Yesterday Gordon (@flash) asked why this thread has aroused in me a visceral hatred of the M11. Since then there have been lots of responses with the majority clearly in favour of the technical innovations introduced with the M11. My reply has turned out to be longer than I’d intended so here’s the TL;DR version:
The M11 sounds the death knell for the pure Leica M rangefinder experience.
My statement will make better sense if I explain that I reject the now orthodox narrative that continual technological and social progress brings us ever closer to Utopia. This is no doubt an unpopular viewpoint since browsing through any gear-related thread on FM will confirm that, in relation to photographic equipment, the “narrative of progress” is accepted unquestioningly by an overwhelming majority—99% would be a conservative estimate—of FM members.
My contradictory belief can best expressed by a passage in one of my favourite books, Charles Frazier’s US Civil War novel Cold Mountain:
“as was true of all human effort, there was never advancement. Everything added meant something lost, and about as often as not the thing lost was preferable to the thing gained, so that over time we’d be lucky if we just broke even. Any thought otherwise was empty pride.”
Most of the posts since my anti-M11 statement have argued for the addition of a built-in EVF on the basis that, because, the rangefinder option will still be available, nothing will really change. I don’t accept that argument for an instant.
People have been dropping in to Leica threads for the last couple of years demanding that the rangefinder be replaced by an EVF. Leica has tried to placate them with the SL then the Q cameras. Not good enough. The SL models are too big and the Q has a fixed 28mm lens… they’ll only be satisfied with the ultimate elimination of the one feature that makes the Leica M unique and great: the rangefinder. Why?
Because the Leica M is a harsh mistress. It requires a moderate degree of aptitude and skill but a large amount of patience and practice. And the integrated EVF faction have neither the patience nor the willingness to practice. They want the small, high quality M-mount lenses and an M body that is easier to use.
But I don’t want photography to be easier. I want it to be more difficult. Three years ago (almost to the day) I bought a Leica M10-P because photographing with Sony full frame mirrorless cameras had become far too easy—even though I loved the pictures I’d been making.
Like Allen (@airfrogusmc) I believe “a rangefinder is best suited for fast moving street and candid work.” To that I’d add: with 28mm to 50mm lenses. I’m working in exactly that tradition so I want to use a digital version of the camera that photographers like Frank, Klein, Friedlander, Winogrand, Wessel, and others chose: the Leica M rangefinder.
In my view the M10 series represents the absolute refinement of the Leica M rangefinder. The M11 may well be a fine camera but I believe that it also represents the beginning of the bastardisation of the Leica M. The integrated EVF proponents have won a major tactical victory with the M11 and my fear is that, under the twin banners of “progress” and “ease of use”, the importance of the rangefinder focusing system will be “progressively” downgraded until it becomes an afterthought or is eliminated completely.
If you want the “modern MILC shooting feeling” with Leica M lenses, get a Kolari-modded Sony, Canon, or Nikon mirrorless camera. But leave the Leica M alone.
If there is one manufacturer to hear and actually act on your request, it will be Leica and they will produce a 'pure' variant.
genji wrote:
Most of the posts since my anti-M11 statement have argued for the addition of a built-in EVF on the basis that, because, the rangefinder option will still be available, nothing will really change. I don’t accept that argument for an instant.
I respect your reasons but on this point we are in complete disagreement. However, my position would be strongly dependent on how Leica implemented such OVF-EVF integration.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
WRT the rangefinder: how can Leica improve perfection? Seriously though, that aspect of the M is extremely refined and does not require improvement.
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.
Fred, weather sealing limitations are only in respect to the camera/lens mount interface which does not have a gasket like other 'sealed' mounts. In Leica's opinion, the tight tolerances of M lens construction combined with internal lubrication already make them very weather resistant. Please see the comment by Leica's Jesko von Oeynhausen in this interview with Dave Farkas way back in 2012.
