Yes. Leica is not a system you’d want to consider if technicalities matter to you. I mean… No autofocus…. Amongst many other things. There are far better spec’d cameras, for far less money. What they do, is give us analog photographers the closest possible experience to shooting film, while having the benefits of digital. I primarily shoot ISO 3200 film. Grain isn’t an issue for me.

@@jeremy-t Actually I am not concerned about auto focus, I am totally okay with manual focus lenses. I shoot film too, the idea of Leica film cameras is more appealing after looking at the data for Leica digital cameras and their sensors. For me personally speaking, film at 3200 Is too grainy for me. Although I am totally okay with modern digital cameras at ISO 3200, even 6400 depending on the camera. I can totally understand what you have said that quite a lot of people find higher grain appealing, and I do to some extent too. You are probably right that there are better cameras as far as digital sensors are concerned for someone like me that are non Leica cameras. At the moment I was just trying to understand what I would be buying into if I bought a Leica digital camera.

@@dalvinderbasi3495 Ah I see! Ok I get it now, didn’t immediately understand where you were coming from in the first comment. Yes, you definitely won’t be buying into “amazing technological performance per dollar spent”. But, you will, be getting a camera that gives good pictures, that pretty much works exactly like a film camera (if you can ignore the screen). Most tangibly, it’s about process versus outcome when it comes to a digital M vs other systems. (Though the M9 and M240 do give colours that are very unique, but that’s subjective and still down to one’s ability to grade, eg, most people might not be able to tell the difference between Ektar and Gold 200) How the object feels in the hands, how the shooting experience is.. Its main benefit cannot be measured empirically. So to directly compare output, in isolation, with numbers and charts, and conclude that it doesn’t measure up, would be missing a big part of the point. Not saying that Leica is better, in fact for most people, it’s probably not. But if you can, try to get your hands on one for a few days, and see how you find it! Hope that answers your question!

​@@jeremy-t Thank you so much for replying, that is very useful and explains a lot. I am now tempted to look at one of the M ddigital bodies.

I just got my F1 recalibrated to eliminate front focusing issues at F1.

@@j.k5654 the one I had was spot on at f/1, but the zone of focus shifted when stopped down, so it was not possible to mask slight focus misses with extra depth of field until f/4 was reached. I sold it for the Summilux 50 ASPH when it was released before ever trying it on a digital camera. Have the f/0.95 - it has great focus on digital.

@@donald5378 oh ok, that sucks with the focus shift stopped down.