rscheffler wrote:
If it doesn't compromise the core M experience, then I'm not opposed to a more modern live view/MILC experience for that aspect of the camera. In fact, I welcome it.
Well, I’ve followed this thread closely and all it’s done is to produce in me a visceral hatred of the M11.
rscheffler wrote:
If it doesn't compromise the core M experience
See it, shoot it.
If it facilitates that, then it's golden. If it impedes that, it might be a little darker shade of brown.
I think that if one takes a pause and thinks about the "see it" part, then the context of how it is you want to see things comes in to play.
By that, I mean are you wanting to see things in the "rangefinder" way, that is classic of street shooting. If so, evaluate things in that context, pay little mind to the options / issues when not shooting through the RF mode.
OTOH, if you are a detail junkie wanting to see things with critical XYZ, then evaluate things wrt to how if facilitates your ability to see things in that mode.
I wonder if folks are inclined to be thinking about the issues of one mode, and cross-applying to the application of the other mode.
Then, of course, the "shoot it" part follows. Having the option for how one "sees", may very well be just that ... an option. So, where folks have a preference regarding their favorite way of seeing, doesn't necessarily mean it's time to toss the baby out with the bathwater regarding how the other option plays. Then again, it may allow one to realize, that seeing things that way is of little consideration to them.
So, while it might be "no gain" in one department (for some), that doesn't always make it a "loss" in the other one.
Again why does everyone want to make Leica M like everything else out there? If I wanted a camera like Fuji I would have that camera at a fraction of the cost. I prefer a true rangefinder. And yes gengi, I agree with Gordon, get the M 10 Mono. For all those out there that want a modern MILC experience but one of those that already exsist. Or maybe Leica will make one of those in the futre but leave the M a rangefinder.
As a traditional street photographer, the last thing on earth that I want is a Leica M with the “modern MILC shooting feeling”. Definitely the M10R (and perhaps an M10M) for me.
In a similar vein, for event coverage I don't need tech bling. I want something simple. Something that doesn't get in the way.
I already have an MILC for zoom lenses and a high resolution base for M lenses (without issues), with multiple resolution settings and a true ISO 64, with an integrated EVF. That isn't why I use an M....
Though, Guys, M11 doesn’t change the way you shooting RF. There is no much difference between it and M10 but with “better” sensor, “IQ” in scientific term.
I see no reason to upgrade for “traditional street” users but I didn’t say no reason to upgrade
There are tons of reason to upgrade if you happen shoot more stuff other than street; if you happen to use a MILC camera adapt manual lens only, if you want bright beautiful high resolution LCD/EVF, if you want shoot landscape at ISO64 without mandatory NR etc, you want shoot all day in RF without a need for another battery etc…
There are many subtle details in M11 I am sure you will appreciate in field and I am sure I will once I have it with me a few months or a trip or two. The only thing I miss is I just love my M10p black chrome finish
Yeah ain't gonna change me at all becasue I am holding on to the M 10 M and my M 10s. Nothing I want in this new camera. And I do shoot a lot more more than street.
zhangyue wrote:
Though, Guys, M11 doesn’t change the way you shooting RF. There is no much difference between it and M10 but with “better” sensor, “IQ” in scientific term.
I see no reason to upgrade for “traditional street” users but I didn’t say no reason to upgrade
There are tons of reason to upgrade if you happen shoot more stuff other than street; if you happen to use a MILC camera adapt manual lens only, if you want bright beautiful high resolution LCD/EVF, if you want shoot landscape at ISO64 without mandatory NR etc, you want shoot all day in RF without a need for another battery etc…
There are many subtle details in M11 I am sure you will appreciate in field and I am sure I will once I have it with me a few months or a trip or two. The only thing I miss is I just love my M10p black chrome finish...Show more →
It looks like Leica hit a wall in regards to improving RF since very little changed since the introduction of the M10. The P and R models gave us a quieter shutter but that's about it. So, what to do now? Well, Leica realized that changes in sensor, software and LV operation is the future but that's something many M shooters don't care about. 60MP on a M body is also a polarizing feature.
If I were shooting landscapes and close-up photography with it, I would consider upgrading, although for landscapes, the limitation will always be weather sealing, especially for M lenses.