As I've commented before, I use the M240 and Leica lenses for some natural and urban landscape work, including in inclement weather (which usually results in the most interesting images). With general precautions that are advisable for any camera system in such conditions, it has continued to work, and work well. I find it a bit ironic there are umpteen thousands of photographers using Sony in such conditions yet those cameras (perhaps more so the earlier models) were revealed to have poor sealing in some areas where water could easily penetrate and cause problems.
zhangyue wrote:
This is right! I don't have to have just one system but highly possible I will just bring a M for travel to take care of everything. Don't disregard M's landscape capability. It is the single easiest MILC body in field to use. I said many time before, this is the best MILC form I ever used in field shooting. Direct dial for everything, OVF viewing, RF focus independent with aperture, accurate barrel DOF and distance scale, reliable infinity mark etc....
Only after using it, you will know why you like this for landscape. Now M11 is just even better. I am happy and look forward to using it.
If I want do street, it is no different than a m10 to me other than stronger BATTERY and option to select resolution without any penalty. (both Canon and Nikon's implementation are half baked at boarder line of useless to me, not for this Leica) ...Show more →
I have used the M10-R for landscapes and I think it's a very capable camera as long as the weather cooperates.
The M11 could do even better with the e-shutter, higher res. and longer-lasting battery for sure.
Jan 21, 2022 at 07:07 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rscheffler wrote:
As was perhaps already mentioned, none of the other MILCs currently available also incorporate a rangefinder.
Why can't the rangefinder experience as it exists now, and a SIMPLE and MODERN live view experience coexist in an M body? I'm not talking about live view AF, video, etc. Just a simple, smoothly functioning, lag-free live view shooting experience.
Already since the M240 we have live view in an M but that aspect of the camera has so far been a less satisfactory experience. Slow, laggy, freezes randomly. A very un-Leica, un-M experience. But some of us tolerate it because it expands the usability of the M beyond certain perceived niches while not degrading its ability to operate in those niches. Bring live view up to the same level expected of the rangefinder experience and combined it will continue to be a product that doesn't exist from any other brand.
To me it's clear Leica is heading in this direction based on the past few generations. The M11 is a smoother MILC experience, but could still be better. Meanwhile Leica continues to adhere to its philosophy of simplification where possible. For example the reduced number of buttons on the M11, especially compared to the M240 and M9.
There is one thing I like about the external EVF that would be hard to give up: tilt.
I don't think any one is suggesting compromising the rangefinder experience and I would not be interested in an M with live view but without a rangefinder. ...Show more →
I totally agree with what you write here. I like that Leica has not only improved the rangefinder aspect of shooting with each successive M, but also the sensor and the capabilities of camera. Nowhere do you see this more than with the monochrome versions. The M9 monochrome was a great camera but it especially for a monochrome camera it was a shame that it didn't have better high ISO capability. The monochrome version of the M240 caught up with the high ISO capability of other cameras and maybe went a bit beyond them, and the M10 monochrome simply has the best high ISO capability of pretty much any digital camera. None of that is a bad thing. I am glad Leica has really improved the high ISO capabilities of each successive monochrome camera.
I think the same applies for the vanilla M9, M240, M10, and now M11. Each camera has gotten a noticeably more capable sensor and that is a good thing. We see improvements in dynamic range, low ISO capability and high ISO capabilities with each successive generation. Leica is now at the point that image quality wise the new sensor in the M11 is as good for the type of shooting people are likely to use with the camera as anything else out there. Kudos for Leica for these improvements.
None of that, IMO, takes away from the Leica M experience of using a rangefinder and I expect that to continue with the next generation as well. It is a good guess that the M12 will have a sensor a lot like the Sony A1 with something like 60MP a base Iso of 64 and a stacked sensor that will allow full use of the silent electronic shutter. That too, IMO, would be a welcome advance in the sensor that would take nothing away from the Leica M rangefinder experience and may even enhance it as a very low lag responsive shutter would come with that sensor change.
The tension between 'keeping it pure' noted in some posts here and 'improving/advancing' also noted in some posts here is exactly the conundrum that Leica face. However, they also face additional constraint in that they have to make money and sell a product, so they have to change something or else its not a new product and they can't generate revenue...
