He likes it that with the RF, you can see everything clearly and you don't have the DOF effect you get with the SLR.

[cabophoto]

Max,

 

yes, I know Alex and that he loves the M Leicas. So did David Alan Harvey, who shoots Nikon DSLRs now...

 

Carsten

[max_fun]

Carsten, there's no rule that says that people can't change their preference; I was a fully SLR person for awhile. But it doesn't say anything about the advantage or disadvantage of using a rangefinder.

[cabophoto]

Max,

 

that is true. My point is that the advantages of a rangefinder may not be the most important factor. I used SLRs when I was young and switched to rangefinders (Leica M6) in 1991. From then on to late 2004 I used them almost exclusively, so I guess I can claim I know the advantages and disadvantages. Now I'm shooting D200's almost exclusively becuase they offer some advantages the Leicas can't offer at the moment. Of course I'd love to have an RF camera with the performance of the D200, but so far it's simply not there. I'm curious about the digital M, but I have my doubts. Still, no sense in speculating; let's just see what Leica will show us at Photokina.

 

Carsten

[max_fun]

Carsten, my point is that each photographer has their own personal style. Some only shoot LF, some only shoot MF some only shoot RF. Just because your style slant towards one format doesn't mean that the benefits of using other formats don't exist. I shoot mainly 35mm but I will still acknowledge some of the advantages of shooting MF or LF.

[cabophoto]

Max,

 

>>Some only shoot LF, some only shoot MF some only shoot RF

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here ;-)

 

As I said, for instance David Alan Harvey used to shoot only RF for years (just as I did, but he's in a different league). After discovering digital cameras, he switched to SLRs. I think your statement "some only shoot RF" may be true in some specific cases, but not in general.

 

For quite a while I believed in the "an RF camera is less obtrusive, less noisy etc. etc. stuff" and I think it has made me a better photographer, for it forced me to push further (thinking "if I don't get a good picture here, it's certainly not the camera's fault, but mine"). However, now that I've switched back to (D)SLRs mainly because there is no decent digital RF camera around, I realized that one's vision is so much more important than the type of camera one uses.

 

Of course your mileage may vary, as they say.

 

Cheers

 

Carsten

[max_fun]

Argh Carsten! You're not getting the point... I'm not saying everybody only shoot 1 format/style; I use both RF and SLR depending on the requirement. But just because they use only one format, it doesn't mean that other formats don't have their advantages, and similarly even if David switched to DSLR, doesn't mean that the RF will suddenly become loud, and the viewfinder become small and dark. The whole world can switch to DSLR, but the M will still remain the same.

 

You don't have to be defensive about switching to the D200; whatever rocks your boat man, but we are discussing how some people enjoy the advantages afforded by using the RF and there are also pros (not all) who will only use it. Other photographers may not agree, but that's just individual styles.

[jim_britt1]

having spent most of my professional life shooting slr's, Nikon first and then Leica and

really, REALLY appreciating the quality of the Leitz lenses in the days of Kodachrome when

everyone else was saying how contrasty it was and I was loving K 64, 40 rolls a day on a

fashion shoot on the beach... I shot with my daughter-in-laws D200 now four times and

am blown away. Since being retired and living in ketchum, ID where the labs are non-

existent (pro labs.. black labs are abundant) and scanning dirty film, I am definitely going

to go with the Canon D5 (as I have the lenses) and have done some comparisons. Digital

makes my life much more simple and especially with the epson 4800 printer and

photoshop... life goes on and I still have my '72 M4 which I'll never get rid of, but SLR's

still seem to be the way to go and I agree, with auto focus and zooms, the "street" camera

seems to be the digital SLR. nobody notices it at all... it's quick and pretty silent and as

long as you are not looking at each image after you shoot, it's unubtrusive. That seems to

be the major fault of digital shooters, looking at each picture rather that "being in the

moment" and looking later. Fun thread and the Cuban photos are brilliant!