"you don't have to think about things, you just go out and you work on getting the actual image" Basically just described using a modern mirrorless camera like Nikons and Sonys (and not the more manual cameras). You just work on getting the picture and press the shutter button. I like shooting film, i like shooting with a x100v. But most of all I loved shooting manual lenses with a Sony A7ii.
There’s a difference. I own both an SL system and Sony. Sony has the tech part down, but it’s taken them several generations to get the whole package where it’s more competent. There color science has been changed from body to body, and the ergos have also steadily improved. While not perfect, the SL is just less fussy to work with both during shooting and post production. The way they make the DNG’s behave is more pliable and linear for color and exposure compared to my Sony files, especially when I need to capture something for color accuracy. I believe there are no bad cameras since about 2015. It just comes down to the ecosystem, lenses, and where you start with the files. I personally don’t think people have to pick a side, but understand what each have to offer as there’s no true perfect camera.
Couple of things I learned with a Leica: 1. Zone focusing is amazing (and instant). With F8 or smaller, everything that matters in the frame is focused. 2. Sometimes having things out of focus (deliberately or by accident) is beautiful. Look at the work of William Klein or Anton Corbijn. 3. Less is more
I like your channel a lot and was nervous about this video. Thanks for not indulging in the mystique. I have an M2 that I like a lot and modern Leicas are certainly fine cameras, but the company seems to be marketing itself almost as a lifestyle brand. And that's fine too, I guess. But as a photography educator I saw so many young photogs derailed into gear whoredom, and the glorification of specific brands is a very powerful influence on folks just starting out. This video is careful not to delve into those depths. Well done!
Can you help me. It seems alot was ment to be said. But not much actually said. From a non L body shooter, this just seemed extremely vague. I watched it twice. Maybe I just don't understand the gorgon
@@fepethepenguin8287 I mean, my summation of the Leica issue is that they are great cameras that lend themselves to a certain way of shooting, and I think Art of Photography did well to stick with that angle. A lot of others talk about the "Leica Mystique," as if there is something magical about them that justifies the incredible pricing. There isn't. The viewer of an image won't see the difference. But the photog will FEEL the difference while shooting, and if it's worth it to him to spend the money, wonderful! For me it's generally not . . . although the Q2m is pretty enticing . . .
@@Gribley I was just thinking the other day after visiting Leica's web site. Same subject, same lighting, same mm focal length prime, on the same tripod. Really what would the photos say from the Leica, Sony, Nikon, & Canon of simular mp's look like straight out of camera. Might depend on color & lens quality.
@@thomastuorto9929 I would bet $100 that in a blind test most photographers couldn't tell the difference. And with the adaptability of mirrorless cameras, this doesn't have to be conjecture. Surely someone as tested Leica lenses against others on the same camera . . .
as a new young guy starting out, I have Sony A7R4, Pentax 645D, Sigma SD1, currently thinking about getting Nikon D4, and Fujifilm GFXs, also I take films as well on Toyo 45G with Schineider Apo Symmar, Bronica GS-1 for 120 film, am I being a good boy not been influenced by the force of brand worshiping?
I finally got my first Leica, Q2 monochrome 9 years after getting into photography. I went through various cheaper cameras learned on these systems before working my way up to the Q2 monochrome. Q2M is an extremely specialized tool. Did it make me a better photographer? No. But it definitely helped me achieve me artistic vision better than other cameras - purely because of how I was able to use the Q2M files and the tonality/dynamic range that comes from the sensors. I think its really important to understand your goal and vision as an artist and then work your way backwards to find the camera that fits that need.
I love your videos Ted. I’ve been a Leica shooter for four or five years, starting with the Q then the Q2. I then decided to sell all my Canon gear 5DIV and lenses to get the SL2s and 24-70 and it was the best decision I could have made. The image quality is amazing. I do a lot of monochrome work, and have just made my first book and have my first exhibition coming up. Your videos have helped inspire me.
Good reminder about cameras being tools first. Now it is also an experience, especially Leica Ms (as R. Gibson may have pointed out), and for some the experience of using a Leica M has no equivalent: the way the design has been refined to match what photographers expect from such a camera, the physical experience of a solid extremely well-built no-frill unobstrusive tool is important in the long run (and makes the difference with the Fuji Xpro series). I wish I had known that earlier as I ended up with Leica Ms anyway after thinking "reasonably" for years in terms of budget. As a result I also ended up paying more and spending a few years without this exceptional tool. But as you rightly mention, it is not for everybody (question of taste, ergonomics, practices). Another positive thing about rangefinders (Leica and Fuji) is the fact that if you use your right eye to look through the viewfinder, your left eye is outside the camera so you can see everything happening in front of you outside the viewfinder, which is impossible with a (D)SLR (in that case your left eye is against the back of the camera).
A year ago I bought a Fuji XT-2 based on your review of the ergonomics and absolutely love it. I had gone from a manual Nikon to a digital one and having to depend on menus entirely had totally zapped out the joy of taking photos for me. I would love to see a review focused on that aspect.... i.e. which other cameras have similar ergonomics. I am seriously studying photography right now and can see myself looking for a camera with a bigger sensor in the future. On my list to explore are the Fuji GF cameras and Leica.
I don't envy anymore. I'm happy that you're happy with your Leica cameras. I've returned to my first camera, a "cheap" Yashica FX-2 with a ML 50 mm f/2 lens. A variety of film types have added to the fun. Everything is completely manual, but my memories from the 70s haven't let me down. So far, everything has worked out well. It's brought the joy back to going out for a shoot. It makes me sad that I've spent so much money on digital cameras. Until I put the "cheap" Meike 50 mm f/1.7 z mount on my Z5. It's fun too. It seems that the "cheap stuff" is the fun stuff. Kind of like sweet red wine.
I found an old Kodak Retina IIF rangefinder at an antique shop last year. It's a fixed 40mm f/2.8 lens. Got it for a song because it was dirty and was sold as "broken". Just needed a cleaning. I have really enjoyed getting to basics with that.
I've got quite a few cameras at this point, but the bodies I've used the most by far through the years - even more than the Nikons that have helped to pay for them - have been my Leica M's. Love the size, the simplicity, and I really appreciate the consistency. They do exactly what you want them to do and, as long as you're not prone to dropping them on the floor, rarely ever do something unexpected, which is exactly what I want in a photographic tool.
Wow you came to the same conclusion as I did. I sold off most of my Sony gear earlier this year and moved to the M10R and SL2-S. I wasn't a big fan of the SL lenses, as perfect as they are, I prefer manual focusing the M-lenses. I carry the M10R for street photography with wide lenses and I use the SL2-S for shooting portraits with the 50/0.95 Noctilux. The image quality and the colors I get are amazing. You can also try the CL lenses on the SL2-S. You wind up with a crop view and lower resolution but I love their small sizes and great quality. I have the 23/2 and 35/1.4. I have the CL as well but I only use that if I want to use the Noct as a 75mm for portraits.
Love your videos! Very informative to say the least. My first SLR was a Minolta SRT 101 when I was stationed in Japan. It took me, at first, 15 - 30 seconds to compose and take a photo. And during the days of film a person had to really learn how to compose a scene. It was frustrating at first but it taught me to be patient which helped me to become a better photographer.
Started with a Minolta SRT 201 and a Yashicamat 124 G. Picked up a Speed Graphic 4x5 and a Pentax 645 years later. If you ever put a 4x5 negative in an enlarger it’s amazing. I learned a lot from the Minolta days.
A decade ago, I bought an M3 and 50mm Summicron. The purveyor surprised me when he said “Your film kit is done, that’s all you’ll ever need.” He was fundamentally correct. Exploring multiple alternatives has proven that to be generally true. Perhaps in time a M10-P will be in the cards.
I primarily use the M system and recently acquired an SL2. I love how the M lenses work on the SL2. I got the SL2 primarily for landscapes and use the M10P for pretty much everything else. Everything about both of these types of cameras is just great.
What adaptor do you use for the M lenses on the SL2 and if you did not have the M lenses would you use the native SL lenses? (I have an SL2 and the native 24-90 + 90-280, but have been considering a 50mm prime.)
@@thomastuorto9929 I use M lenses on the SL2 with the Leica adaptor. I did purchase a panasonic 70-200 f4 for those times a longer focal length is needed. I find the panasonic to be a great lens.
Like you, after a couple of days using the M10P I got it. Then I added a Type 246 Monochrom which is an absolute joy. However, for those with Leica glass the SL2 has been a revelation. It absolutely brought the 50 Noctilux to life. I recommend you rent one and try it on the Sl2 body and with that wonderful huge bright view finder manual focussing, even with such a shallow depth of field, becomes so much easier and opens up so many creative possibilities. I would love to see you feature something like this, not to be about the gear, but on the creative output it allows you to generate. Always enjoy your channel and content Ted. Regards from the desert. Steve. Dubai.
I spent 9 years with a Nikon D7000 from college until last year. When I got my very own D7000, used with a Tamron 16-50mm f/2.8 (couldn’t afford the Nikon version which was also used), I did it like the lens that I was using because most of the time it would miss focus and after a while I decided to just operate the camera in manual focus mode only with the exception of the 50mm 1.8 that I used. The 16-50mm was my most used lens and I learned how to manual focus using that lens so I could get clear images my way which often times I didn’t make the mark but I practiced more and more. While my new camera has amazing autofocus with native and third-party lenses, whenever I adapt vintage lenses on my A7iii it feels like how I was using my D7000 even with focus peaking.
I bought a canon G10 the other day and really enjoy the compact nature of it. Totally limited, but when you get the exposure right ... damn, it can produce a fine image. It ain’t always about the gear, but the right magic of light, composition and timing.
Topics like these are always interesting because people get very passionate when debating the value of high ticket items and tools like cars and cameras. Beyond people buying into the brand as a status symbol, I think people pick Leica because they could get results with any system, but prefer the intention they put into some of their bodies and lenses. The SL is just works, even with vintage glass like my new-to-me formula 5 28mm f2. Incredible color, tone, and contrast. I tried the same on my A7R3 and it’s almost there, but not as organic.