In truth they may be making a calculation that for those of us who prefer the 'keeping it pure' path, they are willing to have us be disappointed if it means they can bring others who would not have considered a Leica M into the fold with their advancements.
I also agree with Ron, that given Leica's releases, they do listen to both sides and have released bodies that in their opinion cater to the 'purists' with no screens etc.
Making a product intentionally harder to use and to get good results from would certainly go against conventional wisdom, and would likely only appeal to a ever smaller subset of customers (i.e. doesn't make business sense). Perhaps these folks are better off moving to film M's (which Leica still makes) which certainly add additional layers of complexity in achieving a great result vs digital. There is something to be said to have to intentionally 'work' to get a good image despite the equipment, Large format film is one good example of that, and it is extremely satisfying to get a good shot.
I think the M11 will certainly alienate many existing leica users, but overall will be a great success for Leica due to new users. Its not particularly my idea of the ideal next-gen M camera but every improvement has made some sense to me from a business standpoint.
Probably the most unfortunate part of this is that Leica has nobody who is in direct competition with them for their customers, that would make them more 'creative' and responsive and price-conscious, i do hope someone like PIXII gets to FF format and challenges Leica...I still can't understand why nobody is combining a FF-sensor and an RF when seeing how much Leica can charge for their cameras...maybe someone like TTartisans or the like will take on the challenge
Jan 21, 2022 at 07:40 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
genji wrote:
Yesterday Gordon (@flash) asked why this thread has aroused in me a visceral hatred of the M11. Since then there have been lots of responses with the majority clearly in favour of the technical innovations introduced with the M11. My reply has turned out to be longer than I’d intended so here’s the TL;DR version:
The M11 sounds the death knell for the pure Leica M rangefinder experience.
My statement will make better sense if I explain that I reject the now orthodox narrative that continual technological and social progress brings us ever closer to Utopia. This is no doubt an unpopular viewpoint since browsing through any gear-related thread on FM will confirm that, in relation to photographic equipment, the “narrative of progress” is accepted unquestioningly by an overwhelming majority—99% would be a conservative estimate—of FM members.
My contradictory belief can best expressed by a passage in one of my favourite books, Charles Frazier’s US Civil War novel Cold Mountain:
“as was true of all human effort, there was never advancement. Everything added meant something lost, and about as often as not the thing lost was preferable to the thing gained, so that over time we’d be lucky if we just broke even. Any thought otherwise was empty pride.”
Most of the posts since my anti-M11 statement have argued for the addition of a built-in EVF on the basis that, because, the rangefinder option will still be available, nothing will really change. I don’t accept that argument for an instant.
People have been dropping in to Leica threads for the last couple of years demanding that the rangefinder be replaced by an EVF. Leica has tried to placate them with the SL then the Q cameras. Not good enough. The SL models are too big and the Q has a fixed 28mm lens… they’ll only be satisfied with the ultimate elimination of the one feature that makes the Leica M unique and great: the rangefinder. Why?
Because the Leica M is a harsh mistress. It requires a moderate degree of aptitude and skill but a large amount of patience and practice. And the integrated EVF faction have neither the patience nor the willingness to practice. They want the small, high quality M-mount lenses and an M body that is easier to use.
But I don’t want photography to be easier. I want it to be more difficult. Three years ago (almost to the day) I bought a Leica M10-P because photographing with Sony full frame mirrorless cameras had become far too easy—even though I loved the pictures I’d been making.
Like Allen (@airfrogusmc) I believe “a rangefinder is best suited for fast moving street and candid work.” To that I’d add: with 28mm to 50mm lenses. I’m working in exactly that tradition so I want to use a digital version of the camera that photographers like Frank, Klein, Friedlander, Winogrand, Wessel, and others chose: the Leica M rangefinder.
