I dream of Leica

rover · 05-23-2010, 11:19 AM

As an M2, M3 and M4 user I understand your feeling. That said, instead of selling my soul for an M9 I am sitting patiently (maybe foolishly) for Pentax to release a FF camera on which I will use my lovely FA Limited lenses. I personally don't think the 31 measures up (though it is excellent) but the 43 and 77 are top quality.

LFLee · 05-23-2010, 11:32 AM

I do have a dream to own a Leica.

Just like I wanted a BMW as my car..... LOL

I was attracted by the so call 'Leica feel' of a photo, but with all the PP software around, I am not sure how much those Leica feel is from Leica camera itself or just good PP...

Now if Pentax can make a retro version of its dSLR - a dSLR in a K1000 body, that will be really cool....

Lee

Bart · 05-23-2010, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Voe

Yeah, it's a big chunk of money. Though I think buying from BHPhoto might be cheaper...

Aw - Import. Where I live, that means + 6.7% Import duty + Handling cost.
Add this to the invoiced price and add 21% VAT to the total.
And with the EUR going through a low, it wouldn't be cheaper, I'm afraid.

But you are absolutely right: no harm in dreaming.

A great set, isn't it?

Aegon · 05-23-2010, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by rover

As an M2, M3 and M4 user I understand your feeling. That said, instead of selling my soul for an M9 I am sitting patiently (maybe foolishly) for Pentax to release a FF camera on which I will use my lovely FA Limited lenses.

That's exactly why I'm down to the 31, 50, and 77.

One day I'll switch the 50 for the 43, of course, but for now this is a good setup.

**Aristophanes** · 05-23-2010, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Aegon

I sold all my lenses and went to 31, 50, 77 under a similar theory.

It doesn't stop LBA. You'll still want other lenses. There is no cure.

The cure is blindness

Bad taste, I know, but had to be said.

rover · 05-23-2010, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Aegon

That's exactly why I'm down to the 31, 50, and 77.

One day I'll switch the 50 for the 43, of course, but for now this is a good setup.

I also picked up an ME Super and MX. Not the same as a Leica M, but they get the job done. That is what it is all about right?

mudman · 05-23-2010, 02:27 PM

I just bought an M3 and a summicron... Can't the post office move any faster???

**interested_observer** · 05-23-2010, 05:11 PM

I might be able to afford the neck strap......

**Digitalis** · 05-23-2010, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Voe

I'm not really concerned about high iso quality of the Leica M8 or M9. From what I've seen it's good enough for me. What I like is the extemely small lenses and also camera size and great IQ you get.

well if you're looking for smaller lenses then look no further (apart from the DA pancakes) range finders have half the flange distance of any SLR therefore their lenses are consequently much much smaller a 35mm f/1.4 on a SLR is twice the size of a similar lens made for a rangefinder.

Originally posted by Voe

As far as 43mm f/1.9* matching summilux 50mm, do you mean the latest aspherical version or the previous version? I know for a fact that the 43mm is a very sharp lens as I have it in Pentax, but what I'm fascinated about is the colors from the Leica lenses. I'm pretty sure it's the lens and not the camera as I don't see the same rendering with Voigtlander lenses for Leica.
I like the rendering of the FA Limited better than any other SLR lens, but the rendering from Leica is different, kind of warmer but still with unique colorful look.

ahh; I was waiting for someone to mention this "the Leica glow" I will point out that I have seen it in images made with a radioactive takumar 50mm f/1.4. To be honest the Leica glow is a difficult phenomena to explain but it does exist: even when looking at thumbnails in lightroom I can spot the difference between Voigtlander, Zeiss and Leica lenses on my RF, with pentax it's a bit trickier because pentax also goes for a warmer palette. and yes I was comparing the 43mm f/1.9 to the non ASPH version of the summilux 50mm f/1.4 - which is the version I prefer for rendering reasons - The same reason why I use the noctilux 50mm f/1.0 instead of upgrading to the f/0.95 version, Aspherical elements can have BAD effects on bokeh especially at maximum apertures.