People always complain about Leica, but there are many key advantages IMO: build quality, lens quality, size and weight, easy to hand-hold at low shutter speeds (great for night film shots), quiet, zone focusing is faster than auto focus, etc
I was already an (film) M-shooter before I bought my MP240 last year, so it wasn’t an entirely new experience. Or was it? Shooting a digital M came as a shock for me to be honest, and without trying to sound like a drama queen, it was a bit like a life saver to me, especially in the age of covid, with the long repetitive walks in the neighborhood. I love the simplicity, without sacrificing image quality. All the bells and whistles of my Fuji GF system, I fully appreciate it, but 95% of the time I reach for my MP as my daily driver. It’s just the sheer fun of shooting, back to basics approach that made me rethink my photography. Enjoy your M10, Ted! I surely will enjoy my MP240.
The Ms are great cameras. But anyone contemplating an M needs to be fully cognizant of the more limited shooting envelope that these cameras have. While you can certainly stop down and use zone focusing in good lighting (like outdoors during daylight hours), which works great, shooting moving subjects in low light with your lens wide open is very challenging on an M camera. It requires a degree of machine-user synergy that takes a long time to perfect.
Always use the right tool for the job. Often the Leica M is the wrong tool. I use a TS-E 90mm f/2.8 T&S lens for product shots-therefore a Canon EOS makes a lot more sense than a Leica M for my work.
There's a reason classic Leica cameras used f2 and f3.5 lenses. A mechanical rangefinder focusing system is not accurate compared to modern AF. It can be a joy to use, but those great photographers from the 1930s to the 1980s used the rangefinder as a focusing aid, not definitive focus in the way contemporary photographers aspire to. Cartier-Bresson's early cameras didn't even have a rangefinder, just an out of axis peephole viewfinder and it didn't stop him taking some of the finest black and white street photographs yet seen.
@@borderlands6606 "...not definitive focus in the way contemporary photographers aspire to." Any photographer will aspire to "definitive focus" if they can get it.
@@RobertFalconer1967 By the 1960s studio photographers were moving over to SLRs for 35mm for their versatility. Very few were shooting gnat's whisker bokeh shots of the kind that have become popular since, even for portraiture. Rangefinders aren't the ideal tool for that kind of work but they're great for street photography, zone and hyperfocal shooting.
Yes same dilemmas as me. I bought a battered used Leica T from eBay & fell in love with it. It was like picking a scab, I couldnt let it alone. So I bought a new TL2 with 23mm Summicron and dumped the T. The TL2 was a disappointment; focus and exposure control sucked giving me a hit rate in poor lighting of about 20% so I sold it. I completed putting my Sony A7ii & A6500 kit together. But it kept nagging at the back of my mind; the photos I did get had something special about them. I dug out the old Leica T, cleaned it up and scoured the sensor (yes you heard me, I used cloths and industrial solvents to remove sticky deposits on the sensor, it was kill or cure). It worked. Bought it a leather half case and strap from Amazon. And now its the camera I find myself using with another 23mm prime i bought used. It wouldnt surprise me if I rebought the TL2, gritted my teeth and overcame the shortcommings. There is something addictive about using it and I so love the tilting Visoflex. Good luck with your Leica; I will watch your progress with interest ;-)
@@minhta7540 Yes as soon as I picked up the T I loved it but, the TL2 was a disappointment. Not really sure why, its essentially the same camera but somehow doesnt feel like it. Love the T shutter & the TL2 seems feeble in comparison. As well as the 23mm Summicron-TL and standard zoom I also use adapted Voightlander 28mm f2 and Nikkor 35mm f2D. I doubt I will upgrade to the TL2 again, so enjoying my battered old T ;-)
Thank you for an excellent explanation of why some folks might choose a Leica. Like many, I have several brands of digital cameras and find great use for all of them in differing scenarios. Here comes the "But." But my love of Leica is as strong as ever in spite of what many might consider over priced and antiquated cameras (specifically the M line of cameras) I just really enjoy using my Leica M Type 262 rangefinder and 35mm f/2 Summicron.
I don't really want a Leica but I love rangefinders. I really enjoy my old Tower/Nicca Leica III copy (but with lever advance) and my Canon Vt. Rangefinders slow you down. I feel like that's there best feature. The thing is if you like rangefinders, Leica are the ones that are still being maintained and made. But the old Canon rangefinders and lenses are the most economical way to go. Plus the Canon Vt has the trigger winder that I absolutely love. I do find the Leica digital monochrome intriguing but for the price, I'll stick with film. Plus with film, I can vary the film for a slightly different look. I am just not convinced by digital black and white. Digital is fine for color.
Let us face it you have more flexibility, especially from shot to shot, with digital than film. It is a different practice and what matters is that you enjoy what you do the way you do it (obviously it has to be a hobby ;o).
Ever since I got the Leica Q, I'm in love with how that camera handled compared to my Sony cameras I had at the time. Later on I was in a Leica workshop where I got to try out the SL, man I'm in love again. When the SL2 came out later, I bought it. Now I love using it but it's a bit too heavy tbh
I've never paid more than a $1k for a camera new or used. I consider myself an above average photographer. My photos are mine alone. I don't share them online though my wife and I have a few photos of our own that we've had professionally mounted and framed. They hang in our home. Now if I came into some serious cash like an inheritance or lotto I'd buy one just to have one. Leica cameras are the equipment for photographers much better than i. Then again many famous and influential photographers spend far less on Canon and Nikon equipment. It's a rich man's camera. There's a photographer who traveled cross country and documented his journey with his smart phone. Those images are amazing. For transparency I don't know if he really used his smart phone or if he spent hours on his PC fixing those images with software. At the end of the day it's not about the camera, the fishing pole, paint/brush/canvas or stove/cookware/recipe it's all about the person and how much he puts into his craft learning, making mistakes and applying what he's learned. If I bought a Leica I'd still be a better than average photographer with an expensive camera my results won't be any better unless I spend a lot more time refining my skills. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to spend on photography, hiking, BBQing, camping, fishing and the variety of other activities I like to do. If i gave up all my other activities and focues solely on photography I'm sure I'd surprise myself.
Yep, thats me! Old film slr and film rangefinder. I started out with and am still shooting my first rangefinder Yashica J35. I’m hooked. Currently building a modest savings for my Leica.
Also Ted. It would be good to add to this video that Leica has unified this incredible menu system across the entire current M, SL2, and Q2 models. Each has its own features unique to the body and system, but they are all the same setup, layout, and buttons. If you know one, the others are essentially the same and always improving with new firmware.
A very interesting and enlightening video, thanks. I'd have thought that the most compelling reason to get a Leica camera is so you can use the Leica lenses? In the end, if you want amazing image quality, it comes down to the combination of sensor and lens. And many Leica lenses, crazilly expensive as they are, are just stunningly good. This is why the Leica Q2 is actually a bit of a bargain, especially used. You can get a remarkable high resolution sensor and a top quality Leica f1.7 lens for under 4k.
I have been shooting basic 35mm cameras since the mid 70s. This year I purchased my first auto focus 35mm camera. I find it much nicer since I started wearing glasses. It's still used in m mode just enjoying the AF.
I stopped looking at other gear since i got my M and i shifted my focus to photography books and getting better at photography overall and that’s the best compliment i can give to a Leica. I’m an M(M10M/M10R) shooter and I don’t think leica will introduce Sl2 monochrome for various business model complications but as well cannibalization on M series; I do own a Q2 as well and i think the Q2 position is the gate to either Sl or M hence introducing Q2M was again for the same reason so all products line are strategically placed to complement each other and impose a limitations that push you through the product lineup; i enjoy shooting 28/35/50 if 28 is you favorite Q2/Q2M but the limitations is what if you prefer 50 then choice is Sl2 or M what if you prefer 50 but you want a monochrome experience etc etc maybe Leica will do it but I don’t think it is a smart move
Great stuff Ted, I love how you got to find Leica to be your camera of choice, at least one of your choices! I started into photography with a minolta 7 rangefinder, 40mm or 45mm f1.4 fixed lens. Learnt how to the rangefinder camera as a teenager and man that thing was sharp as a tack! Got it stolen, moved onto film SLRs and later to a canon DSLR, mounted vintage lens to that canon 60D and fell in love with the vintage lenses again. Because I did not want to go back to film and stick to digital, I hunted for a retro looking mirrorless body, Leica had to be it, bought a silver M10-P and I can't complain, love it to this day. I am looking forward to your Leica vids, your explanation and take on just about anything photography is honest and a revelation each time, love that talent you have, THANK YOU!
I think it’s incredibly important to address the M’s manual focus and high aperture lens focus. The impact that has on moving subjects vs still subjects is very important. This is no family man’s camera system, especially when using the summilux lenses. When it comes to the SL2S, you have to address what style shooting is best for the Leica shooter vs. the Sony shooter.
Just get an autofocus system or learn how to use an M better - I’m documenting all my boy activity with an M and lux 35 1.4 and almost done printing a family book with blurb and countless photographers used leica to do street photography of unpredictable moving subjects so again learn to use it better - by high aperture you mean a fast lens as high aperture is not a term used in photography; in regards to sl2 vs Sony or Nikon or any brand of that matter what is needed to be addressed ? actually all i see is a stupid comparison of very similar system that mostly does the same thing with variations of shape and size unless as usual you are trying to state that Sony is better or Nikon or whatever which again nonsense and a very idiotic view on camera gear in general
@@ThoughtPunk can you answer the question and define a style between Sony/Canon/Nikon/Fuji/leica AF cameras offerings at the same level that each camera uniquely and marginally excels at and absolutely cannot be achieved by any other if lenses offering are no issue ?
Hi Ted great video as always. My comment is totally unrelated to your video but I felt it was important to reach out nonetheless. I just wanted to say thankyou for the inspirational content, I really appreciate it. Inspired by your videos on Graciela Iturbide and Ansel Adams I recently bought my first camera ( Canon M50 MkII ) and today I took my first photographs with it. I am 43 and have never really been able to find what "My Thing" was and as a result have struggled to carve out some happiness for myself. All of that changed today because of you. Its spring here in South Australia and there's no better time to be out with my camera. Whilst my first photographs are pretty bad I am enjoying learning the relationship between Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO. More than anything else though I feel that every time I bring my images into focus I start to see myself and who I am a little clearer. That's not something I was expecting but it has totally changed my perspective on the world and my place in it. I didn't realize how much power this beautiful art form could have. Thankyou.