In my view the M10 series represents the absolute refinement of the Leica M rangefinder. The M11 may well be a fine camera but I believe that it also represents the beginning of the bastardisation of the Leica M. The integrated EVF proponents have won a major tactical victory with the M11 and my fear is that, under the twin banners of “progress” and “ease of use”, the importance of the rangefinder focusing system will be “progressively” downgraded until it becomes an afterthought or is eliminated completely.
If you want the “modern MILC shooting feeling” with Leica M lenses, get a Kolari-modded Sony, Canon, or Nikon mirrorless camera. But leave the Leica M alone....Show more →
Despite my lauding the progress in sensors in my last post, I basically agree with what you are saying here. I don't see moving away from the rangefinder as the way to focus manual focus lenses as progress at all. I think that focussing method and manual focus lenses should be the central ethos of Leica M. I am fine with an EVF for supplemental use, but it always should be supplemental use. I am even happy with progress in sensors as outlined in my last post. Still I don't think it makes any sense and I would be deeply disappointed if any Leica M wasn't built around using the rangefinder for manual focus. As I said previously which many EVF proponents hated that to me it only makes sense for Leica to build a camera around an EVF if it has a L mount. To me M mount cameras should only be build around the rangefinder for it primary use.
Sony ... Ergonomics, menu, microlenses not Leica ... No thanks.
And for those who are decrying what it might become, there's always the M10-D.
If you aren't shooting the M10-D ... Why not? Purist heaven, right?
genji wrote:
Yesterday Gordon (@flash) asked why this thread has aroused in me a visceral hatred of the M11. Since then there have been lots of responses with the majority clearly in favour of the technical innovations introduced with the M11. My reply has turned out to be longer than I’d intended so here’s the TL;DR version:
The M11 sounds the death knell for the pure Leica M rangefinder experience.
My statement will make better sense if I explain that I reject the now orthodox narrative that continual technological and social progress brings us ever closer to Utopia. This is no doubt an unpopular viewpoint since browsing through any gear-related thread on FM will confirm that, in relation to photographic equipment, the “narrative of progress” is accepted unquestioningly by an overwhelming majority—99% would be a conservative estimate—of FM members.
My contradictory belief can best expressed by a passage in one of my favourite books, Charles Frazier’s US Civil War novel Cold Mountain:
“as was true of all human effort, there was never advancement. Everything added meant something lost, and about as often as not the thing lost was preferable to the thing gained, so that over time we’d be lucky if we just broke even. Any thought otherwise was empty pride.”
Most of the posts since my anti-M11 statement have argued for the addition of a built-in EVF on the basis that, because, the rangefinder option will still be available, nothing will really change. I don’t accept that argument for an instant.
People have been dropping in to Leica threads for the last couple of years demanding that the rangefinder be replaced by an EVF. Leica has tried to placate them with the SL then the Q cameras. Not good enough. The SL models are too big and the Q has a fixed 28mm lens… they’ll only be satisfied with the ultimate elimination of the one feature that makes the Leica M unique and great: the rangefinder. Why?
Because the Leica M is a harsh mistress. It requires a moderate degree of aptitude and skill but a large amount of patience and practice. And the integrated EVF faction have neither the patience nor the willingness to practice. They want the small, high quality M-mount lenses and an M body that is easier to use.
But I don’t want photography to be easier. I want it to be more difficult. Three years ago (almost to the day) I bought a Leica M10-P because photographing with Sony full frame mirrorless cameras had become far too easy—even though I loved the pictures I’d been making.
Like Allen (@airfrogusmc) I believe “a rangefinder is best suited for fast moving street and candid work.” To that I’d add: with 28mm to 50mm lenses. I’m working in exactly that tradition so I want to use a digital version of the camera that photographers like Frank, Klein, Friedlander, Winogrand, Wessel, and others chose: the Leica M rangefinder.
In my view the M10 series represents the absolute refinement of the Leica M rangefinder. The M11 may well be a fine camera but I believe that it also represents the beginning of the bastardisation of the Leica M. The integrated EVF proponents have won a major tactical victory with the M11 and my fear is that, under the twin banners of “progress” and “ease of use”, the importance of the rangefinder focusing system will be “progressively” downgraded until it becomes an afterthought or is eliminated completely.