It's worth pointing out that metering was actually NOT improved. The difference with the M11 is that it's always calculated off the sensor in RF mode. With previous models, we actually have two metering options when using the rangefinder: metering off the sensor in LV mode or metering off the blades is RF mode.
All this LV progress also brought some annoyances like the longer shutter operation and shutter noise (from opening) every time the camera is turned on. It's not really a big deal and most will get used to it but I find it to be a negative compared to previous models. Also because the sensor is always exposed when the camera is on, dust will inevitably end up there and that's what I love about the previous models as I never have to worry about dust in the sensor compared to my other mirrorless cameras.
If I were shooting landscapes and close-up photography with it, I would consider upgrading, although for landscapes, the limitation will always be weather sealing, especially for M lenses.
Maybe it's just me, but IMO M cameras are not for this kind of photography even though they can do it.
The whole design brief utilizing the optical RF that allows you to watch your subject enter the frame, is not set up for that. And never was meant to be. I know it's corny saying this, but Ms are to capture the moment..
But I get why Leica now offers 60mp - they need to incentivize new purchases.
The only time I'd be tempted by a new M is if they actually brought a significant design change to the table. A built in hybrid rf/evf would be it for me. Optical RF as always, flip a switch and get the EVF when needed.
I'm looking at my Fuji Xpro3 and see how well Fuji has incorporated this - even though they do not have an RF, but just an OVF.
But the principle is there, and there is zero gain in bulk. It's just a very thin 'membrane' that appears when the EVF is selected that blocks out the OVF. So this would not interfere with the function of an optical RF as it would not be part of that mechanism.
The hybrid EVF on the Fuji, that came out 2 years ago, is 3.7 mp. The just released 'state of the art' bulky clip on Leica EVF is also 3.7mp. How is this state of the art?
Anyway, the M11, for me, is making the old M10 and M10-R series very desirable. Especially at used prices!
Like Huss I certainly would pick Leica M for landscape work. I would, and might after I retire, shoot landscape and if I did I would probably return to film and pick up a used 8X10 Deardorff. Return to V&W film and the zone system. Of if I were to stay with digital and wnated really high res it migh be Blad or Phase digital medium format.
Thanks for posting. It basically gives similar performance to the Sony A7R IV's sensor, except that the M11 has different dual gain entry points. I see a very small DR improvement for the M11 at ISO 64 vs Sony at ISO 100 (11.82 vs 11.62) while the Sony does better at very high ISO settings after ISO 12,800.
Basically very little difference in real world performance since it's basically the same BSI sensor with a tweaked dual gain operation.
It's obviously a huge challenge for Leica to continue to update the M-series trying to keep existing users happy (and upgrading) while bringing new users into the fold...to some extent these two user set needs are at odds. I think if you are coming new into Leica, you would want the latest sensor, good live view, a good EVF...whereas if you are already in the Leica fold, you may put a higher value on improving/simplifying the user interface, improving the OVF, optimizing weight/size, optimizing the lag time, shutter sound, haptics...
I personally put higher value on latter specs, and would love to see the M line focus on those 'features' vs MP and the like.
A slightly smaller and lighter M body without rear screen but with a built-in EVF/OVF a-la-Fuji while preserving the RF focusing would be welcome, keeping MP at 24-ish with fast shutter response
I also think that they could neatly integrate an AF mechanism into the mount like the Techart Pro for those times when AF would be useful, and this may actually increase the pool of Leica users more than anything else...
Many will mention that the CL is Leica's answer to some of these needs but it lacks in a few areas, namely FF sensor, RF-capability...
I certainly agree with those who argue that Leica R&D should go in the direction of integrating a decent EVF into the viewfinder a la Fuji X Pro cameras. If Fuji can do it, why can’t Leica?
Keeping things simple is great, but I do like the extra function button on the M 11. I would also like to see better readout in the OVF - at least ISO - especially useful when in auto ISO mode. To see aperture confirmed there would also not hurt. A folding rear screen like the Fuji X 100 V would also be very useful. 60 MP I don’t need, though the implementation with smaller raw files is a real winner.
