I recently did a thing. Like I said in an earlier post:
And we all know that eventually one day I will likely buy that Leica.
As described in Part 1 there was an early rangefinder out of calibration scare but after a trip to KEH spa all is well now.
To recap.
Recently highlighted two methods of M mount lens usage, analog M and adapted mirrorless, and now we have access to a third, digital M. Three methods of using the same lenses.
What next?
A comparison of course.
This is truly a comparison and not a vs. Because in all honesty I must say up front that it does not matter. Or at least it should not matter. There will be no discussion of what is “better”. At most I will discuss what may be different. Any option is valid. Or none of them also for that matter. Have created images I am happy with using film cameras costing less than a memory card.
If the question is, “Is digital M needed for the purposes of image creation alone?”, I can already tell you the answer is no. All depends on personal preferences. I may try to outline why one may choose one over another. But again, that is an entirely different discussion than any attempt to choose what is “best”.
The Plan.
List each lens use case scenario, what I hang off of the back of the lens, with my take on pluses and minuses for each and then similarly framed photos of all three shown back to back for illustrative purposes. After that some manner of summary/conclusion attempting to wrap this all up with a bow before hitting the exit.
Image Capturing Methods
Analog M
Tool Used: Konica Hexar RF
Notes: Bought as an attempt to access Leica M7 (A phenomenal camera that I would pick up not long after locating my money tree.) levels of analog exposure automation at a lower price point that has so far been a great success.
Plus: OG film Rangefinder goodness.
Minus: One must be a fan of OG film Rangefinder goodness.
Adapted to Mirrorless
Tool Used: Sony A7C w/ AF by way of TECHART LMEA7 adapter
Notes: Sure I could have played fair and used a simple, inexpensive dumb adapter with manual focus… but I have this LMEA7 adapter I bought years ago so… AF it is. For the record MF is just as easy, just takes a moment longer.
Plus: If you have a mirrorless camera and an M mount lens you are one inexpensive adapter away from faux Rangefinder focus peaking goodness. Depending on the adapter you can also gain access to closer focusing than what can be achieved natively. Some modern mirrorless cameras even lean a little into the no faux DSLR hump, upper left corner viewfinder, and Rangefinder-ish blocky body aesthetic a little bit. Exhibit A:
Minus: All the additional practical features in the world (And there are aplenty.) does not offset one fact. It is not a Rangefinder.
Digital M
Tool: Leica M Type 240
Plus: OG Rangenfinder goodness with a streamlined digital workflow along with the ability to swiftly adjust out of calibration 7Artisans and TTArtisans lenses.
Minus: Limited feature set on paper combined with asking prices that quickly climb into used car territory. Finding a “reasonable” copy requires patience and diligence.
Back to Back Similar-ish Images
Ground Rules
- All sample photos below will be using the (So far excellent.) 7Artisans 35mm f/1.4.
- Framing will not be identical but similar scenes will be compared.
- Film M and adapted shots were taken the same day and match more closely. Digital M shots were taken a few days later near the same time of day memory serving and are a little more off for that reason.
- Shot the film photos with Ilford HP5. To eliminate potential distractions I then converted all of the digital images to black and white in Lightroom. Will throw in a few adapted and rangefinder color sample images at the end.
- Photos will be shown in groups of three and labeled underneath.
B&W Comparison
Color (Digital) Comparison
Conclusion
Pretty much what I expected. I do not know about you, but I do not see a huge difference. But that makes sense.
- Same lens.
- Same location.
- Same time of day.
- Same photographer.
- All shot wide open.
Given this the expectation would be that the images would be similar. Changes expected would involve flexing the different capabilities of the varying solutions outside of these conditions.
The therapeutic exercise of developing and scanning your own choice of some expired, exotic, or basement bargain bin darling film stock behind the lens and not knowing what you will get until later fun (For me anyways.) of the Konica Hexar RF for instance.
Replacing an adapted lens with a native top of the range lens, employing blazing fast, near never miss predictive AF, and exercising other options like zoom lenses with Sony for instance.
Or enjoying the tactile simplicity, quiet shutter actuation, and compact size of the Leica that lets you fade into the background (When some stranger is not startling all within earshot by blurting out, “Is that a Leica?!”, in public back when I briefly had a Leica Q that is… I really need to let that go. Only happened once.). This along with having access to a wider, rangefinder field of view, with frame lines instead of a viewfinder (So no WYSIWIG depth of field or exposure preview.) whether optical or electronic.
So the bottom line for me is this.
What shooting experience are you looking for?
This is why I do not bother debating anything gear related. A waste of time. Each person is different. Each environment is different. Each assignment is different. Each budget is different. Each person’s physical capability is different, so on and so forth. This is the same reason I pepper my posts with statements like “Your mileage may vary.”, “Personal preference.”, “Run what you brung.”, and “Whatever floats your boat.”.
I will not waste anyone’s time lifting one methodology up over another with some meaningless declaration. I have far more to learn than what I have learned so far. That is one of my favorite things about photography. The learning process is endless.
Have a preferred method? Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. Enjoy. It took me a while to get somewhat close. And to some degree I am always still searching. May never fully get there.
Not sure what to do? Welcome dagnabbit. I saved you a seat. All options have their ups and downs. Choose a method and run with it. You can always change later.
Make sure to enjoy the experience of capturing as well as the images produced while you are at it. Some of my fondest memories align with images that range from less than I had hoped for to those lost forever to the analog or digital ether courtesy one misstep or other unforeseen circumstance. Some have returned results far beyond my expectations. All experiences appreciated. Experiences. Not brands, format, etc. That is what this is all about more than anything else for me.
My therapy.
Next up? I do not know. Thinking of taking some time to enjoy the Leica M Type 240 and writing an actual review. More parts may come to me before then. We will see.
Happy capturing.
-ELW
Eric L. Woods 