The M series Leica’s with the lenses are remarkable. I had to sell my M9 because I wear glasses and that’s a bit tricky to get a sharp focus all the time. The Leica M series however, is one of my top three cameras I’ve owned and all for the same reason. Because they are terrible in comparison to other top end modern cameras. Before I get loads of hate mail, please hear me out. I’m a photographer and the cameras I use need to deliver and do so quickly. As a result, I get many photos for the clients and they’re all happy. My favourite photos I’ve taken were mainly taken with my top three cameras because of the limitations they all have. Very much along the lines you have just said. They are slow, basic, unhelpful with information or versatility to name a few. But, when you plan the shot, wait for it to happen and capture it with the beautiful lens and sensor and see it on your computer screen or print, all is forgiven. I won’t rant on the cameras I have or have owned, but my recent non work camera takes two seconds to start, has very few dials and buttons and very slow to focus, yet is without doubt my favourite, because I feel the result of a good shot, is more down to me. Maybe that’s a question to ask us viewers, which ‘terrible’ camera inspires you? Ted, your videos have continuously helped me in my passion for photography for many, many years. Thanks you for each one. 🙏
@@andrewmaltzoff6439 See the video I did if it helps. I use a lot of Leica stuff. If you have a later Leica you can use the EVF too but not on the M8/M9
I have learned rangefinding with an old Zorki 1.. then 4 and I learned alot, and after using my Canon P, it was great! I love to shoot in zones too and with the Leica IIIg its amazing… so quiet and easy to use! I have never used a digital rangefinder, but it also must be a quick gadget to shot. Thank you for your video👏👏
I recently acquired 3 leicas back to back 3 years ago.. all M rangefinders ( used m9 with sensor replaced) , m10p and leica film MA mainly for film stock i have.. i have been thoroughly impressed with the simplicity and the focus on composition it brings about in a tiny package.. the optics - leica and zeiss glass is top notch. i was no more thinking about autofocus modes, and other tech aspects, other than the exposure triangle , and asking myself, is the aperture or shutter speed adequate to capture the subject in question when the subject comes into the compositional frame lines.. there is something about painting a picture with colors and brushes and getting dirty in the process and then admire your work as opposed to see a picture take form while you sip tea and an android/ AI paints the canvas. The price of entry is high and you dont need a leica to shoot like you would, with a leica.. yet there is something about the heritage, the simplicity and the beautiful industrial design that make these machines run for a very long time.
Agreed I use Leicas but recently got the new Lumix S5 as a cheaper SL2-S. It takes similar images but it was less fun tot hold and shoot so I went back to what I know and got the SL to join the family :)
I got into photography a year ago with Sony, I can’t see in my mind why anybody would pay huge amounts of money to be tortured with the simplicity that is Leica. The only thing from this video that I would like to try is the range finder and the fact that you see everything around the area that you’re going to be taking a picture of that seems very useful to me. But I will keep my auto focus and all the other wonderful things that come along with my Sony.
@@jasongold6751 honestly once you start to pick things up you want to learn the system more. I love the process because you know you suck at the start and only get better.
Rent a Leica use it. Either you will love it and want one, or you will hate it. Personally I love Leica. I don’t own a digital one but I do own a film one. It feels the best in my hands and it’s a wonderful camera
Great balance you struck in this video! I loved the bit about creating work you are proud of using with what might be deemed lesser equipment. Since college I was curious about rangfinders so I bought a Zorki 4 in 2016 and my mind was blown. I realized this was the type of camera for me! I still use my Zorki, but now have a Leica M2 and iif. I can't stomach the price of a digital M, so I will continue to enjoy creating with my film rangefinders :).
Awesome. I haven't had a Leica ever since I started in photography back in the '80s. My main SLR was Zenit E. Though it was stolen and DSLR intervened; hence, the analog camera became a thing of the past. Though after one year of using my DSLR, I threw it in the cabinet and just used my Smartphone, which, for me, was better, as you could blend in with the crowd via selfie fashion. Recently, particularly last year, I got back into the analog camera and for all I know, I was collecting vintage SLRs. From Nikon's to Canons; from Pentax to Minolta, from Contas to Olympus, the list goes on and on with my collections. The film-based cameras are still the best, you get to take some time and every shot is worth a million Pesos. Unlike the DSRL, waiting for the results is priceless! And, Leicam is next on the list!
The elongated time and waiting one may have (motor-drives for analog cameras were not invented for dogs) for a photograph does not depend on whether one uses a digital or analog camera, it is all the camera-user's responsibility. The plus with digital is that you can photograph more (speed and quantity) because of cost, and get immediate results. So digital cameras can do more not less, it is all about the way one uses them. Film-cameras are not "the best"; they may suit you for whatever reason but there are millions if not more of people in this world that will disagree with you with their digital cameras. In the end it is all about making photographs, not the time it takes to make them which you do not know/see in the final result.
I adore Leica. The autofocus sucks compared to Sony and Canon which I once had. But it's the ease of getting to exceptional image quality that makes me go back to the brand time and again. The SL2-S is "the best M-camera for M-lenses", with the exception of size, but still not bad at all. I will keep mine for some time. An interesting use case for the SL2-S is - what if you're a one-man photo and video crew? At first I thought the lack of a flippy screen was a deal breaker. Would be interested how you would make one vlog and showcasing photos with just that camera and what solutions you'd put in place compared to your current set-up. Cheers.
Just one note: The SL-S is NOT the best camera for M-lenses as these are designed for specifically for M-cameras and their "M" sensors, and an M lens will always do better on an M camera (that is why there SL lenses, whose sizes and design (and specs) are very different from M lenses).... ;o) but they are good enough.
I’ve been shooting solely on a 1953 Argus C3 for the past 18 years and it’s become my style and a part of me. I would love to see what a Leica is all about. Joey - Austin Tx
Thanks for this. Love shooting street with my M2, although it’s been a while. With practice, the camera is pretty much in focus before you raise it to your eye….either because you focus to a predecided distance and then just get yourself that distance from what you want to photograph, or because judging distance becomes second nature and you set the focus when you see your image developing. Either of these means that you are not hanging around…view, shutter, walk…catching what is happening, not someone’s reaction to your presence, if that’s what you want. Autofocus doesn’t get a look in.
I really love that you explore questions I never really consider. Then my brain starts working, and I can't get to sleep. LOL, love what you are doing, and now I am considering,,,,,Leica.......hrmmmm.
Ted hi, I like the perspective of the lens you used for the video. What focal length is it? My widest is 35mm and I am looking for something more interesting. Thanks!
Woah, Scat Jazz Lounge, love that place! I’m originally from the Fort Worth area too. I definitely am wanting to transition over to Leica someday whenever I can afford to, particularly a QP or a Q2 📷
Totally agree. Love my Q2 and most of my work is black and white but still not tempted for the Q2M. But.. As a filmmaker by trade (Emmy Winning DP) I would not be able to pass up an SL2S-M.
I have the SL2, CL and Qp, I too think a SL2 monochrome using the Q2 monochrome sensor would be great and already could be a parts bin camera combining parts from the SL2 and Q2 with little extra R&D.
I do think a mono SL camera would be insanely good. To often I think people rely on over saturation and visual appeal over art. A mini SL would bring back the art of video and probably create its own niche like the q and m cameras have.
I like the fact.that in the very beginning.you said the camera is a tool. Keeping with that thought. Why are so many people worried about bouque. I am a retired photographer of 40 plus years. NO client,ever worried about what the out of focus,looked like. I shot, 35mm up to 8X10 view camera.NO one ever mentioned the bouque. Why is it now so damn important.
I've known 7 years ago that rangefinders were for me. I didn't have the budget for an M system at the time so I got myself a used Konica Hexar RF and a Zeiss 35 Biogon. I used the hell out of it. Lots of my favorite shots were taken with that combo. Now I have a M10-R and a couple of lenses and couldn't be more satisfied with my purchase. I won't wax lyrical about Leica but it's the only FF digital rangefinder and film prices are climbing higher and higher. So I figured might as well take the plunge. Now I don't lust for any camera, even an M11.
I bought a M240 and a 50MM Summicron a few months ago. I love its simplicity and its small size. It is just easier to carry around than my Canon 5D4 and the huge L lenses.
So interesting you post a video about Leica's today, when all week they've been on my mind. Yet another awesome video friend :) Thank you for what you do
Ted, I would hope that no matter what camera you are using -- AF or Manual Focus -- that as a photographer you have to choose where to focus. LOL Hardly seems to be something demanded by range finder cameras, eh? I have had Leica lust over the years and owned several film Leicas, and to my eye, there certainly was what I came to think of as "the Leica look" to the images I created. But in the end, it's just a camera and as I am sure you've said somewhere in one of your videos -- paraphrasing here -- it's not about the gear. Love your channel...
Is that Jon Davis on piano? If it is, I went to see him in the 1980's here in S.F. Ca. Part of the house band at Jimmies. His technique has mellowed, making me think he has some issues playing as aggressively as he did, but then, but nobody could play like him. Just incredible, and I went all the time. If it is Jon Davis, there's video on youtube of him with Jaco Pastorius showing him in primo form. (Even Jaco dropped in to play in Tibouron at a small club in the 80's) Let me know...thanks.
Yes Ted! Agreed, the only thing better than the SL2-S would be the same BSI in an M10-M-like monochrom sensor. I shoot both the M10-M and SL2-S for the vast majority of my work with M-glass - all manual, all the time. With certain combinations/pairings, honestly it doesn’t get any better. It can be unforgiving and it really forces one to thunk, understand, and learn the ‘essentials’. Isn’t that what it’s all about anyway?? If you’ve ever blown a really important shot, you’ll know my mantra - “….know your shit, dude…”. This gear will humble you into that if you ever want to be any good! Or rather more simply put, I’d rather be always learning with my Leica gear - making mistakes that I come to understand - than spray and pray with any plastic mirrorless auto-system that would be obsolete before my first pile of crap of shots made by the algorithms I’d be left wondering - and not caring as much - if that’s what i really saw. Leica in general really forces you to reckon with that and be honest (and eventually more trusting) with your work.
The Leica M10 is the only camera I've ever wanted bad enough to buy it new, which I did at the tail end of 2018. I didn't want the touch screen bad enough to stump up an extra two grand for the M10-P.
The significant difference between Leica & other system are the quality of their lens; there is indeed a Leica look with photos taken with classic Leica lens.
