philip_wilson

For me the big issue would be the viewfinder - while EVFs are a lot better than they used to be I find that I still get on much better with an optical system. This is obviously a very personal view as many people like EVFs. I also like to be able to focus manually which I find very hard when zooming on an EVF.

Couple from today - limited by travel restrictions and distancing Leica M240 first with Leica R 35-70 F4, second with Voigtlander 90 F3.5 (old screw mount type). First is Gap lake and Mt Lougheed Alberta and the second is the three sisters just nearby.

As Ken says set them both manually to the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture. My old 5DII is as close to identical exposure setting as my other Canons (and even other brands). You should also check to make sure you have exposure compensation off - set to zero.

I have had the Canon lens for several years and I am very happy with it - one of the best bargains in their range. It is a little soft at F1.8 but good from F2 onwards. AF is fast and accurate. While you may save with the other lens the Canon lens holds it value well so you can get a lot of the difference back if you later sell it. I also suggest that you get the lens hood - if I remember this is an extra.

I just played with this set up - Interestingly the Waistlevel Fn locks onto my Old F1 (the AE finder I tried did not lock) It seems to focus OK and if you lift you eye and look sideways you can see the meter. As you can see I was using the regular FN Waist level finder as I don't have the 6x model. That said with the 17F4 it seems to focus fine. Interestingly while it goes onto the old F1 body fine and locks it is quite difficult to remove.

I have an M6 .72 that I have had for many years and it is a great camera. I also shoot digital Leica with an M8 and M240. While the frame lines for wide angle lenses on the M6 are not ideal with wide angle lenses I don't find this a big deal. To be fair the M240 is not a lot better for framing. The simple fact is that in the real world I don't find framing at wide angles a major issue. You can always crop and there are other challenges at wide angle (flare being a big one). With an SLR you can see it in the viewfinder. With a rangefinder (especially at very wide angles say my 12mm) I throw an accessory finder in the hot shoe but don't use it as much as you might expect. I find you shoot a Leica based on feel and composition is just one of many challenges. I often shoot with a 24mm and 21mm lens and find you just keep both eyes open and estimate. In essence it is very different from shooting and SLR and this is why I still like them. I would not worry to much about the magnification - just buy a good body

Not trying to add confusion but with large telephoto lenses and a glassless adapter you can focus at infinity. This is because the FD tele lenses actually allow focus beyond infinity to allow for thermal effects. Thus my FD 300 F2.8 works fine on my EOS bodies with an Ed Mika Adapter

Finders are not interchangeable between the New F1 (3rd version) and the original F1. The New F1 finder will not even lock onto the original F1 - it will slide on. I just tried for you. It feels like the distance between the focusing screen and the finder may be slightly different between the first and third version of this camera. I suggest you try and get

By the way the 1.4x is a much better TC than either of the 2x TCs

Yes I have for some years - both on m4/3 and Leica. The lens works great but I have found two issues. On the m4/3 body it can be difficult to see the exact impact of tilt or shift in the viewfinder. That said I find even with a canon EOS lens on an EOS body this can be tricky. The other issue on smaller sensors is that the apparent focal length increase reduces the utility of the lens. On the Leica full frame m240 with an EVP it works well but you can get purple fringes at extreme tilt or shift. As with all ts lenses metering can be tricky and bracketing helps

I shoot quite a lot of MF lenses and for most uses the standard 5DII or 1 DIIN (these are my closest bodies) work fine. Tilt shift can be a bit tricky. For Macro work however (I don't do much but will shoot the 100 L) it is much better with live view. Changing to the split screen helps quite a lot here but I still use live view.