Groucho · 05-23-2010, 07:57 PM

You're lost with the M-mounts unless you go with a mirrorless digital camera, but the R-mounts can be easily adapted from what I understand. Leitax

I understand that you won't get a f0.95 Noctilux in R-mount but you can still get real Leica lenses and keep your current camera... or get 'em with Nikon mounts and put 'em on a D700 if you need FF digital right now... or just throw 'em on a K1000 and use the same film that you'd use in a Leica.

PentaxPoke · 05-23-2010, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Voe

I can't help my self when I look at images taken with Leica lenses. The colors the unique warmth cast, the image detail in every level. Qualities that even my beloved FA Limiteds can't match.
On many occasions I was seeing myself selling every lens and camera I have in order to fund for a Leica M8.2 (or maybe M9).
I feel sometimes that I get confused by having too many lenses. With Leica I would probably have only three (wide, standard and short tele), and it would be enough. It will give me a small and light package with superb quality and less confusion with lenses.

I was wondering is there anyone else on this forum having similar thoughts?

Without pictures, this thread has no meaning. Show us what you are talking about.

lurchlarson · 05-23-2010, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Voe

I can't help my self when I look at images taken with Leica lenses. The colors the unique warmth cast, the image detail in every level. Qualities that even my beloved FA Limiteds can't match.
On many occasions I was seeing myself selling every lens and camera I have in order to fund for a Leica M8.2 (or maybe M9).
I feel sometimes that I get confused by having too many lenses. With Leica I would probably have only three (wide, standard and short tele), and it would be enough. It will give me a small and light package with superb quality and less confusion with lenses.

I was wondering is there anyone else on this forum having similar thoughts?

If I could afford a Leica M9...I'd buy a Pentax 645D

Maybe not as romantic as the M9 but I could sure blow my images up pretty frickin' big! Not to mention I could thumb my nose at Canikons as let them know that my camera is bigger than their camera.

Seriously though, Leica's are beautiful and the craftsmanship that goes into building one is unmatched. There is a certain something that comes with saying "I shoot Leica."

I'd still buy the 645D.

Pentaxor · 05-23-2010, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by lurchlarson

If I could afford a Leica M9...I'd buy a Pentax 645D

Maybe not as romantic as the M9 but I could sure blow my images up pretty frickin' big! Not to mention I could thumb my nose at Canikons as let them know that my camera is bigger than their camera.

Seriously though, Leica's are beautiful and the craftsmanship that goes into building one is unmatched. There is a certain something that comes with saying "I shoot Leica."

I'd still buy the 645D.

I think pricewise and IQwise, 645D would make a lot more sense.

B Grace · 05-24-2010, 05:32 AM

Doesn't it seem that if the Photoshop people are as smart as they believe they are they could develop a Leica plug-in? Take some shots with your point-and-shooter and then Leica-tize them in PS? Maybe they have already, for what I know.

I too have noticed a difference in the photos I've taken over the years and those shot by a relative using Leica gear. It's difficult to explain the differences so I gave up trying. I have noticed however that I developed a better sense of the backgrounds in my shots over time and I realized that some of the pedestrian Pentax lenses such as my M50/2 provide excellent results but only under certain controlled conditions. Background light sources and busy backgrounds can be killers of shallow depth of field shots.

Cosmo · 05-24-2010, 05:58 AM

I'm planning on getting a 35mm rangefinder system in the next few years. My style of photography would really benefit from using a rangefinder, and I only uses lenses between 20mm and 50mm, and I shoot in low light regularly wide open, so I want lenses that perform just as well wide open as they do stopped down. I thought about getting a Zeiss Ikon, but I then decided that I'd rather invest more into an M6 TTL, probably with a .58 viewfinder. Lens wise, I'll get the Leica 28mm 2.8 Elmarit, and probably a cheaper 50mm from Voigtlander, either the Voigtlander 50mm 1.1 Nokton, or the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 Nokton, then I'll replace it with the Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux sometime in the future. I'll also get the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Distagon and upgrade the 28mm Elmarit to a Summicron.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dream Trip - Which Dream Lens?	sealonsf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-19-2010 05:27 PM
People We have a Dream	daacon	Post Your Photos!	11	01-15-2010 11:56 PM
I have a dream	Luciferase	General Talk	0	02-13-2009 05:41 PM
Dream On...	JorgeDeSilva	Post Your Photos!	5	12-20-2008 06:18 AM
Dream Lens ...	frank	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	07-30-2008 07:52 PM

05-23-2010, 11:19 AM	#16
rover Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 149	As an M2, M3 and M4 user I understand your feeling. That said, instead of selling my soul for an M9 I am sitting patiently (maybe foolishly) for Pentax to release a FF camera on which I will use my lovely FA Limited lenses. I personally don't think the 31 measures up (though it is excellent) but the 43 and 77 are top quality.