Had to watch this as I currently have the same setup, M10-p and Sl2-s The SL is so easy to focus and and the low light is amazing, plus ibis! I'm curious to see if you decide to part with your M. I'm certainly thinking about it but it's so hard to let go.
Love the whole manual lens setup,and definitely would love to try Leica,I always have,but it's just way too expensive for me to get into.Maybe in the next life!!!!
Tony, I've been shooting with Leica since 1968 and have owned my current M3 for 40 years. I looked into going with a digital Leica, actually was holding the M8 in a camera store with my wife encouraging me to buy it. I could afford it, but I couldn't justify it. Instead I went with Fuji and now have the X-E2s, X-E3 and X-1. I've also use the X-Pro2, which is about as close to a rangefinder Leica as you can get. When I use my X-E3, I get 90%+ of the goodness of shooting with my M3, plus some features exclusive to the Fuji. My Fuji lenses perform better than my vintage Leica lenses, and as a bonus I can shoot with my Leica lenses in manual mode. Some describe Fuji as "the poor man's Leica", but I think it is actually "the smart man's Leica".
Your title caught my attention, as coming from the 60s (in the film time) no one would ever asked why Leica, other then can I afford one. Glad to hear you liked it, thought it was like asking was Ansel Adams great? Provocative questions for sure the camera line sounds intriguing, especially that a camera can be simple in this day and age.
Hi Ted can I ask you something I am confused about? If I open my Leica raw files in adobe camera raw, and under profiles choose embedded, will that give me my Leica’s camera’s color ?
I like rangefinders, but they are not for folks who are versed in SLR photography. The problem for the SLR folks is that they are accustomed to taking the shot when the image is sharp. With the rangefinders I've used the image is sharp regardless of focal setting. You have to train the mind to concentrate only on the center focus prism. I used a M3 some 30-years ago; it was one sharp beast. Today, I can look at my old transparencies and instantly identify the ones taken with the Leica. My only complaint are the ridiculous prices. Leica is the finest camera as Rolex is the finest watch, but neither are worth one-fifth of what we are forced to pay. Your money is spent on quality, but mostly spent on the name.
Much easier than you might think. A lot easier than a DSLR but a mirrorless camera in 'night mode' can also be easy. As the RF is glass you can see as clear as without the camera.
I’ve always dreamt of owning a Leica. Most of that desperation comes from my favorite photographers using them. In the meantime I’ve been using the x100v and it is by far my favorite camera that I have ever used. It can pretty much handle any situation. Maybe one day I’ll get my hands on a Leica. A man can dream 💭
I also just had a total "a-ha!" moment when you showed the Leica rangefinder. My first camera, a 1970s Kodak Instamatic had exactly that! Ah, the good old days.....
I don’t have Leica budget. So I bought the S1R with the pro lenses and the lumix 85 1.8 and the sigma 135 for portraits in studio. To be honest I think it’s a highly underrated system and the quality is more then great. And yes the autofocus is not as good as Sony but if you not in to shooting sports and shoot portraits and landscapes, the Leica and Lumix S1R are perfect workhorses that deliver both great quality.
Lumix S focusing is fine for stills. It's as a video camera that Panasonic gets criticism, and even then AF is fine for most purposes. What reviewers mean is the cameras are lacking as run and gun vlogging tools, which is a niche within a niche - occupied mainly by camera reviewers! TH-cam decides the worth of a camera on its continuous autofocus performance in video above anything else, which is a strange way of assessing the general usability of a camera.
Billy if it helps I use the S5 and tested against the SL2-S and saw no difference. I later bought a SL as I prefer the Leica feel still but Lumix can take nice photos.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom thx. I could imagine that there was a world of difference between them. I love my s1r. I invested heavily in good glass(the pro lenses), the 2.8 zooms, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and a sigma 135 and the quality is so nice. Next years i am a happy shooter! My main business is portraits
Hello Some interesting thoughts here, I do like what you are saying about getting a cheeper camera to start with an learn you craft. The fact that cameras are just tools so right and know out should blame there tools for a bad job. I still think my best image was shot whet I was around 16 years old and a second hand Exakta 1000 (Not Sure on spelling) now in my 60's still love photography. I would love a Leice. I have seen as so many amazing image with these cameras. But I am sticking with my old Hasselblad and Nikon Z and F mount cameras and I know there not the same look but I am still amazed at what they over. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy life.
The story of renting and its snapping - exactly same story with me. I was kinda hoping to close this door by renting and leave it as "just overpriced toy" in past. Didn't work out the way I hoped, but I'm so happy that it happened to me.
There is part of me that really wants a Leica. I am tempted by a Q2 because of budget - although I do wish it were 35mm. I guess though it gives space for cropping though...
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Honestly I have a Sony A7R3.... Most the time I wish there were less megapixels due to the storage and fact that Lightroom is slower. Sadly that wont be benefit to the the Q2 files. I started with an 18MP Canon 7D, then went to Sony A7 (24MP) - and I am pretty sure I will be happy with the 35mm and 50mm crops. For the 75mm.... it will depend natural it looks. I don't think it is going to look anything like a normal ~85mm FOV due to the lack of background compression.... but will probably be fine for 8x10 prints.. The other part of me that wonders whether to go the whole hog and get an M is whether the Qs will hold their value like the Ms do. It worries me because obviously Ms you invest in glass... the body keeps a bunch of value, but you can always put the glass on a new body. I am thinking the Q2 will because 47MP is waaay more than enough for me... I have a 24MP print on my wall that is 20x30" and it's fine (and it's shot on Sony's least sharp lens). I have 2 years till my 40th though (that's when I think I will own it by)... so maybe there might be a Q3 I can hedge my bets with.
@@MeAMuse yes agreed, Ms hold their value better than other Leica bodies if you look at the trends. Film Leicas go up in value so I have no issue buying older Leicas! (My excuse) :)
I love my old SL Type 601, the astonishing view finder makes it a joy for manual focus. Currently my favourite lens is the Voigtlander Norton 75mm f1.5 which does something magical wide open. So a good question would be, is Leica M glass better on an M or on the SL?
You have a very good point. I suggested to Leica some years ago that they should make a monochrome SL and a monochrome S. Red makes monochrome versions of some of their cameras, and eventually ARRI copied that strategy and made a monochrome Alexa.
Bottom line…Leica is a great camera but most of the high-end stuff that Sony and Sigma produces will perform significantly better. Leica is an emotional choice, and there is nothing wrong with emotional choices.
Yes! You're completely right, and it's so funny to watch youtubers who praise Leica for some technical advantages like high iso, dynamic range and so on
@@alexborodin366 Hi Alex. I've been an avid Sony A7Rwhatever fan since they came out. Latest is an A7R4 / 24-105 Sony FE lens. Before I bought a Q2 a few weeks ago I had never had a high end Leica. I did have an x-vario a few years ago and was not that impressed. Built well but slow and nothing that I'd give up my Sony kit for. I picked up a Q2 a few weeks ago and I'm just blown away by the "real to life" colors and presence that come out of this thing in DNG. Hard to describe but much of the time what I see on my monitor at home and / or print is exactly what I expected to see. And a nice sort of "pop" that I don't get from the Sony files. The Sony seems flat by comparison. Sure a lot can be fixed in post, but prior to post processing there is no comparison at least to my eyes. And the Q2 is just so easy to use; set the iso/f stop/speed and you're off. And it's maybe 1/2 the size and weight of the sony kit. I'm still in the honeymoon phase I know.
If you use a Leica lens on a Sony A7riv body using an Voigtlander adapter what are the disadvantages? Do you use loose image quality as using an adapter changes the distance from of the lens from the sensor?
Leica ruled; at least it did when they had this stuff called film. I fell in love with M-series rangefinders on account of my vision difficulties. My M-3 was as old as yours truly, and it was as tough as nails. Leicas too care of the “shutterbug” technical stuff and allowed me the artistic freedom I needed.
"you don't have to think about things, you just go out and you work on getting the actual image" Basically just described using a modern mirrorless camera like Nikons and Sonys (and not the more manual cameras). You just work on getting the picture and press the shutter button. I like shooting film, i like shooting with a x100v. But most of all I loved shooting manual lenses with a Sony A7ii.
There’s a difference. I own both an SL system and Sony. Sony has the tech part down, but it’s taken them several generations to get the whole package where it’s more competent. There color science has been changed from body to body, and the ergos have also steadily improved. While not perfect, the SL is just less fussy to work with both during shooting and post production. The way they make the DNG’s behave is more pliable and linear for color and exposure compared to my Sony files, especially when I need to capture something for color accuracy.
I believe there are no bad cameras since about 2015. It just comes down to the ecosystem, lenses, and where you start with the files. I personally don’t think people have to pick a side, but understand what each have to offer as there’s no true perfect camera.
Couple of things I learned with a Leica:
1. Zone focusing is amazing (and instant). With F8 or smaller, everything that matters in the frame is focused.
2. Sometimes having things out of focus (deliberately or by accident) is beautiful. Look at the work of William Klein or Anton Corbijn.
3. Less is more
Hyperfocal distance. Ahh my 1a. With tri x.
I like your channel a lot and was nervous about this video. Thanks for not indulging in the mystique. I have an M2 that I like a lot and modern Leicas are certainly fine cameras, but the company seems to be marketing itself almost as a lifestyle brand. And that's fine too, I guess. But as a photography educator I saw so many young photogs derailed into gear whoredom, and the glorification of specific brands is a very powerful influence on folks just starting out. This video is careful not to delve into those depths. Well done!
Can you help me.
It seems alot was ment to be said.
But not much actually said.
From a non L body shooter, this just seemed extremely vague.
I watched it twice.
Maybe I just don't understand the gorgon
@@fepethepenguin8287 I mean, my summation of the Leica issue is that they are great cameras that lend themselves to a certain way of shooting, and I think Art of Photography did well to stick with that angle. A lot of others talk about the "Leica Mystique," as if there is something magical about them that justifies the incredible pricing. There isn't. The viewer of an image won't see the difference. But the photog will FEEL the difference while shooting, and if it's worth it to him to spend the money, wonderful! For me it's generally not . . . although the Q2m is pretty enticing . . .
@@Gribley I was just thinking the other day after visiting Leica's web site. Same subject, same lighting, same mm focal length prime, on the same tripod. Really what would the photos say from the Leica, Sony, Nikon, & Canon of simular mp's look like straight out of camera. Might depend on color & lens quality.