I have had both since they were introduced and I definitely prefer the 5DII over the 7D for most applications. The main uses of the 7D are for action sports (ski racing and hockey) where the faster for and slightly better performance in servo mode make t he 7D useful. That said the 5DII still performs very well for sports but the buffer tends to fill more quickly. I find the low light performance of the 5DII is about 2 stops better than the 7D and that once you have micro adjusted carefully the 5DII AF is more accurate. Even at low ISO I prefer the images from the 5DiI as the bigger sensor gives shallower DOF. The other thing I have noticed over the years is that the 5DII images are more robust to slight exposure errors than those of the 7D. If you have to shift exposure (on RAW) by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop the 5DII images tend to show almost no ill effects - I with the 7D you can add shadow noise. Finally I slightly prefer the viewfinder of the 5 DII ( I also use MF lenses on the bodies ) and with tilt shift lenses the 7D built in flash gets in the way. Both are great cameras (so much so I skipped the 5DIIi but will investigate the new 5D. I have not shot aircraft but for birds in flight I prefer the 7D - partly for the crop factor and partly for the AF. On both bodies I use a mix of L series lenses (zoom and prime) plus fisheye, tilt shift and adapted manual focus lenses. Based on the thread so far I would suggest the 5 DII but both are great bodies and you will probably get a better condition 7D for the same price.

I would also check out the Zeiss 50 f 1.5. It is optically not as good as my Leica Cron but is a very interesting lens. I like mine as it has a very old school look with interesting Bokeh wide open. It is not my primary 50mm lens but I do like the look of images made with this lens. It is one of those lenses people either love or hate but worth testing out if you want a different look

<p>I mainly use MF lenses on EOS bodies as I find they are a bit big for smaller cameras such as my Leicas. Tilt shift adaptors work great and high quality MF lenses perform very well on digital full frame.</p>

<p>Raid - I actually find my 80-200 F4 L is sharper wide open but at larger apertures (about F8) the 200 F2.8 IF becomes sharper - I assume this is to do with diffraction and the additional elements in the zoom.</p>

<p>Just to add to rick's comment you should also bracket the shot if you tilt as even using manual settings can lead to slight differences in light loss at high degrees of tilt. I would also suggest that you use tilt and shift separately for a few shots until you get used to how they behave. If you can add a screen and use Live view because even the rear LCD does not really allow you to see tilt effects on DOF.</p>

The Contaxt G lens is a great lens but will not work on Leica M. As Gus says you can get the lens rebuilt on a new mount. You can get the, from http://www.japanexposures.com/lens/. But they are about $1000. Cheaper than Leica but about the same as the ZM lenses. I own the Contax G lens and the Leica 28 F2. I have not really directly compared them as I tend to use the Leica on digital bodies and the contax with film. This is due to the fact that I bought the Leica lens about 18 months ago and shoot film a lot less than I used to. That said the Contax G lens is very good and close in performance to the Leica. It does have a different look however.

Interesting if it really does work with ultra wide angle lenses. Even my M240 has challenges with the CV 12 mm lens

<div></div>

<p>The 40mm and 35mm Voigtlander lenses in a screw or M mount are very small and pretty good (if somewhat slow). </p>

<p>Most R lenses are good or very good- except some of the zooms which were made by others.Of the standard zooms avoid the 28-70s and the F3.5 35-70. The F4 35 to 70 is very good (i use mine on my M240) as is the 28-90.</p>

<p>My lenses range from March 1973 (35 Tilt shift) to November 1985 (80-200 F4L). My last two bodies are my T90s from Feb 1986</p>

<p>EOS 1V is the best- especially without the motor wind (i have two 1 is set up as the HS with the big motor - I rarely use this one). The 3 is good - but you have the eye focus system which you either like or hate. The other EOS film body I really like is the 1NRS - not as good as the 1V but with the pellicle mirror.</p>

<p>Remember the AF system requires the use of a partially silvered meter (to allow light through to the secondary mirror for the AF sensor). This means that only about 2/3rd of the light through the lens is sent to the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Raid - I think number 7 is the real point here. Leica has built it's business and reputation on the quality and longevity of their products. Nowadays of course they also offer the unique Rangefinder shooting experience - although their reputation was built when other Rangefinders were available.<br> The challenge for Leica is that digital products have a shorter timeframe as they become obsolete. Unfortunately many of the buyers are hoping that the Leica product does not become obsolete. The sensor issue puts Leica in a difficult position as it wants to repair the fault but does not want to pay for people to solve their digital obsolescence problem at Leica's expense. It seems that a lot of people complaining on the websites are trying to get a subsidized upgrade. I actually believe that Leica is making a very attractive offer - consumer electronics companies generally are pretty bad at supporting 5 year old products. Software companies often just stop supporting them!.</p>