05-23-2010, 11:32 AM	#17
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	I do have a dream to own a Leica. Just like I wanted a BMW as my car..... LOL I was attracted by the so call 'Leica feel' of a photo, but with all the PP software around, I am not sure how much those Leica feel is from Leica camera itself or just good PP... Now if Pentax can make a retro version of its dSLR - a dSLR in a K1000 body, that will be really cool.... Lee

05-23-2010, 11:38 AM	#18
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	Originally posted by Voe Yeah, it's a big chunk of money. Though I think buying from BHPhoto might be cheaper... Aw - Import. Where I live, that means + 6.7% Import duty + Handling cost. Add this to the invoiced price and add 21% VAT to the total. And with the EUR going through a low, it wouldn't be cheaper, I'm afraid. But you are absolutely right: no harm in dreaming. A great set, isn't it?

05-23-2010, 11:52 AM	#19
Aegon Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,416	Originally posted by rover As an M2, M3 and M4 user I understand your feeling. That said, instead of selling my soul for an M9 I am sitting patiently (maybe foolishly) for Pentax to release a FF camera on which I will use my lovely FA Limited lenses. That's exactly why I'm down to the 31, 50, and 77. One day I'll switch the 50 for the 43, of course, but for now this is a good setup.

05-23-2010, 12:36 PM	#20
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Aegon I sold all my lenses and went to 31, 50, 77 under a similar theory. It doesn't stop LBA. You'll still want other lenses. There is no cure. The cure is blindness Bad taste, I know, but had to be said.

05-23-2010, 02:17 PM	#21
rover Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 149	Originally posted by Aegon That's exactly why I'm down to the 31, 50, and 77. One day I'll switch the 50 for the 43, of course, but for now this is a good setup. I also picked up an ME Super and MX. Not the same as a Leica M, but they get the job done. That is what it is all about right?

05-23-2010, 02:27 PM	#22
mudman Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 77	I just bought an M3 and a summicron... Can't the post office move any faster???

05-23-2010, 05:11 PM	#23
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	I might be able to afford the neck strap......

05-23-2010, 05:12 PM	#24
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Voe I'm not really concerned about high iso quality of the Leica M8 or M9. From what I've seen it's good enough for me. What I like is the extemely small lenses and also camera size and great IQ you get. well if you're looking for smaller lenses then look no further (apart from the DA pancakes) range finders have half the flange distance of any SLR therefore their lenses are consequently much much smaller a 35mm f/1.4 on a SLR is twice the size of a similar lens made for a rangefinder. Originally posted by Voe As far as 43mm f/1.9* matching summilux 50mm, do you mean the latest aspherical version or the previous version? I know for a fact that the 43mm is a very sharp lens as I have it in Pentax, but what I'm fascinated about is the colors from the Leica lenses. I'm pretty sure it's the lens and not the camera as I don't see the same rendering with Voigtlander lenses for Leica. I like the rendering of the FA Limited better than any other SLR lens, but the rendering from Leica is different, kind of warmer but still with unique colorful look. ahh; I was waiting for someone to mention this "the Leica glow" I will point out that I have seen it in images made with a radioactive takumar 50mm f/1.4. To be honest the Leica glow is a difficult phenomena to explain but it does exist: even when looking at thumbnails in lightroom I can spot the difference between Voigtlander, Zeiss and Leica lenses on my RF, with pentax it's a bit trickier because pentax also goes for a warmer palette. and yes I was comparing the 43mm f/1.9 to the non ASPH version of the summilux 50mm f/1.4 - which is the version I prefer for rendering reasons - The same reason why I use the noctilux 50mm f/1.0 instead of upgrading to the f/0.95 version, Aspherical elements can have BAD effects on bokeh especially at maximum apertures.