@@thomastuorto9929 I would bet $100 that in a blind test most photographers couldn't tell the difference. And with the adaptability of mirrorless cameras, this doesn't have to be conjecture. Surely someone as tested Leica lenses against others on the same camera . . .
as a new young guy starting out, I have Sony A7R4, Pentax 645D, Sigma SD1, currently thinking about getting Nikon D4, and Fujifilm GFXs, also I take films as well on Toyo 45G with Schineider Apo Symmar, Bronica GS-1 for 120 film, am I being a good boy not been influenced by the force of brand worshiping?
My first 35mm was a Yashica Electro 35, which was a rangefinder. It was a great camera. It had a fixed 45mm lens. I still remember that camera fondly.
I finally got my first Leica, Q2 monochrome 9 years after getting into photography. I went through various cheaper cameras learned on these systems before working my way up to the Q2 monochrome. Q2M is an extremely specialized tool. Did it make me a better photographer? No. But it definitely helped me achieve me artistic vision better than other cameras - purely because of how I was able to use the Q2M files and the tonality/dynamic range that comes from the sensors. I think its really important to understand your goal and vision as an artist and then work your way backwards to find the camera that fits that need.
I love your videos Ted. I’ve been a Leica shooter for four or five years, starting with the Q then the Q2. I then decided to sell all my Canon gear 5DIV and lenses to get the SL2s and 24-70 and it was the best decision I could have made. The image quality is amazing. I do a lot of monochrome work, and have just made my first book and have my first exhibition coming up. Your videos have helped inspire me.
Good reminder about cameras being tools first. Now it is also an experience, especially Leica Ms (as R. Gibson may have pointed out), and for some the experience of using a Leica M has no equivalent: the way the design has been refined to match what photographers expect from such a camera, the physical experience of a solid extremely well-built no-frill unobstrusive tool is important in the long run (and makes the difference with the Fuji Xpro series). I wish I had known that earlier as I ended up with Leica Ms anyway after thinking "reasonably" for years in terms of budget. As a result I also ended up paying more and spending a few years without this exceptional tool. But as you rightly mention, it is not for everybody (question of taste, ergonomics, practices). Another positive thing about rangefinders (Leica and Fuji) is the fact that if you use your right eye to look through the viewfinder, your left eye is outside the camera so you can see everything happening in front of you outside the viewfinder, which is impossible with a (D)SLR (in that case your left eye is against the back of the camera).
A year ago I bought a Fuji XT-2 based on your review of the ergonomics and absolutely love it. I had gone from a manual Nikon to a digital one and having to depend on menus entirely had totally zapped out the joy of taking photos for me. I would love to see a review focused on that aspect.... i.e. which other cameras have similar ergonomics. I am seriously studying photography right now and can see myself looking for a camera with a bigger sensor in the future. On my list to explore are the Fuji GF cameras and Leica.
I don't envy anymore. I'm happy that you're happy with your Leica cameras. I've returned to my first camera, a "cheap" Yashica FX-2 with a ML 50 mm f/2 lens. A variety of film types have added to the fun. Everything is completely manual, but my memories from the 70s haven't let me down. So far, everything has worked out well. It's brought the joy back to going out for a shoot. It makes me sad that I've spent so much money on digital cameras. Until I put the "cheap" Meike 50 mm f/1.7 z mount on my Z5. It's fun too. It seems that the "cheap stuff" is the fun stuff. Kind of like sweet red wine.
Your experience is part of the journey, right ?
Yes, you are right, sweet red wine is not always the best but some appreciate it ;o)
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
I found an old Kodak Retina IIF rangefinder at an antique shop last year. It's a fixed 40mm f/2.8 lens. Got it for a song because it was dirty and was sold as "broken". Just needed a cleaning. I have really enjoyed getting to basics with that.
I've got quite a few cameras at this point, but the bodies I've used the most by far through the years - even more than the Nikons that have helped to pay for them - have been my Leica M's. Love the size, the simplicity, and I really appreciate the consistency. They do exactly what you want them to do and, as long as you're not prone to dropping them on the floor, rarely ever do something unexpected, which is exactly what I want in a photographic tool.
Wow you came to the same conclusion as I did. I sold off most of my Sony gear earlier this year and moved to the M10R and SL2-S. I wasn't a big fan of the SL lenses, as perfect as they are, I prefer manual focusing the M-lenses. I carry the M10R for street photography with wide lenses and I use the SL2-S for shooting portraits with the 50/0.95 Noctilux. The image quality and the colors I get are amazing. You can also try the CL lenses on the SL2-S. You wind up with a crop view and lower resolution but I love their small sizes and great quality. I have the 23/2 and 35/1.4. I have the CL as well but I only use that if I want to use the Noct as a 75mm for portraits.
Good to see you here! I echo your statement, M for street, SL for portraits, CL for travel for me :)
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Hi Matt! Good to see you here too. Yes the CL is a lovely camera for travel when you dont want to be loaded down.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Hi Matt! Good to see you here too. Yes the CL is a lovely camera for travel when you dont want to be loaded down.
Love your videos! Very informative to say the least. My first SLR was a Minolta SRT 101 when I was stationed in Japan. It took me, at first, 15 - 30 seconds to compose and take a photo. And during the days of film a person had to really learn how to compose a scene. It was frustrating at first but it taught me to be patient which helped me to become a better photographer.
Started with a Minolta SRT 201 and a Yashicamat 124 G. Picked up a Speed Graphic 4x5 and a Pentax 645 years later. If you ever put a 4x5 negative in an enlarger it’s amazing. I learned a lot from the Minolta days.
A decade ago, I bought an M3 and 50mm Summicron. The purveyor surprised me when he said “Your film kit is done, that’s all you’ll ever need.” He was fundamentally correct. Exploring multiple alternatives has proven that to be generally true. Perhaps in time a M10-P will be in the cards.
I primarily use the M system and recently acquired an SL2. I love how the M lenses work on the SL2. I got the SL2 primarily for landscapes and use the M10P for pretty much everything else. Everything about both of these types of cameras is just great.
Using the SL2 with M lenses or?
What adaptor do you use for the M lenses on the SL2 and if you did not have the M lenses would you use the native SL lenses? (I have an SL2 and the native 24-90 + 90-280, but have been considering a 50mm prime.)
@@thomastuorto9929 I use M lenses on the SL2 with the Leica adaptor. I did purchase a panasonic 70-200 f4 for those times a longer focal length is needed. I find the panasonic to be a great lens.
SL2 Monochrome: sign me up to Pre-Order ! As a camera junkie, the SL2 is top shelf terrific, So is the M10M!
Like you, after a couple of days using the M10P I got it. Then I added a Type 246 Monochrom which is an absolute joy. However, for those with Leica glass the SL2 has been a revelation. It absolutely brought the 50 Noctilux to life. I recommend you rent one and try it on the Sl2 body and with that wonderful huge bright view finder manual focussing, even with such a shallow depth of field, becomes so much easier and opens up so many creative possibilities. I would love to see you feature something like this, not to be about the gear, but on the creative output it allows you to generate. Always enjoy your channel and content Ted. Regards from the desert. Steve. Dubai.
I spent 9 years with a Nikon D7000 from college until last year. When I got my very own D7000, used with a Tamron 16-50mm f/2.8 (couldn’t afford the Nikon version which was also used), I did it like the lens that I was using because most of the time it would miss focus and after a while I decided to just operate the camera in manual focus mode only with the exception of the 50mm 1.8 that I used. The 16-50mm was my most used lens and I learned how to manual focus using that lens so I could get clear images my way which often times I didn’t make the mark but I practiced more and more. While my new camera has amazing autofocus with native and third-party lenses, whenever I adapt vintage lenses on my A7iii it feels like how I was using my D7000 even with focus peaking.
I bought a canon G10 the other day and really enjoy the compact nature of it. Totally limited, but when you get the exposure right ... damn, it can produce a fine image. It ain’t always about the gear, but the right magic of light, composition and timing.
Topics like these are always interesting because people get very passionate when debating the value of high ticket items and tools like cars and cameras. Beyond people buying into the brand as a status symbol, I think people pick Leica because they could get results with any system, but prefer the intention they put into some of their bodies and lenses. The SL is just works, even with vintage glass like my new-to-me formula 5 28mm f2. Incredible color, tone, and contrast. I tried the same on my A7R3 and it’s almost there, but not as organic.
F3 is my favorite camera of all time also. Had 3 or 4 focus screens, always used split ball screen and the screen with the grid for composition.
People always complain about Leica, but there are many key advantages IMO: build quality, lens quality, size and weight, easy to hand-hold at low shutter speeds (great for night film shots), quiet, zone focusing is faster than auto focus, etc
I wish you showed some more of your images from your past year of shooting with your m10p. You didn't show much.
I was already an (film) M-shooter before I bought my MP240 last year, so it wasn’t an entirely new experience. Or was it? Shooting a digital M came as a shock for me to be honest, and without trying to sound like a drama queen, it was a bit like a life saver to me, especially in the age of covid, with the long repetitive walks in the neighborhood. I love the simplicity, without sacrificing image quality. All the bells and whistles of my Fuji GF system, I fully appreciate it, but 95% of the time I reach for my MP as my daily driver. It’s just the sheer fun of shooting, back to basics approach that made me rethink my photography. Enjoy your M10, Ted! I surely will enjoy my MP240.
The Ms are great cameras. But anyone contemplating an M needs to be fully cognizant of the more limited shooting envelope that these cameras have. While you can certainly stop down and use zone focusing in good lighting (like outdoors during daylight hours), which works great, shooting moving subjects in low light with your lens wide open is very challenging on an M camera. It requires a degree of machine-user synergy that takes a long time to perfect.
Always use the right tool for the job. Often the Leica M is the wrong tool. I use a TS-E 90mm f/2.8 T&S lens for product shots-therefore a Canon EOS makes a lot more sense than a Leica M for my work.
@@fotochuck Precisely.
There's a reason classic Leica cameras used f2 and f3.5 lenses. A mechanical rangefinder focusing system is not accurate compared to modern AF. It can be a joy to use, but those great photographers from the 1930s to the 1980s used the rangefinder as a focusing aid, not definitive focus in the way contemporary photographers aspire to. Cartier-Bresson's early cameras didn't even have a rangefinder, just an out of axis peephole viewfinder and it didn't stop him taking some of the finest black and white street photographs yet seen.