If you want the “modern MILC shooting feeling” with Leica M lenses, get a Kolari-modded Sony, Canon, or Nikon mirrorless camera. But leave the Leica M alone....Show more →
Options beyond that are fine, imo. I mean, film M models had options for lenses with goggles, and for macro apparatus, etc. To suggest that M should have no options beyond base RF might be a bit myopic for some. But, I understand that the base RF experience is paramount, options are secondary.
Given the context of an earlier post about the peak of RF development, as long as the options don't eradicate the RF, then I see little concern for the option.
This of course is where the rub is for the change in metering. It is being perceived as a detriment to the aforementioned metering off of the blades.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Despite my lauding the progress in sensors in my last post, I basically agree with what you are saying here. I don't see moving away from the rangefinder as the way to focus manual focus lenses as progress at all. I think that focussing method and manual focus lenses should be the central ethos of Leica M. I am fine with an EVF for supplemental use, but it always should be supplemental use. I am even happy with progress in sensors as outlined in my last post. Still I don't think it makes any sense and I would be deeply disappointed if any Leica M wasn't built around using the rangefinder for manual focus. As I said previously which many EVF proponents hated that to me it only makes sense for Leica to build a camera around an EVF if it has a L mount. To me M mount cameras should only be build around the rangefinder for it primary use....Show more →
genji wrote:
Yesterday Gordon (@flash) asked why this thread has aroused in me a visceral hatred of the M11. Since then there have been lots of responses with the majority clearly in favour of the technical innovations introduced with the M11. My reply has turned out to be longer than I’d intended so here’s the TL;DR version:
The M11 sounds the death knell for the pure Leica M rangefinder experience.
My statement will make better sense if I explain that I reject the now orthodox narrative that continual technological and social progress brings us ever closer to Utopia. This is no doubt an unpopular viewpoint since browsing through any gear-related thread on FM will confirm that, in relation to photographic equipment, the “narrative of progress” is accepted unquestioningly by an overwhelming majority—99% would be a conservative estimate—of FM members.
My contradictory belief can best expressed by a passage in one of my favourite books, Charles Frazier’s US Civil War novel Cold Mountain:
“as was true of all human effort, there was never advancement. Everything added meant something lost, and about as often as not the thing lost was preferable to the thing gained, so that over time we’d be lucky if we just broke even. Any thought otherwise was empty pride.”
Most of the posts since my anti-M11 statement have argued for the addition of a built-in EVF on the basis that, because, the rangefinder option will still be available, nothing will really change. I don’t accept that argument for an instant.
People have been dropping in to Leica threads for the last couple of years demanding that the rangefinder be replaced by an EVF. Leica has tried to placate them with the SL then the Q cameras. Not good enough. The SL models are too big and the Q has a fixed 28mm lens… they’ll only be satisfied with the ultimate elimination of the one feature that makes the Leica M unique and great: the rangefinder. Why?
Because the Leica M is a harsh mistress. It requires a moderate degree of aptitude and skill but a large amount of patience and practice. And the integrated EVF faction have neither the patience nor the willingness to practice. They want the small, high quality M-mount lenses and an M body that is easier to use.
But I don’t want photography to be easier. I want it to be more difficult. Three years ago (almost to the day) I bought a Leica M10-P because photographing with Sony full frame mirrorless cameras had become far too easy—even though I loved the pictures I’d been making.
Like Allen (@airfrogusmc) I believe “a rangefinder is best suited for fast moving street and candid work.” To that I’d add: with 28mm to 50mm lenses. I’m working in exactly that tradition so I want to use a digital version of the camera that photographers like Frank, Klein, Friedlander, Winogrand, Wessel, and others chose: the Leica M rangefinder.