05-23-2010, 07:57 PM	#25
Groucho Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 416	You're lost with the M-mounts unless you go with a mirrorless digital camera, but the R-mounts can be easily adapted from what I understand. Leitax I understand that you won't get a f0.95 Noctilux in R-mount but you can still get real Leica lenses and keep your current camera... or get 'em with Nikon mounts and put 'em on a D700 if you need FF digital right now... or just throw 'em on a K1000 and use the same film that you'd use in a Leica.

05-23-2010, 10:10 PM	#26
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by Voe I can't help my self when I look at images taken with Leica lenses. The colors the unique warmth cast, the image detail in every level. Qualities that even my beloved FA Limiteds can't match. On many occasions I was seeing myself selling every lens and camera I have in order to fund for a Leica M8.2 (or maybe M9). I feel sometimes that I get confused by having too many lenses. With Leica I would probably have only three (wide, standard and short tele), and it would be enough. It will give me a small and light package with superb quality and less confusion with lenses. I was wondering is there anyone else on this forum having similar thoughts? Without pictures, this thread has no meaning. Show us what you are talking about.

05-23-2010, 11:13 PM	#27
lurchlarson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 681	Originally posted by Voe I can't help my self when I look at images taken with Leica lenses. The colors the unique warmth cast, the image detail in every level. Qualities that even my beloved FA Limiteds can't match. On many occasions I was seeing myself selling every lens and camera I have in order to fund for a Leica M8.2 (or maybe M9). I feel sometimes that I get confused by having too many lenses. With Leica I would probably have only three (wide, standard and short tele), and it would be enough. It will give me a small and light package with superb quality and less confusion with lenses. I was wondering is there anyone else on this forum having similar thoughts? If I could afford a Leica M9...I'd buy a Pentax 645D Maybe not as romantic as the M9 but I could sure blow my images up pretty frickin' big! Not to mention I could thumb my nose at Canikons as let them know that my camera is bigger than their camera. Seriously though, Leica's are beautiful and the craftsmanship that goes into building one is unmatched. There is a certain something that comes with saying "I shoot Leica." I'd still buy the 645D.

05-23-2010, 11:57 PM	#28
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by lurchlarson If I could afford a Leica M9...I'd buy a Pentax 645D Maybe not as romantic as the M9 but I could sure blow my images up pretty frickin' big! Not to mention I could thumb my nose at Canikons as let them know that my camera is bigger than their camera. Seriously though, Leica's are beautiful and the craftsmanship that goes into building one is unmatched. There is a certain something that comes with saying "I shoot Leica." I'd still buy the 645D. I think pricewise and IQwise, 645D would make a lot more sense.

05-24-2010, 05:32 AM	#29
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	Doesn't it seem that if the Photoshop people are as smart as they believe they are they could develop a Leica plug-in? Take some shots with your point-and-shooter and then Leica-tize them in PS? Maybe they have already, for what I know. I too have noticed a difference in the photos I've taken over the years and those shot by a relative using Leica gear. It's difficult to explain the differences so I gave up trying. I have noticed however that I developed a better sense of the backgrounds in my shots over time and I realized that some of the pedestrian Pentax lenses such as my M50/2 provide excellent results but only under certain controlled conditions. Background light sources and busy backgrounds can be killers of shallow depth of field shots.

05-24-2010, 05:58 AM	#30
Cosmo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	I'm planning on getting a 35mm rangefinder system in the next few years. My style of photography would really benefit from using a rangefinder, and I only uses lenses between 20mm and 50mm, and I shoot in low light regularly wide open, so I want lenses that perform just as well wide open as they do stopped down. I thought about getting a Zeiss Ikon, but I then decided that I'd rather invest more into an M6 TTL, probably with a .58 viewfinder. Lens wise, I'll get the Leica 28mm 2.8 Elmarit, and probably a cheaper 50mm from Voigtlander, either the Voigtlander 50mm 1.1 Nokton, or the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 Nokton, then I'll replace it with the Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux sometime in the future. I'll also get the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Distagon and upgrade the 28mm Elmarit to a Summicron.