I seem to have been drawn, inextricably, to this quiet "M" forum - despite being superficially happy with m4/3.
I'm trying to work out if an m8/8.2 with a sensible 28/2ish (biogon, ultron, hexanon) lens will be the right camera for me, and noticed that a couple of users here seem to have such a combination, an M9 & 35 seems just prohibitively expensive.
Really the rangefinder gestalt strongly appeals, and the majority of my recent shooting has been with the 20/1.7 lumix - a focal length which I feel very comfortable with.
Can anyone here breifly sum up their experiences with regard to this combination versus a mu4/3 & 20/1.7?
I of course understand that the M is fully manual, and that the mu43 is also smaller, but people here seem conversational, and I am on a fence!
I think people either love or hate the M. I used to think it was the most overpriced camera in the world (whether it's the M8, 8.2 or 9). Why in the world would anyone want to buy an expensive camera without auto focus, with a horrible LCD screen, and lenses that cost more than the camera? That all changed one day. Not quite sure what it was. Probably Steve Huff's contagious enthusiasm and fanboyism towards Leica. I found myself lusting after a M camera. I bought a M8. And then like Bill said, all of a sudden, the M9 didn't sound as expensive anymore. Of course, to the rest of the world, that sound nuts! How can the M9 not be expensive? Beats me. Maybe it's because once you are so deeply into something (or someone), then spending a lot of money on it or her or him (assuming that one can afford it) just doesn't seem all that horrible.
Using a rangefinder is almost a form of art. It slows you down. It gives you more time to think. And there's a romantic feeling about it.
Between the M8 and M9, I thought that the images from the M8 were a tad bit sharper. And the M8 also has a top shutter speed of 1/8000 vs. 1/4000 on the M9. The high shutter speed is a HUGE plus whenever you are using fast glass during daylight. Otherwise, w/o the 1/8000, people have to stop down their Summilux from 1.4 to 2.8. Heaven forbid anyone would spend $3000 - $4000 on a 1.4 lens to then stop it down to 2.8 (other than for additional DOF). Hehehe.
Wow, I'm all over the place with this post. So I have the GH2 + 20mm. Awesome combo. Much easier to use and handle than the M9 + 35mm. But the quality of the images from the M9 are clearly superior to my eyes.
I say, get the M8 and the 28 Elmarit. You can probably find a 28 Elmarit used for about $1500 - 1800, and cheaper if it's an older version. That should be about 36mm in EFL. The 28 Elmarit is tiny. And also one of the cheapest Leica lens too. Of course you can always go all Cosina Voigtlander like I did, and save loads of $. I always see the CV as 90% of Leica quality, for 10% of Leica price. I have the CV 21/4, 35/1.4, 50/1.5, 50/2.5 and 75/2.5. All lenses are great, IMO.
Ok, enough rambling for now!