In my view the M10 series represents the absolute refinement of the Leica M rangefinder. The M11 may well be a fine camera but I believe that it also represents the beginning of the bastardisation of the Leica M. The integrated EVF proponents have won a major tactical victory with the M11 and my fear is that, under the twin banners of “progress” and “ease of use”, the importance of the rangefinder focusing system will be “progressively” downgraded until it becomes an afterthought or is eliminated completely.
If you want the “modern MILC shooting feeling” with Leica M lenses, get a Kolari-modded Sony, Canon, or Nikon mirrorless camera. But leave the Leica M alone....Show more →
Thanks for the articulate and well expressed answer. I do see why you have concerns but I don't think you're correct about the M11 or future M cameras.
Firstly Leica have always said that the RF is the heart of the M. And the M11 still operates around the RF. I don't have my EVF yet. I'm using the M11 as a rangefinder although, for my intended use the new EVF functionality is less important. I'm really here for the long exposures and adjustable LENR.
New sensor aside (I'll get back to it). the major *update* is the advancements in the live view side of the M. This is true. The real issue is whether that's affected the core M experience in a negative way. I don't think it has. The shutter opens when you turn the camera on. No big deal. You can still shoot centreweighted if you want to. All good so far. The shutter sound IS longer (very very slightly) than the M10R. But there's no increase in lag and it's quieter than the regular M10, M240 and M9. It's purely an aethetic change. That may or may not be one that bothers an M10-P shooter. But only a trip to a Leica store will answer that for each individual.
At least it doesn't have video. That was the death of the M as well, if I remeber correctly.
The simple solution is don't buy the Visoflex. But I'd argue that the Visoflex has been around for decades. Leica has always tried to expand the shooting envelope of the M and the current M10 or the new M11 Visoflex is actually the most elegant solution for Leica so far.
The next thing is the sensor. Is 60MP to big for an M? I'll ignore the factually incorrect argument that more MP needs higher shutter speeds and more blur. That's a function of enlargement size, not MP. I understand the pixel blur arguments but still it's enlargement not resolution that is the issue.
But I do think Leica has thought really hard about the resolution thing and having selectable resolutions is a really elegant solution. You don't need to decide between resolution and noise (SL2 or SL2-S?). And it's a good sensor. Really good.
Does it mean the death of the M is here? No. Absolutely not. The M is a halo product. Not having an M would damage Leica in a way they can't recover from. I don't think Leica will or should try and copy Fujifilm. A hybrid RF isn't an M. Plus they can't monetise it. Not the Leica way. They want you to spend 700 bucks on a $200 EVF. Or buy another camera. But Leica do like a niche. And there's a niche for an EVF camera with an M mount. A MF mirrorless camera. The M11 kind of does it and so does the SL2. But I think Leica are planning an EVF camera for M lenses. It makes sense. But it won't be an M. Think bigger CL with an M mount. If the M11 sells a lot of EVF's then it's proof of concept.
I agree that the M10 (M10R black paint to be specific) is close to peak M. With the M11 they had to change it but not ruin it. I really don't think they have. But that's just my opinion.
I really think you'll need a trip to the Leica store to see if the M11 is an M for you. I think you'll see that the fuss is overhyped. It's still an M. The size of an M with the battery from a 240. Or give me a yell and we can argue about it over coffee...
It'd be better in black paint on brass though......
Gordon.
p.s. Is it weird that already I'm turning my M10M on and waiting for the shutter to open??
flash wrote:
p.s. Is it weird that already I'm turning my M10M on and waiting for the shutter to open??
PS: The shutter opens when the M11 is turned on. It also closes when you turn it off. These two operations do not happen in previous models as the shutter remains always closed in rangefinder mode...pure silence.
Yes, I agree with you. And I do think most people who have the m11 or tried m11 will agree.
About EVF, today I have a hour walk around trail with EVF along with 21/28/50 Just for the sake of using EVF. I used EVF 100% today and it turns out I shoot 90% EVF tilted either at 45 or 90 degree.
