The image comes from the lens not body. So it would be more sensible if you name this image comparison between Voigtlander vs Olympus, not Leica M6. It has nothing to do with the image quality.
Human life is similar to the image results of the two cameras: in the end, something quite similar comes out of it. So if you live a result-oriented life, some things are not worth it. But there is also the possibility of living in a process-oriented way. And then the question of value or unvalue is completely different.
Agree! The way can be the goal. Additionally, the Mju can often miss focus in settings different than landscape or wide shots. There is not much control, but is something you can just put in a pocket and be ready to shoot. So it's a practical tool or toy, whatever you wanna call it. But if you really enjoy the slow controlled process the leica (or any other comparable camera) cant be replaced by a mju.
Lovely landscape, I love taking landscape photos myself. Both perform well, Leica have their own color, the point and shoot also perform well. For beginner will be a point and shoot. The Leica can change lens and have more option to play with. All photos are great to me (although I am a Hasselblad and Leica user), most important is enjoy the trip and take down the memory from your heart.
Love Norway! One of the destinations on my list to visit before I die. Do let us know the best time to visit Norway? Now what I think about these cameras, both have their place, but to me in this situation, Olympus is the winner, loved the true natural colors it produced vs. Leica M6 that has more green tent.
Before my M6, I used the following point & shoot 35mm cameras: Canon Sure Shot with 38mm f/2.8 fixed lens Nikon L35 AF with 35mm f/2.8 fixed lens Both produced excellent images but were not rugged enough for daily use. Before my M6, I used the following fixed-lens 35mm rangefinder cameras: Minolta Hi-Matic 9 with fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens Canon Canonet QL17 G-III with fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens Both were rugged enough for daily use and both produced excellent images but I also needed more than one focal length. Before my M6, I used the following 35mm rangefinders with interchangeable lenses: Argus C-3 with 35mm f/4.5, 50 f/3.5, and 100mm f/4.5 lenses Contax G1 with 21mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 45mm f/2, and 90mm f/2.8 lenses Both were rugged enough for daily use. The Contax produced excellent images and the Argus produced acceptable images. However, since I did a lot of shooting in dim light, I also needed lenses that gathered more light. My Leica M6 met all my needs. It was rugged and dependable enough for daily professional usage. Also, its fast 21mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, and 90mm f/2 lenses produced excellent images even in low light conditions. Therefore, for me, the Leica M6 was worth the money.
With both cameras you can achieve great results in the hands of a competent photographer. I have a mju i, I love it for what it is but your mju ii shots look sharper than mine. Isn't Portra 800 the best colour film in the world?? Also, your country is gorgeous. Cheers Joel!
Thank you for the kind words John, maybe I just had a clean lens that day :) MJU is absolutely a wonderful camera in many ways and I also agree with you on Portra 800 :)
Definitely agree. Leica just feels too good in hand and I guess a lot of the experience is about how it looks too. No complaints about the results either.
Hi Joel! i'm fairly new to film photography and I was just wondering why you opted to use iso 800 outdoors instead of 400 or 200? I had it drilled in my head to only use 800 when indoors haha.
Hi! That's a great question and I like 800 due to the wide range of light conditions I shoot in. 800 gives the flexibility to shoot anywhere plus I like the bit rougher grain it has. Hope that helps!
Wow such a beautiful place for photography! And the little Olympus is so capable too!!! Other than a slight vignette it does give great value against the M6.
Great landscape. The image quality has nothing to do with the camera body (assuming the body is a fully functional one) and has everything to do with the film stock, the lens, and the development and scanning/printing process.
Awesome drone shots :) Do you use the M6 for street photography too by chance? Considering this is the actual advantage of having a range finder camera. ;) Lovely photos too btw.
@@joelhypponen keep em coming! I'm a new M6 user and shooting film for the past year now. Love how you incorporate the beautiful scenery around you and chatting about photography. Crushing it dude!
Jesus, that Mju camera, which is filled with (breakable) electronics and (equally breakable) plastic gearing had cost the same $250 when it was new, some 25 years ago, that's ridiculous...
hey joel, always hype when you post a new video. i truly look forward to them. as far as the cameras go, based on your comparison I would choose the olympus. there were some differences in color, but I didn't see any sacrifice to sharpness. and at that price delta, who can argue‽ keep up the great work joel, looking forward to the next video :)
Thanks so much for the kind words and wathing the video! :) I think the results are surprisingly similar, hence Olympus has auto settings and Leica M6 has manual so there's a big difference when shooting scenes get more complicated. For a budget option, I think Olympus has enormous value for the money vs Leica operates well in a wider range of light plus you can choose the optics.
That's exactly my thoughts after comparing the results. I think it really comes down to the way you like to use a camera and how much manual control you want. I guess some people also choose based on the aesthetics of the camera, hah :)
Great video showing the photo comparisons. From my experience, it is all about post-processing of the color negatives to get the very similar looking photo like in digital. Less processed, the Porta 800 files would have a more cyan cast typical for film.
what a waste... there was no comparison... seeing some images on youtube without actually looking at the negs and scans to compare the details, like sharpness, acutance, micro contrast etc.. some colour shifts isnt a comparison.. and for all we know you may of edited them anyway! Poor
Okay Leica fanboys - lets be real = no big difference in landscape photography quality. So the question is... Is it worth buying Leica for 2.5k and achieve the same results as a guy who found a Olympus mju in a thrift store for 20$? Big NOUP in my opinion. Of course Leica will beat Mju in bokeh portraits and night photography (with 1.4 and 1.2 lenses), but not in street photography and not in landscape photography so lets drop the Leica hype 😉
There it is. Shooting a Leica won't make anybody Cartier-Bresson and as always, it comes down to how one sees the world. If I had to pick one, it would be MJU.
