|
Good god, you inherited a camera whos first hit on google that isnt the main leica website is "Why is the Leica M10 so expensive?" I have no advice for you, really, other than to say enjoy it!
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Are you sentimentally attached to it? Because selling it would get you a whole lot of kit from Canon/Nikon/Sony and get you going smoother than getting a lens for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
That's a terrible burden and I'll gladly take it off your hands for the cost of shipping
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Are you sentimentally attached to it? Because selling it would get you a whole lot of kit from Canon/Nikon/Sony and get you going smoother than getting a lens for it. Yeah, this. And it will be so much easier and probably more fun to use. M10 has no autofocus
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 01:04
|
|
|
If you want to shoot in a rangefinder style then just get a Fujifilm X-Pro or X series camera. The former is an interchangeable lens system, while the latter is fixed with a 23mm f/2.0 lens but you can buy converters to change the focal length. Learning photography with a Leica is like learning to drive in a Ferrari
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 01:12
|
|
|
It's not great condition. I've looked and it would probably go for around 3500. That's not nothing but it's not a fortune and I'd rather keep it. I don't want to spend thousands on lenses and happy to tool around with it and learn the ropes. Just asking about opinions on voigtlander lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
they're bomb rear end. don't listen to these haters. keep it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Sounds good, OP. Here are 40 other suggestions other than holding on to that Leica:
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
Lily Catts posted:If you want to shoot in a rangefinder style then just get a Fujifilm X-Pro or X series camera. These are not rangefinders V for Vegas posted:It's not great condition. I've looked and it would probably go for around 3500. That's not nothing but it's not a fortune and I'd rather keep it. I don't want to spend thousands on lenses and happy to tool around with it and learn the ropes. Just asking about opinions on voigtlander lenses. Voigtlander is great. There's a lot of up and coming Chinese lens manufacturers for leica m mount, too
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Yeah, this. And it will be so much easier and probably more fun to use. M10 has no autofocus I cannot even imagine getting into photography as a self taught beginner using a camera with no autofocus, lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 02:43
|
|
|
It’ll be harder but it will make you better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:00
|
|
|
My first SLR was a clapped out KX and as a 12 year old self taught beginner I did fine with it. I think the OP will probably enjoy learning the camera and if not it’ll still be worth about the same if they decide to ditch it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:01
|
|
|
Since there's no autofocus anyway you might look into vintage lenses. You can pick up good ones for pretty cheap ($50-100) and experiment with different focal lengths, see what you enjoy shooting at. Trade up to modern lenses when you have a better idea what you like to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:02
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:It's not great condition. I've looked and it would probably go for around 3500. That's not nothing but it's not a fortune and I'd rather keep it. I don't want to spend thousands on lenses and happy to tool around with it and learn the ropes. Just asking about opinions on voigtlander lenses. If you're gonna keep it, get yourself a Voigtlander Nokton Vintage 50mm f/1.5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Since there's no autofocus anyway you might look into vintage lenses. You can pick up good ones for pretty cheap ($50-100) and experiment with different focal lengths, see what you enjoy shooting at. Trade up to modern lenses when you have a better idea what you like to do. I agree with this. Get a wide (<35) and normal (50) and a long (85+) and go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:07
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I cannot even imagine getting into photography as a self taught beginner using a camera with no autofocus, lol Focus is the easiest part. Best starter camera is manual focus aperture priority IMO. Makes you think about focus and depth of field while still holding your hand on exposure
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:15
|
|
|
I got into photography through rangefinders. It's really not that hard, especiallyMegabound posted:Focus is the easiest part. Best starter camera is manual focus aperture priority IMO. Makes you think about focus and depth of field while still holding your hand on exposure Yeah, if you have something that helps with exposure. e: if anything, manual focus was part of what drew me in to photography because it involved me in the picture in a way a cell phone didn't big black turnout fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Feb 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:27
|
|
|
Yeah I love manual focusing and even as a beginner I would often run with AF off just to learn the process
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 04:08
|
|
|
If the camera you're using to learn has focus peaking, manual focus is very doable as a beginner. I shot manual more than auto when I was first starting out and it helped me get a sense of focal depth more quickly
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 04:39
|
|
|
Doesn't no autofocus basically cut you out of doing any of sort of photography other than essentially still landscapes? And I guess everyone else has had a different experience, but what seems to be in focus on a tiny camera screen often proves to be a bit blurry when the pictures are viewed on any sort of larger scale. I suppose that experience could drive one to invest more deeply in the art of taking tons of poor photos and studying them until you master the theory, kind of like how the karate kid cleaning the windows learned how to defend himself from being attacked, but... Uh, whatever. Almost all of the talk about which of the newest camera systems to buy seems to center around which has the best autofocus system. I guess there's just two schools of thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 04:54
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Doesn't no autofocus basically cut you out of doing any of sort of photography other than essentially still landscapes? And I guess everyone else has had a different experience, but what seems to be in focus on a tiny camera screen often proves to be a bit blurry when the pictures are viewed on any sort of larger scale. I suppose that experience could drive one to invest more deeply in the art of taking tons of poor photos and studying them until you master the theory, kind of like how the karate kid cleaning the windows learned how to defend himself from being attacked, but... Uh, whatever. Almost all of the talk about which of the newest camera systems to buy seems to center around which has the best autofocus system. I guess there's just two schools of thought. People have been taking sharp photos of all kinds of things since the late 1800s
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 04:57
|
|
|