About 80% of images I didn’t focus at all, just by focus tab memory at f8-f11. Rest 20% I enjoy that digital stabilized VIEW if I shoot WO or before f5.6. I have to say this is a fun process. No, It is not as good as SL2S in term of speed or EVF magnification but it offer different charming plus tilted EVF.
I used E shutter full time today. I can handhold 1/10-1/15s with sharp results when sun goes down. It is never happen with previous M. Black out is the only way I know that shot went through
It is just a more complete camera can do more things without sacrificing RF shooting.
BTW, my FN buttons also were unresponsive occasionally. This widely reported for m11. How about yours? I feel it is a software glitch than hardware. I will give it more time until Leica officially acknowledge it. In the meantime, I just use it without worrying too much. It is too much fun to send it back.
flash wrote:
Thanks for the articulate and well expressed answer. I do see why you have concerns but I don't think you're correct about the M11 or future M cameras.
Firstly Leica have always said that the RF is the heart of the M. And the M11 still operates around the RF. I don't have my EVF yet. I'm using the M11 as a rangefinder although, for my intended use the new EVF functionality is less important. I'm really here for the long exposures and adjustable LENR.
New sensor aside (I'll get back to it). the major *update* is the advancements in the live view side of the M. This is true. The real issue is whether that's affected the core M experience in a negative way. I don't think it has. The shutter opens when you turn the camera on. No big deal. You can still shoot centreweighted if you want to. All good so far. The shutter sound IS longer (very very slightly) than the M10R. But there's no increase in lag and it's quieter than the regular M10, M240 and M9. It's purely an aethetic change. That may or may not be one that bothers an M10-P shooter. But only a trip to a Leica store will answer that for each individual.
At least it doesn't have video. That was the death of the M as well, if I remeber correctly.
The simple solution is don't buy the Visoflex. But I'd argue that the Visoflex has been around for decades. Leica has always tried to expand the shooting envelope of the M and the current M10 or the new M11 Visoflex is actually the most elegant solution for Leica so far.
The next thing is the sensor. Is 60MP to big for an M? I'll ignore the factually incorrect argument that more MP needs higher shutter speeds and more blur. That's a function of enlargement size, not MP. I understand the pixel blur arguments but still it's enlargement not resolution that is the issue.
But I do think Leica has thought really hard about the resolution thing and having selectable resolutions is a really elegant solution. You don't need to decide between resolution and noise (SL2 or SL2-S?). And it's a good sensor. Really good.
Does it mean the death of the M is here? No. Absolutely not. The M is a halo product. Not having an M would damage Leica in a way they can't recover from. I don't think Leica will or should try and copy Fujifilm. A hybrid RF isn't an M. Plus they can't monetise it. Not the Leica way. They want you to spend 700 bucks on a $200 EVF. Or buy another camera. But Leica do like a niche. And there's a niche for an EVF camera with an M mount. A MF mirrorless camera. The M11 kind of does it and so does the SL2. But I think Leica are planning an EVF camera for M lenses. It makes sense. But it won't be an M. Think bigger CL with an M mount. If the M11 sells a lot of EVF's then it's proof of concept.
I agree that the M10 (M10R black paint to be specific) is close to peak M. With the M11 they had to change it but not ruin it. I really don't think they have. But that's just my opinion.
I really think you'll need a trip to the Leica store to see if the M11 is an M for you. I think you'll see that the fuss is overhyped. It's still an M. The size of an M with the battery from a 240. Or give me a yell and we can argue about it over coffee...
It'd be better in black paint on brass though......
Gordon.
p.s. Is it weird that already I'm turning my M10M on and waiting for the shutter to open??...Show more →
I don't see them ever sullying the M with an integrated EVF. I do think we'll eventually see something like an SL-C from them, something along the lines of a CL with a 24MP FF (hopefully BSI) sensor, no IBIS, low video priority with a focus on stills, maybe a bit bigger to get a more robust battery but they shouldn't stray far from the CL's dimensions. I don't know if they have any compact lens plans going for the L-mount, but, if not, there's a whole line of Sigma I lenses that would be perfect for a compact set-up. Sigma was up to rebrand one of the zooms, so maybe we could see a Super-Elmar 24/3.5, Elmarit 45/2.8, and Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 to start with Leica coming in behind with some compact Summarits and a macro.