Jan 21, 2022 at 01:56 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for posting. It basically gives similar performance to the Sony A7R IV's sensor, except that the M11 has different dual gain entry points. I see a very small DR improvement for the M11 at ISO 64 vs Sony at ISO 100 (11.82 vs 11.62) while the Sony does better at very high ISO settings after ISO 12,800.
Basically very little difference in real world performance since it's basically the same BSI sensor with a tweaked dual gain operation.
Thanks for your comments and posting the chart. Yes, the M11 gets a slight DR boost at base ISO but really similar performance. Keep in mind that the Sony's advantage after ISO 12,800 is in a sense not real. Sony is automatically adding noise reduction at that point and you likely could do the same in post with the M11. I would prefer the M11 approach actually so I would have control of the noise reduction rather than the camera doing it automatically. Those are really high ISOs, however, and I rarely use them.
I think they have done a good job in the past of keeping the M what it should be. If they try and be like everything else then the ywill no longer be different and loose that advantage and loose me and all of those like me. And their sales have been strong when others maybe not so much. In my opinion they need to remain an alternative to everything else out there. Again if Leica wants to go down that path of a one size fits all camera then make another model but if they are smart which they have shown to be so far in the digital world they will keep M a true rangefinder.
wolfloid wrote:
I certainly agree with those who argue that Leica R&D should go in the direction of integrating a decent EVF into the viewfinder a la Fuji X Pro cameras. If Fuji can do it, why can’t Leica?
Keeping things simple is great, but I do like the extra function button on the M 11. I would also like to see better readout in the OVF - at least ISO - especially useful when in auto ISO mode. To see aperture confirmed there would also not hurt. A folding rear screen like the Fuji X 100 V would also be very useful. 60 MP I don’t need, though the implementation with smaller raw files is a real winner....Show more →
Why would anyone pay 9K for a fuji that already exists. I have bought Leica M (first M Mono, M262, M-E which I have sold and now I own 2 M10s and an M 10 mono partially because they weren't fuji or sony. Because they function nothing like them. They fit the way I see and work It is nice to have a real choice other than the one size fits all world already out there. M is a real choice. Leica M trying to be those cameras would loose me and many like me as customers. Again if Leica wants to make a camera that is a really expensive fuji then rock on Leica but don't do that to something that is already working just fine (M).
Jan 21, 2022 at 02:09 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
airfrogusmc wrote:
Like Huss I certainly would pick Leica M for landscape work. I would, and might after I retire, shoot landscape and if I did I would probably return to film and pick up a used 8X10 Deardorff. Return to V&W film and the zone system. Of if I were to stay with digital and wnated really high res it migh be Blad or Phase digital medium format.
There are certainly a lot of approaches and a lot depends on your preferences. Personally, I have decided to go with my Leica M for landscapes. I seriously considered going with Fuji MF as I have a Fuji GFX camera with the 44 X 33 sensor that delivers outstanding results for landscapes. The issue for me, however, is that I don't shoot landscapes that much and when I do at least 80% of the time it is when I am traveling. That pulls for a smaller system and it is easy to modify my current set of Leica M lenses to focus on shooting landscapes. The 21 SEM is already part of my kit and I know would be my most used lens for landscapes. My basic kit also includes the Voigtlander 28 f/2 II which is also an excellent landscape lens. For longer shooting I have the Voigtlander 180 f/4 APO, which is small, works well on my M10 with the EVF and a tripod, and is very nice for landscapes. For wider shooting I also have the Voigtlander 15 f/4.5 III, which is all I need as I don't shoot that wide very often. To those 4 lenses I would just add the Voigtlander 50 f/2 APO and the Zeiss ZM 85 f/4 for what I think with a Leica M11 would arguably be the best landscape kit possible for FF 35mm.
Sure I would get a small margin better quality by going with a 44 X 33 señor and great lenses for such a system, but I would lose so much in portability that for me it wouldn't be worth it especially as landscapes are only about 20% of what I shoot. Obviously others like you Allen would shoot in different ways, but I really appreciate that I can shoot very high quality landscapes with my Leica M system and that I can see a clear pathway to increase this capability moving forward.
but I didn’t say no reason to upgrade 
