John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

I am new to this group and have been traveling with a way too heavy DSLR for the past few years. I am beginning to consider investing in a Leica M camera and lens collection. It is difficult to evaluate as where I live there are no stores that carry high end gear. So please excuse this question.

I understand the M has a live view mode and a 3 inch screen. I do not understand why for different lens you need different viewfinders. I guess viewing only thru the integral viewer, you cannot see the limits of the lens width and this prevents accurate cropping before the shot. But can't you do this in live view by looking at the screen. Does the view screen accurately represent the image you are shooting?

Any info would be appreciated,
John Howard

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I'm curious too, having used the older Leica M4 and loved it.
Interested to hear feedback.
I prefer to use a viewfinder instead of the LCD- leads to a steadier camera, in my opinion.
Here is a review on it and it includes using the live view.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/05/09/leica-m-typ-240-first-impressions-24-hours-with-leicas-latest-digital-rang

(You aren't by any chance the same John Howard, the famous cyclist are you?)

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Thanks for forwarding the review. No. I have not won the Ironman, riding a bike hurts, and I am not the ex PM of Australia. Just a recently retired guy trying to get back to a much earlier ambition. I like spontaneous, natural light photography. Can't decide if I want to give up auto focus. I like playing with perspective and holding the camera in positions I can't get my eye to. Ie, crowd shots holding the camera as high as I can reach. Wonder if I want to use two viewers, one for composition and one for focus. I guess this works for landscapes or cityscapes, but hardly good for anything spontaneous. Maybe I just rely on my Nikon dslr for that.
Cheers,
JH

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Have you ever used a rangefinder? A Leica? I assume the answer is no, because if you had, you'd never ever want to use an LCD. IMHO of course.

If you do more reading about Leicas you will learn about how the rangefinder system works and why accessory viewfinders are required for some lenses

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

For the film version there is a range of focal lengths (28mm to 135mm) that have the field of view marked within the viewfinder. The size of the image in the optical viewfinder does not change as you change focal lengths.

Additional viewfinders are usually needed for lenses wider than 28mm.

For the digital version, you see the image in the monitor that will be in the photo, so no additional viewfinder is needed.

The main advantage of the optical viewfinder is that the brightness of the image is not affected by the maximum aperture of the lens. Also, focus for lenses up to 90mm is easier and more precise than with an SLR. Over 90mm, the SLR is more precise.

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

No rangefinder, no Leica. Started decades ago with Canon FTB, all manual, and thinking that was pretty nice, being in control. I note from your gear list you are not a Leica user, and maybe not a fan. Suggestions for alternatives.

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

I am not a Leica user but have had rangefinders in the past. My point was just that I can't fathom why someone would want to use an LCD once they had used a rangefinder...

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

It is just that using one viewer to compose and another to focus, seems ... outdated to me. Maybe I've just gotten lazy with autofocus.

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Only with an accessory viewfinder. With a standard focal length you use the same viewfinder to focus and compose

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

If you wish to invest in a name, then Leica is a good one.
If you wish to have a camera which is nearly perfect, especially for your requirements, please have a look and trial of a Sony Nex 7.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

And you will save a ton of money to boot.

Regbaron Loc: Melbourne Australia

The Leica is well out of my price range but check out this review ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykuy4qYip1U&list=SP7579B0B003643180 )
you may find it interesting.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Try a used Leica film camera and a single lens (50mm or 35mm). It will give you a feel for the rangefinder without paying a huge price for the digital version.

It all depends on what you want to photograph. You can’t do macro or long telephoto with a rangefinder but everything else is available, except zoom lenses.

Like digital vs. film, with rangefinder vs. SLR it just depends on what you want to accomplish. Each has advantages over the other.

Since this could be a significant investment you need to take your time and do the research.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

This past weekend I got a chance to try out the Leica M monochrome camera for street photography.
(http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_monochrom/)
As a participant in the Leica Akademie street photography workshop I was loaned the camera with the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux lens.
(http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/7263.html)
Those of the other workshop participants who were able to try out the three monochrome cameras available for loan were ecstatic over it. Most or all of them were already owners of Leica cameras. I was a great deal less ecstatic; in fact, on the second day of the workshop I turned down a Leica M9 in favor of using my Nikon D800 with Nikon's 24-114 f/4.

Now, one might ask why I would favor a heavy, bulky, "cheap" DSLR over a $12,000 more compact and light classic rangefinder, the tool of the great Cartier-Bresson.

1. There is no autofocus and if one needs to grab a fast, candid shot one needs to preset the lens opening so that within a certain range of distance from the subject the camera will be in focus. One determines this from the squeezed together, hard to read scale inscribed on the lens body. However, the Nikon with its zoom lens and auto focus imposes no such limitation.

2. You can see part of the lens within the frame formed by the white lines in the viewfinder. Without the artistic training to perfectly visualize a shot without putting the camera to my eye, this makes it all the more difficult to visualize the composition of my shot. On the other hand, what you see in the viewfinder of the Nikon is exactly what you get.

3. The LCD is smaller than the Nikon's and even set to maximum brightness is hard to see in daylight when reviewing one's shots.

4. There are no Leica zoom lenses, only primes. I do not find the tired cliché of "zoom with your feet" to make any sense. (http://www.thewsreviews.com/2012/02/zwyf.html)

5. There is no built-in flash. So you don't have the convenience of putting a little sparkle into someone's eye while using the flash as fill when you're not carrying your speedlight.

6. The battery gave out after an afternoon of shooting. My Nikon battery is good for two days of shooting.

7. HOWEVER, (and this may be decisive for some) the black and white tonal range coming out of this camera is spectacular. This is due to the fact that, unlike an RGB sensor, every pixel gets a luminance value, so there is much more information.

8. I still find it hard to believe that because of its prestigious name, Leica is not placing an obscene markup on this camera.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Clearly, one size does not fit all. The Leica M might not suit your needs but seems right for others.

From me, I simply cannot afford it, yet, but I am not under “the spell” either. I also have a Zeiss Ikon, a couple of Hasselblads, a Rolleiflex, Nikon SLRs and DSLRs as well as a 4x5 view camera. Each has its place, they do not get equal time but I use them all. It’s nice to have a choice.