Cameras designed for manual focus are designed for manual focus. Y'all are focusing (no pun intended) on the idea of focusing on a modern AF body that isn't built for manual focusing. Things like split prisms or rangefinders give you focusing information and if you aren't stopped down to f/1.4 or whatever you can easily get close enough to focused. People, including amateurs, did it for literal decades. For subjects, for me, it was mostly friends and (adult) family that could stand still for ten seconds or just zone focusing for things like random birds at the park or whatever
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:00
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Doesn't no autofocus basically cut you out of doing any of sort of photography other than essentially still landscapes? only if you're shooting fast stuff at 1.2
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:00
|
|
|
Better action photos than anyone in here has taken has been done with full manual. Modern tastes certainly prioritize perfect focus but a bit of softness definitely works if the photographer knows their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:01
|
|
|
For a less dismissive answer, modern digital cameras are not designed to be manual focused so that kind of photography has taken a back seat. Modern Leicas are rangefinders where you can't even see what your lens is seeing. You have a lovely big bright viewfinder and a little patch that you align 2 images in to get critical focus. Rangefinders are highly valued by street photographers who like to shoot on the move, cause with a little practice you can get very quick and focusing them, and following focus is a lot easier than with an SLR or similar. You can also use techniques like zone focusing to get everything from like 2m - 10m in sharp focus (like a 35mm lens at f8) and not bother focusing, just gauge distance to your subject and pop off the shot. I don't own a camera with auto focus and I also own cameras with no way to check focus at all where all I can do is estimate distance. It's something you get good at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:02
|
|
|
Megabound posted:People have been taking sharp photos of all kinds of things since the late 1800s Ahh, yes, like everyone else, I recall seeing these photos. For a less dismissive answer, like literally everyone else on this planet, I do not recall seeing these photos, because they pretty much do not exist. Edit: Here come a bunch of awkward photos of some crazy eyed farmers from the 1800's attempting to not move for their big photo shoot
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
what
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:06
|
|
|
Like I'm sort of curious, have you ever seen a viewfinder on a manual focus camera? This more or less what my first SLR looked like through the lens: You line up the lines in the two halves of the circle and you're in focus e: okay you're having a very normal one
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:06
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Ahh, yes, like everyone else, I recall seeing these photos. For a less dismissive answer, like literally everyone else on this planet, I do not recall seeing these photos, because they pretty much do not exist. You've seen VJ Day in Times Square right? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
 https://neilleifer.com/collections/muhammad-ali or like, anything here oh, you're doing the purposefully dense trolling thing again \/
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:09
|
|
|
Megabound posted:You've seen VJ Day in Times Square right? Ahh yes, victory over Japan in the 1800's. I remember that well
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:09
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:https://neilleifer.com/collections/muhammad-ali Ah yes, Muhammad Ali, famous 19th century boxer
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:10
|
|
|
It's honestly not that hard. I picked up a vintage lens and have been playing with it, I certainly get a lot more slightly blurry pictures than with autofocus but after a few hours of practice I got sharp cat pictures, which I consider a major win. It's fun. I'm not interested in ditching autofocus, I'll be using that most of the time, but for the kinds of photography I'm interested in doing with a manual lens having tack-sharp focus isn't important anyway. litany of gulps posted:Ah yes, Muhammad Ali, famous 19th century boxer He said since the 1800s, not in the 1800s. Autofocus didn't exist until like the mid 1980s. You have seen lots of manual focus images that were not landscapes. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Feb 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:11
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Ahh yes, victory over Japan in the 1800's. I remember that well The same technology has existed for a long while. 120 film, still shot and made today, was introduced in 1901. Roll film types 101 - 110 were introduced in 1895 along with the cameras to use them. People bought sheet film and plate before that. Photography is old, people have been doing this for a long time and managing to get sharp photos on the move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:17
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He said since the 1800s, not in the 1800s. Autofocus didn't exist until like the mid 1980s. You have seen lots of manual focus images that were not landscapes. Obviously, we're all being flippant here. Everyone has read accounts of Vietnam war photographers and others basically explaining how they had no loving idea whether or not anything they shot was worth a poo poo until after the fact. Obviously some of those photographs turned out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:17
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Obviously, we're all being flippant here. No, pretty sure it's just you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:19
|
|
|
This photo is by Eugene Atget, it was taken in 1899
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:No, pretty sure it's just you. You're probably right. There's a handful of good photos from every decade of the early and mid twentieth century, so manual focus is actually what everyone should be using in their photography. Nevermind the presumably vast number of lost opportunities. Ease of use has led to a tremendous proliferation in photography. Do you figure this is a bad thing? Would it ever have happened without taking good pictures becoming easy as a result of cell phones? Of course not. A few pages ago there was that poster mocking the idea of spending a thousand bucks on a new camera because he thought that the average photographer wouldn't ever use the features on such a device and just wanted something barebones. I disagreed, but ya'll are wild. The number of actual people willing to go this far in their independent study of photography is miniscule. Like trying to sell someone seeking to go from listening to music streamed from Youtube straight into buying gold contact Monster cables to hook into a turntable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:33
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Doesn't no autofocus basically cut you out of doing any of sort of photography other than essentially still landscapes? skill issue
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
litany of gulps posted:You're probably right. There's a handful of good photos from every decade of the early and mid twentieth century, so manual focus is actually what everyone should be using in their photography. Nevermind the presumably vast number of lost opportunities. You know you're on a photography art subforum right? Enjoy whatever cameras you enjoy, I'm not going to take that away from anyone. But a lot of people here are still shooting film or expensive Leicas with no autofocus. There's places where autofocus is very useful for sure, birding or sports, but it's a tool in the bag not a necessity to take good photos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 05:39
|
|