@@borderlands6606 "...not definitive focus in the way contemporary photographers aspire to."
Any photographer will aspire to "definitive focus" if they can get it.
@@RobertFalconer1967 By the 1960s studio photographers were moving over to SLRs for 35mm for their versatility. Very few were shooting gnat's whisker bokeh shots of the kind that have become popular since, even for portraiture. Rangefinders aren't the ideal tool for that kind of work but they're great for street photography, zone and hyperfocal shooting.
Totally agree. No matter what camera you have, a Leica or a dump phone, what you can do is creativity.
Yes same dilemmas as me. I bought a battered used Leica T from eBay & fell in love with it. It was like picking a scab, I couldnt let it alone. So I bought a new TL2 with 23mm Summicron and dumped the T. The TL2 was a disappointment; focus and exposure control sucked giving me a hit rate in poor lighting of about 20% so I sold it. I completed putting my Sony A7ii & A6500 kit together. But it kept nagging at the back of my mind; the photos I did get had something special about them. I dug out the old Leica T, cleaned it up and scoured the sensor (yes you heard me, I used cloths and industrial solvents to remove sticky deposits on the sensor, it was kill or cure). It worked. Bought it a leather half case and strap from Amazon. And now its the camera I find myself using with another 23mm prime i bought used. It wouldnt surprise me if I rebought the TL2, gritted my teeth and overcame the shortcommings. There is something addictive about using it and I so love the tilting Visoflex. Good luck with your Leica; I will watch your progress with interest ;-)
Love my Leica T with 7 artisans 50mm F1.1. So I Bought 2 more T.
@@minhta7540 Yes as soon as I picked up the T I loved it but, the TL2 was a disappointment. Not really sure why, its essentially the same camera but somehow doesnt feel like it. Love the T shutter & the TL2 seems feeble in comparison. As well as the 23mm Summicron-TL and standard zoom I also use adapted Voightlander 28mm f2 and Nikkor 35mm f2D. I doubt I will upgrade to the TL2 again, so enjoying my battered old T ;-)
Try the CL, amazing little camera!
Thank you for an excellent explanation of why some folks might choose a Leica. Like many, I have several brands of digital cameras and find great use for all of them in differing scenarios. Here comes the "But." But my love of Leica is as strong as ever in spite of what many might consider over priced and antiquated cameras (specifically the M line of cameras) I just really enjoy using my Leica M Type 262 rangefinder and 35mm f/2 Summicron.
I don't really want a Leica but I love rangefinders. I really enjoy my old Tower/Nicca Leica III copy (but with lever advance) and my Canon Vt. Rangefinders slow you down. I feel like that's there best feature. The thing is if you like rangefinders, Leica are the ones that are still being maintained and made. But the old Canon rangefinders and lenses are the most economical way to go. Plus the Canon Vt has the trigger winder that I absolutely love. I do find the Leica digital monochrome intriguing but for the price, I'll stick with film. Plus with film, I can vary the film for a slightly different look. I am just not convinced by digital black and white. Digital is fine for color.
Let us face it you have more flexibility, especially from shot to shot, with digital than film. It is a different practice and what matters is that you enjoy what you do the way you do it (obviously it has to be a hobby ;o).
Ever since I got the Leica Q, I'm in love with how that camera handled compared to my Sony cameras I had at the time. Later on I was in a Leica workshop where I got to try out the SL, man I'm in love again. When the SL2 came out later, I bought it. Now I love using it but it's a bit too heavy tbh
@frank wu the CL is a great size if you can cope with APS-C. I use one, the SL and a M.
I've never paid more than a $1k for a camera new or used. I consider myself an above average photographer.
My photos are mine alone. I don't share them online though my wife and I have a few photos of our own that we've had professionally mounted and framed. They hang in our home.
Now if I came into some serious cash like an inheritance or lotto I'd buy one just to have one.
Leica cameras are the equipment for photographers much better than i.
Then again many famous and influential photographers spend far less on Canon and Nikon equipment.
It's a rich man's camera.
There's a photographer who traveled cross country and documented his journey with his smart phone.
Those images are amazing. For transparency I don't know if he really used his smart phone or if he spent hours on his PC fixing those images with software.
At the end of the day it's not about the camera, the fishing pole, paint/brush/canvas or stove/cookware/recipe it's all about the person and how much he puts into his craft learning, making mistakes and applying what he's learned.
If I bought a Leica I'd still be a better than average photographer with an expensive camera my results won't be any better unless I spend a lot more time refining my skills.
Unfortunately I don't have enough time to spend on photography, hiking, BBQing, camping, fishing and the variety of other activities I like to do.
If i gave up all my other activities and focues solely on photography I'm sure I'd surprise myself.
Yep, thats me! Old film slr and film rangefinder. I started out with and am still shooting my first rangefinder Yashica J35. I’m hooked. Currently building a modest savings for my Leica.
Also Ted. It would be good to add to this video that Leica has unified this incredible menu system across the entire current M, SL2, and Q2 models. Each has its own features unique to the body and system, but they are all the same setup, layout, and buttons. If you know one, the others are essentially the same and always improving with new firmware.
yes Leica have the best menus for sure! :)
Great to see you shooting Leica Ted, congrats! Long time follower of your channel and now have my own (mostly devoted to all things Leica + film) :)
A very interesting and enlightening video, thanks. I'd have thought that the most compelling reason to get a Leica camera is so you can use the Leica lenses? In the end, if you want amazing image quality, it comes down to the combination of sensor and lens. And many Leica lenses, crazilly expensive as they are, are just stunningly good. This is why the Leica Q2 is actually a bit of a bargain, especially used. You can get a remarkable high resolution sensor and a top quality Leica f1.7 lens for under 4k.
I have been shooting basic 35mm cameras since the mid 70s. This year I purchased my first auto focus 35mm camera.
I find it much nicer since I started wearing glasses. It's still used in m mode just enjoying the AF.
I shoot - digitally - with an MD-262 (no screen variation of the M262) and the M246 (monochrome variation of the M240) and love the experience!
I’ve used the M for about 6 years now and it’s always my go to camera these days. Enjoy your new addition Ted x
I stopped looking at other gear since i got my M and i shifted my focus to photography books and getting better at photography overall and that’s the best compliment i can give to a Leica.
I’m an M(M10M/M10R) shooter and I don’t think leica will introduce Sl2 monochrome for various business model complications but as well cannibalization on M series; I do own a Q2 as well and i think the Q2 position is the gate to either Sl or M hence introducing Q2M was again for the same reason so all products line are strategically placed to complement each other and impose a limitations that push you through the product lineup; i enjoy shooting 28/35/50 if 28 is you favorite Q2/Q2M but the limitations is what if you prefer 50 then choice is Sl2 or M what if you prefer 50 but you want a monochrome experience etc etc maybe Leica will do it but I don’t think it is a smart move
you shifted focus, eh?
I see what you did here. Nice composition!
@@GBCR 🤣🤣
I like the M for 28-50mm and SL for 50mm or fast 50s like the Nocti ..or focusing closer than 0.7m
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom i mainly shoot 28-50 but i agree with you
@@slickhatter9812 thanks, me too!
Great stuff Ted, I love how you got to find Leica to be your camera of choice, at least one of your choices! I started into photography with a minolta 7 rangefinder, 40mm or 45mm f1.4 fixed lens. Learnt how to the rangefinder camera as a teenager and man that thing was sharp as a tack! Got it stolen, moved onto film SLRs and later to a canon DSLR, mounted vintage lens to that canon 60D and fell in love with the vintage lenses again. Because I did not want to go back to film and stick to digital, I hunted for a retro looking mirrorless body, Leica had to be it, bought a silver M10-P and I can't complain, love it to this day. I am looking forward to your Leica vids, your explanation and take on just about anything photography is honest and a revelation each time, love that talent you have, THANK YOU!
The Leica M2 is my favorite camera of all time. It’s a masterpiece of engineering, in my opinion.
The M2 is my fav for 35mm but I prefer the M3 otherwise for that viewfinder :)
Wolf99 _almost_ as good as the M3 😀
I think it’s incredibly important to address the M’s manual focus and high aperture lens focus. The impact that has on moving subjects vs still subjects is very important. This is no family man’s camera system, especially when using the summilux lenses. When it comes to the SL2S, you have to address what style shooting is best for the Leica shooter vs. the Sony shooter.
Just get an autofocus system or learn how to use an M better - I’m documenting all my boy activity with an M and lux 35 1.4 and almost done printing a family book with blurb and countless photographers used leica to do street photography of unpredictable moving subjects so again learn to use it better - by high aperture you mean a fast lens as high aperture is not a term used in photography; in regards to sl2 vs Sony or Nikon or any brand of that matter what is needed to be addressed ? actually all i see is a stupid comparison of very similar system that mostly does the same thing with variations of shape and size unless as usual you are trying to state that Sony is better or Nikon or whatever which again nonsense and a very idiotic view on camera gear in general
@@slickhatter9812 hold your horses, is he really saying what's better, or asking to nuance what style of shooting is the camera better for? Sheesh.
@@ThoughtPunk can you answer the question and define a style between Sony/Canon/Nikon/Fuji/leica AF cameras offerings at the same level that each camera uniquely and marginally excels at and absolutely cannot be achieved by any other if lenses offering are no issue ?
Hi Ted great video as always. My comment is totally unrelated to your video but I felt it was important to reach out nonetheless. I just wanted to say thankyou for the inspirational content, I really appreciate it. Inspired by your videos on Graciela Iturbide and Ansel Adams I recently bought my first camera ( Canon M50 MkII ) and today I took my first photographs with it. I am 43 and have never really been able to find what "My Thing" was and as a result have struggled to carve out some happiness for myself. All of that changed today because of you. Its spring here in South Australia and there's no better time to be out with my camera. Whilst my first photographs are pretty bad I am enjoying learning the relationship between Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO. More than anything else though I feel that every time I bring my images into focus I start to see myself and who I am a little clearer. That's not something I was expecting but it has totally changed my perspective on the world and my place in it. I didn't realize how much power this beautiful art form could have. Thankyou.
one of the most valuable and interesting channels on TH-cam. great content
The M series Leica’s with the lenses are remarkable. I had to sell my M9 because I wear glasses and that’s a bit tricky to get a sharp focus all the time.