I think it would be smart to drop the integrated EVF in favor of a higher res vari-angle LCD and a shoe that allows for use of the original Visoflex 020 (the new model would dwarf the top plate of a CL-sized camera) for two reasons. One, it would keep the overall size and cost of the camera down. Two, I think a modular approach might ultimately be the most broadly attractive option. Give people a capable base little brick of a camera for around $3K US and let them accessorize it to, if not perfection, something very usable. They should also give it a threaded shutter release, for people who still use their plungers and for those who like their carefully selected toppers screwed on.
zhangyue wrote:
Yes, I agree with you. And I do think most people who have the m11 or tried m11 will agree.
About EVF, today I have a hour walk around trail with EVF along with 21/28/50 Just for the sake of using EVF. I used EVF 100% today and it turns out I shoot 90% EVF tilted either at 45 or 90 degree.
About 80% of images I didn’t focus at all, just by focus tab memory at f8-f11. Rest 20% I enjoy that digital stabilized VIEW if I shoot WO or before f5.6. I have to say this is a fun process. No, It is not as good as SL2S in term of speed or EVF magnification but it offer different charming plus tilted EVF.
I used E shutter full time today. I can handhold 1/10-1/15s with sharp results when sun goes down. It is never happen with previous M. Black out is the only way I know that shot went through
It is just a more complete camera can do more things without sacrificing RF shooting.
BTW, my FN buttons also were unresponsive occasionally. This widely reported for m11. How about yours? I feel it is a software glitch than hardware. I will give it more time until Leica officially acknowledge it. In the meantime, I just use it without worrying too much. It is too much fun to send it back.
freaklikeme wrote:
I don't see them ever sullying the M with an integrated EVF. I do think we'll eventually see something like an SL-C from them, something along the lines of a CL with a 24MP FF (hopefully BSI) sensor, no IBIS, low video priority with a focus on stills, maybe a bit bigger to get a more robust battery but they shouldn't stray far from the CL's dimensions. I don't know if they have any compact lens plans going for the L-mount, but, if not, there's a whole line of Sigma I lenses that would be perfect for a compact set-up. Sigma was up to rebrand one of the zooms, so maybe we could see a Super-Elmar 24/3.5, Elmarit 45/2.8, and Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 to start with Leica coming in behind with some compact Summarits and a macro.
I think it would be smart to drop the integrated EVF in favor of a higher res vari-angle LCD and a shoe that allows for use of the original Visoflex 020 (the new model would dwarf the top plate of a CL-sized camera) for two reasons. One, it would keep the overall size and cost of the camera down. Two, I think a modular approach might ultimately be the most broadly attractive option. Give people a capable base little brick of a camera for around $3K US and let them accessorize it to, if not perfection, something very usable. They should also give it a threaded shutter release, for people who still use their plungers and for those who like their carefully selected toppers screwed on....Show more →
Aren't you describing the original TL and TL2? They also had USBC charging. Pop out batteries and internal memory.
flash wrote:
Aren't you describing the original TL and TL2? They also had USBC charging. Pop out batteries and internal memory.
Gordon
Yes, they did. Now add a full frame 35mm sensor and that is the EVF camera that I think Leica is going to make instead of a built in EVF on an M camera. It will work well with M lenses (better than any other EVF centric camera out there), but M cameras will still work better.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, they did. Now add a full frame 35mm sensor and that is the EVF camera that I think Leica is going to make instead of a built in EVF on an M camera. It will work well with M lenses (better than any other EVF centric camera out there), but M cameras will still work better.
Thats what I've been saying. Leave the M as true rangefinder alone because Leica is the ONLY camera company that makes one. And for those that want that (seems to be a few thus the success) we still have that choice.
Seriously though, that aspect of the M is extremely refined and does not require improvement.