The Leica M series however, is one of my top three cameras I’ve owned and all for the same reason. Because they are terrible in comparison to other top end modern cameras.
Before I get loads of hate mail, please hear me out. I’m a photographer and the cameras I use need to deliver and do so quickly. As a result, I get many photos for the clients and they’re all happy.
My favourite photos I’ve taken were mainly taken with my top three cameras because of the limitations they all have. Very much along the lines you have just said. They are slow, basic, unhelpful with information or versatility to name a few. But, when you plan the shot, wait for it to happen and capture it with the beautiful lens and sensor and see it on your computer screen or print, all is forgiven.
I won’t rant on the cameras I have or have owned, but my recent non work camera takes two seconds to start, has very few dials and buttons and very slow to focus, yet is without doubt my favourite, because I feel the result of a good shot, is more down to me.
Maybe that’s a question to ask us viewers, which ‘terrible’ camera inspires you?
Ted, your videos have continuously helped me in my passion for photography for many, many years. Thanks you for each one. 🙏
@andrew maltzoff try the 1.4x magnifier on a M to focus easier. I use them on all my M cameras for that reason!
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Thanks for that Matt. Will certainly consider this setup.
@@andrewmaltzoff6439 See the video I did if it helps. I use a lot of Leica stuff. If you have a later Leica you can use the EVF too but not on the M8/M9
You have a great take on things. Food for thought.
I have learned rangefinding with an old Zorki 1.. then 4 and I learned alot, and after using my Canon P, it was great! I love to shoot in zones too and with the Leica IIIg its amazing… so quiet and easy to use! I have never used a digital rangefinder, but it also must be a quick gadget to shot. Thank you for your video👏👏
Just bought a leica M7, so joining the family! Good points made here great video!
If you’re in Austin for photography and need someone to move lights, equipment, get coffee …. I’m here for you 🤠📷🐶
Hey Ted, happy to hear you managed to meet Ralph again and follow one of his course 👍😘
I recently acquired 3 leicas back to back 3 years ago.. all M rangefinders ( used m9 with sensor replaced) , m10p and leica film MA mainly for film stock i have.. i have been thoroughly impressed with the simplicity and the focus on composition it brings about in a tiny package.. the optics - leica and zeiss glass is top notch. i was no more thinking about autofocus modes, and other tech aspects, other than the exposure triangle , and asking myself, is the aperture or shutter speed adequate to capture the subject in question when the subject comes into the compositional frame lines.. there is something about painting a picture with colors and brushes and getting dirty in the process and then admire your work as opposed to see a picture take form while you sip tea and an android/ AI paints the canvas. The price of entry is high and you dont need a leica to shoot like you would, with a leica.. yet there is something about the heritage, the simplicity and the beautiful industrial design that make these machines run for a very long time.
Agreed I use Leicas but recently got the new Lumix S5 as a cheaper SL2-S. It takes similar images but it was less fun tot hold and shoot so I went back to what I know and got the SL to join the family :)
I got into photography a year ago with Sony, I can’t see in my mind why anybody would pay huge amounts of money to be tortured with the simplicity that is Leica. The only thing from this video that I would like to try is the range finder and the fact that you see everything around the area that you’re going to be taking a picture of that seems very useful to me. But I will keep my auto focus and all the other wonderful things that come along with my Sony.
Suffering and torture can be joyful. But no camera feels like a Leica-M. NONE!
@@jasongold6751 honestly once you start to pick things up you want to learn the system more. I love the process because you know you suck at the start and only get better.
I used to use Sony and Canon system years back and their menus was torturing me, Leica M is so simple just like film camera
Rent a Leica use it. Either you will love it and want one, or you will hate it. Personally I love Leica. I don’t own a digital one but I do own a film one. It feels the best in my hands and it’s a wonderful camera
Great balance you struck in this video! I loved the bit about creating work you are proud of using with what might be deemed lesser equipment. Since college I was curious about rangfinders so I bought a Zorki 4 in 2016 and my mind was blown. I realized this was the type of camera for me! I still use my Zorki, but now have a Leica M2 and iif. I can't stomach the price of a digital M, so I will continue to enjoy creating with my film rangefinders :).
Great timing! I just made a video about my first experience using the Leica M6!
Hope you liked the M6! I find I still go to my M3 the most for the viewfinder :)
Awesome. I haven't had a Leica ever since I started in photography back in the '80s. My main SLR was Zenit E. Though it was stolen and DSLR intervened; hence, the analog camera became a thing of the past. Though after one year of using my DSLR, I threw it in the cabinet and just used my Smartphone, which, for me, was better, as you could blend in with the crowd via selfie fashion. Recently, particularly last year, I got back into the analog camera and for all I know, I was collecting vintage SLRs. From Nikon's to Canons; from Pentax to Minolta, from Contas to Olympus, the list goes on and on with my collections. The film-based cameras are still the best, you get to take some time and every shot is worth a million Pesos. Unlike the DSRL, waiting for the results is priceless! And, Leicam is next on the list!
The elongated time and waiting one may have (motor-drives for analog cameras were not invented for dogs) for a photograph does not depend on whether one uses a digital or analog camera, it is all the camera-user's responsibility. The plus with digital is that you can photograph more (speed and quantity) because of cost, and get immediate results. So digital cameras can do more not less, it is all about the way one uses them. Film-cameras are not "the best"; they may suit you for whatever reason but there are millions if not more of people in this world that will disagree with you with their digital cameras. In the end it is all about making photographs, not the time it takes to make them which you do not know/see in the final result.
I adore Leica. The autofocus sucks compared to Sony and Canon which I once had. But it's the ease of getting to exceptional image quality that makes me go back to the brand time and again. The SL2-S is "the best M-camera for M-lenses", with the exception of size, but still not bad at all. I will keep mine for some time. An interesting use case for the SL2-S is - what if you're a one-man photo and video crew? At first I thought the lack of a flippy screen was a deal breaker. Would be interested how you would make one vlog and showcasing photos with just that camera and what solutions you'd put in place compared to your current set-up. Cheers.
Just one note: The SL-S is NOT the best camera for M-lenses as these are designed for specifically for M-cameras and their "M" sensors, and an M lens will always do better on an M camera (that is why there SL lenses, whose sizes and design (and specs) are very different from M lenses).... ;o) but they are good enough.
I’ve been shooting solely on a 1953 Argus C3 for the past 18 years and it’s become my style and a part of me. I would love to see what a Leica is all about.
Joey - Austin Tx
Thanks for this. Love shooting street with my M2, although it’s been a while. With practice, the camera is pretty much in focus before you raise it to your eye….either because you focus to a predecided distance and then just get yourself that distance from what you want to photograph, or because judging distance becomes second nature and you set the focus when you see your image developing. Either of these means that you are not hanging around…view, shutter, walk…catching what is happening, not someone’s reaction to your presence, if that’s what you want. Autofocus doesn’t get a look in.
I really love that you explore questions I never really consider. Then my brain starts working, and I can't get to sleep. LOL, love what you are doing, and now I am considering,,,,,Leica.......hrmmmm.
Ted hi, I like the perspective of the lens you used for the video. What focal length is it? My widest is 35mm and I am looking for something more interesting. Thanks!
Almost 10000 $ for a camera got to be something... That's another league, the top of the top.
Woah, Scat Jazz Lounge, love that place! I’m originally from the Fort Worth area too. I definitely am wanting to transition over to Leica someday whenever I can afford to, particularly a QP or a Q2 📷
Totally agree. Love my Q2 and most of my work is black and white but still not tempted for the Q2M. But.. As a filmmaker by trade (Emmy Winning DP) I would not be able to pass up an SL2S-M.
I have the SL2, CL and Qp, I too think a SL2 monochrome using the Q2 monochrome sensor would be great and already
could be a parts bin camera combining parts from the SL2 and Q2 with little extra R&D.
I am too stupid to use a modern Sony and too lazy to read the telephone book size manual. I went for Leica. I am a simple guy. 😬
Me too Andy!
I do think a mono SL camera would be insanely good. To often I think people rely on over saturation and visual appeal over art. A mini SL would bring back the art of video and probably create its own niche like the q and m cameras have.
I like the fact.that in the very beginning.you said the camera is a tool. Keeping with that thought. Why are so many people worried about bouque. I am a retired photographer of 40 plus years. NO client,ever worried about what the out of focus,looked like. I shot, 35mm up to 8X10 view camera.NO one ever mentioned the bouque. Why is it now so damn important.
Love to hear you talking about Leicas! :P Thanks for the info Ted
I've known 7 years ago that rangefinders were for me. I didn't have the budget for an M system at the time so I got myself a used Konica Hexar RF and a Zeiss 35 Biogon. I used the hell out of it. Lots of my favorite shots were taken with that combo.
Now I have a M10-R and a couple of lenses and couldn't be more satisfied with my purchase. I won't wax lyrical about Leica but it's the only FF digital rangefinder and film prices are climbing higher and higher. So I figured might as well take the plunge. Now I don't lust for any camera, even an M11.
You can take photos with any camera as long as you understand PHOTOGRAPHY
I bought a M240 and a 50MM Summicron a few months ago. I love its simplicity and its small size. It is just easier to carry around than my Canon 5D4 and the huge L lenses.
But its not the same kind of camera. Try shooting sports or wildlife with the Leica or anything that moves much. Different tools for different jobs
@@RichardsModellingAdventures, agreed, I do not use the Leica for those purposes, which I do little of anyway.
Congrats Donald, great camera! I love mine
2:44 “You need to be shooting only on a 50mm lens and on a range-finder camera.”
So interesting you post a video about Leica's today, when all week they've been on my mind.
Yet another awesome video friend :)
Thank you for what you do
Ted, I would hope that no matter what camera you are using -- AF or Manual Focus -- that as a photographer you have to choose where to focus. LOL Hardly seems to be something demanded by range finder cameras, eh? I have had Leica lust over the years and owned several film Leicas, and to my eye, there certainly was what I came to think of as "the Leica look" to the images I created. But in the end, it's just a camera and as I am sure you've said somewhere in one of your videos -- paraphrasing here -- it's not about the gear. Love your channel...
Is that Jon Davis on piano? If it is, I went to see him in the 1980's here in S.F. Ca. Part of the house band at Jimmies. His technique has mellowed, making me think he has some issues playing as aggressively as he did, but then, but nobody could play like him. Just incredible, and I went all the time. If it is Jon Davis, there's video on youtube of him with Jaco Pastorius showing him in primo form. (Even Jaco dropped in to play in Tibouron at a small club in the 80's) Let me know...thanks.
Hi, what strap are you using on your M10-P? Love your presentation. :)
Yes Ted! Agreed, the only thing better than the SL2-S would be the same BSI in an M10-M-like monochrom sensor. I shoot both the M10-M and SL2-S for the vast majority of my work with M-glass - all manual, all the time. With certain combinations/pairings, honestly it doesn’t get any better. It can be unforgiving and it really forces one to thunk, understand, and learn the ‘essentials’. Isn’t that what it’s all about anyway?? If you’ve ever blown a really important shot, you’ll know my mantra - “….know your shit, dude…”. This gear will humble you into that if you ever want to be any good! Or rather more simply put, I’d rather be always learning with my Leica gear - making mistakes that I come to understand - than spray and pray with any plastic mirrorless auto-system that would be obsolete before my first pile of crap of shots made by the algorithms I’d be left wondering - and not caring as much - if that’s what i really saw. Leica in general really forces you to reckon with that and be honest (and eventually more trusting) with your work.
The Leica M10 is the only camera I've ever wanted bad enough to buy it new, which I did at the tail end of 2018. I didn't want the touch screen bad enough to stump up an extra two grand for the M10-P.
The significant difference between Leica & other system are the quality of their lens; there is indeed a Leica look with photos taken with classic Leica lens.
Had to watch this as I currently have the same setup, M10-p and Sl2-s The SL is so easy to focus and and the low light is amazing, plus ibis! I'm curious to see if you decide to part with your M. I'm certainly thinking about it but it's so hard to let go.
Love the whole manual lens setup,and definitely would love to try Leica,I always have,but it's just way too expensive for me to get into.Maybe in the next life!!!!
Tony, I've been shooting with Leica since 1968 and have owned my current M3 for 40 years. I looked into going with a digital Leica, actually was holding the M8 in a camera store with my wife encouraging me to buy it. I could afford it, but I couldn't justify it.
Instead I went with Fuji and now have the X-E2s, X-E3 and X-1. I've also use the X-Pro2, which is about as close to a rangefinder Leica as you can get. When I use my X-E3, I get 90%+ of the goodness of shooting with my M3, plus some features exclusive to the Fuji. My Fuji lenses perform better than my vintage Leica lenses, and as a bonus I can shoot with my Leica lenses in manual mode.
Some describe Fuji as "the poor man's Leica", but I think it is actually "the smart man's Leica".
Your title caught my attention, as coming from the 60s (in the film time) no one would ever asked why Leica, other then can I afford one. Glad to hear you liked it, thought it was like asking was Ansel Adams great? Provocative questions for sure the camera line sounds intriguing, especially that a camera can be simple in this day and age.
Hi Ted can I ask you something I am confused about? If I open my Leica raw files in adobe camera raw, and under profiles choose embedded, will that give me my Leica’s camera’s color ?
I like rangefinders, but they are not for folks who are versed in SLR photography. The problem for the SLR folks is that they are accustomed to taking the shot when the image is sharp. With the rangefinders I've used the image is sharp regardless of focal setting. You have to train the mind to concentrate only on the center focus prism. I used a M3 some 30-years ago; it was one sharp beast. Today, I can look at my old transparencies and instantly identify the ones taken with the Leica. My only complaint are the ridiculous prices. Leica is the finest camera as Rolex is the finest watch, but neither are worth one-fifth of what we are forced to pay. Your money is spent on quality, but mostly spent on the name.
Love the strap on your m10. Could you please tell me where your purchased it from? Thank you so much🙏
How is focusing in lowlight with a rangefinder? Does the lack of light make the RF patch hard/impossible to see at all?
Much easier than you might think. A lot easier than a DSLR but a mirrorless camera in 'night mode' can also be easy. As the RF is glass you can see as clear as without the camera.
A Leica SL Monochrome would be my all time favorite camera. I already have the SL and the M246.
I’ve always dreamt of owning a Leica. Most of that desperation comes from my favorite photographers using them. In the meantime I’ve been using the x100v and it is by far my favorite camera that I have ever used. It can pretty much handle any situation. Maybe one day I’ll get my hands on a Leica. A man can dream 💭
See my recent video on how anyone can afford a Leica! ..I hear the X100v is also good though from my fellow Leica Patreons.
I also just had a total "a-ha!" moment when you showed the Leica rangefinder. My first camera, a 1970s Kodak Instamatic had exactly that! Ah, the good old days.....
I don’t have Leica budget. So I bought the S1R with the pro lenses and the lumix 85 1.8 and the sigma 135 for portraits in studio. To be honest I think it’s a highly underrated system and the quality is more then great. And yes the autofocus is not as good as Sony but if you not in to shooting sports and shoot portraits and landscapes, the Leica and Lumix S1R are perfect workhorses that deliver both great quality.
Lumix S focusing is fine for stills. It's as a video camera that Panasonic gets criticism, and even then AF is fine for most purposes. What reviewers mean is the cameras are lacking as run and gun vlogging tools, which is a niche within a niche - occupied mainly by camera reviewers! TH-cam decides the worth of a camera on its continuous autofocus performance in video above anything else, which is a strange way of assessing the general usability of a camera.
Billy if it helps I use the S5 and tested against the SL2-S and saw no difference. I later bought a SL as I prefer the Leica feel still but Lumix can take nice photos.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom thx. I could imagine that there was a world of difference between them. I love my s1r. I invested heavily in good glass(the pro lenses), the 2.8 zooms, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and a sigma 135 and the quality is so nice. Next years i am a happy shooter! My main business is portraits
I shoot with the original SL and Q2M both are amazing cameras.
Love my SL, have the CL and M but the Q range is tempting! :)
Hello Some interesting thoughts here, I do like what you are saying about getting a cheeper camera to start with an learn you craft. The fact that cameras are just tools so right and know out should blame there tools for a bad job. I still think my best image was shot whet I was around 16 years old and a second hand Exakta 1000 (Not Sure on spelling) now in my 60's still love photography. I would love a Leice. I have seen as so many amazing image with these cameras. But I am sticking with my old Hasselblad and Nikon Z and F mount cameras and I know there not the same look but I am still amazed at what they over. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy life.
Very well articulated, thank you.
The story of renting and its snapping - exactly same story with me. I was kinda hoping to close this door by renting and leave it as "just overpriced toy" in past.
Didn't work out the way I hoped, but I'm so happy that it happened to me.
There is part of me that really wants a Leica. I am tempted by a Q2 because of budget - although I do wish it were 35mm. I guess though it gives space for cropping though...
Yes you can use it in crop mode but that is limited to JPEG so you would then have to crop all the RAW files too.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom yup.... could easily make a preset for it in Lightroom
@@MeAMuse yes agreed! I use my various MrLeica presets for all my RAW files. I guess it’s just a shame to not use all of the Q2 MP
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Honestly I have a Sony A7R3.... Most the time I wish there were less megapixels due to the storage and fact that Lightroom is slower. Sadly that wont be benefit to the the Q2 files. I started with an 18MP Canon 7D, then went to Sony A7 (24MP) - and I am pretty sure I will be happy with the 35mm and 50mm crops. For the 75mm.... it will depend natural it looks. I don't think it is going to look anything like a normal ~85mm FOV due to the lack of background compression.... but will probably be fine for 8x10 prints.. The other part of me that wonders whether to go the whole hog and get an M is whether the Qs will hold their value like the Ms do. It worries me because obviously Ms you invest in glass... the body keeps a bunch of value, but you can always put the glass on a new body. I am thinking the Q2 will because 47MP is waaay more than enough for me... I have a 24MP print on my wall that is 20x30" and it's fine (and it's shot on Sony's least sharp lens). I have 2 years till my 40th though (that's when I think I will own it by)... so maybe there might be a Q3 I can hedge my bets with.
@@MeAMuse yes agreed, Ms hold their value better than other Leica bodies if you look at the trends. Film Leicas go up in value so I have no issue buying older Leicas! (My excuse) :)
I love my old SL Type 601, the astonishing view finder makes it a joy for manual focus. Currently my favourite lens is the Voigtlander Norton 75mm f1.5 which does something magical wide open. So a good question would be, is Leica M glass better on an M or on the SL?
You have a very good point. I suggested to Leica some years ago that they should make a monochrome SL and a monochrome S. Red makes monochrome versions of some of their cameras, and eventually ARRI copied that strategy and made a monochrome Alexa.
Bottom line…Leica is a great camera but most of the high-end stuff that Sony and Sigma produces will perform significantly better. Leica is an emotional choice, and there is nothing wrong with emotional choices.
Facts, that's the main reason I haven't been able to talk myself into buying one
Yes! You're completely right, and it's so funny to watch youtubers who praise Leica for some technical advantages like high iso, dynamic range and so on
Yes, same could be said for other products.
@@alexborodin366 Hi Alex. I've been an avid Sony A7Rwhatever fan since they came out. Latest is an A7R4 / 24-105 Sony FE lens.
Before I bought a Q2 a few weeks ago I had never had a high end Leica. I did have an x-vario a few years ago and was not that impressed. Built well but slow and nothing that I'd give up my Sony kit for.
I picked up a Q2 a few weeks ago and I'm just blown away by the "real to life" colors and presence that come out of this thing in DNG. Hard to describe but much of the time what I see on my monitor at home and / or print is exactly what I expected to see. And a nice sort of "pop" that I don't get from the Sony files. The Sony seems flat by comparison. Sure a lot can be fixed in post, but prior to post processing there is no comparison at least to my eyes. And the Q2 is just so easy to use; set the iso/f stop/speed and you're off. And it's maybe 1/2 the size and weight of the sony kit. I'm still in the honeymoon phase I know.
If you use a Leica lens on a Sony A7riv body using an Voigtlander adapter what are the disadvantages? Do you use loose image quality as using an adapter changes the distance from of the lens from the sensor?
Leica ruled; at least it did when they had this stuff called film. I fell in love with M-series rangefinders on account of my vision difficulties.
My M-3 was as old as yours truly, and it was as tough as nails. Leicas too care of the “shutterbug” technical stuff and allowed me the artistic freedom I needed.
U need to learn zone focus when you using rangefinder.
If u need a precise composition u might need to use their LV.