johnvanr wrote:
I don’t see a role for that with the M11. Now, I’d keep it nonetheless if it didn’t tie up more than $6000 in a single piece of kit.
These bodies are just computers with mechanical components and they will depreciate over time. Sell the M11 because you can always buy another one later.
weatherproof wrote:
These bodies are just computers with mechanical components and they will depreciate over time. Sell the M11 because you can always buy another one later.
Seems like the M11 is just the latest manifestation of a constant cycle of rudderless purchases chasing constant dissatisfaction. No need to keep a luxury item that fills such a meaningless role.
Are you missing something? From my perspective many have missed the pinnacle of the M11 line of cameras, the Monochrom. I prefer the Hasselblad for color, Sony for Autofocus.. but nothing holds up against the M11 Monochrom.. All personal opinion.. BTW.. nobody can really tell you what you should like, or prefer. That’s your job.
johnvanr wrote:
I've never made it a secret that I got into Leica M because of the small lenses combined with FF and not so much my love of a rangefinder. I do think rangefinder focusing works well when not using lenses wide open and the lenses lend themselves well to zone focusing, which I use quite a bit on the street.
This morning I tried my M lenses on my M11, my R5 and my Z6III. I found the colors largely the same on these cameras, with the Leica actually producing the least life-like colors (I said life like, I didn't say they didn't look good). In the past week, I also realized that my other FF, MFT and Q2 setups are more versatile in terms of combining zone focusing and auto focus. And I have a Fuji GFX100s if I really need high resolution for landscapes.
The M11 is touted as a small camera, but it's really not. It just misses the grip and the EVF bump of the Canon and Nikon bodies, but the real difference is in lens sizes and a bit of weight. And the MFT kit produces files that are plenty large for printing because for street and the like I don't need to crop much, if at all.
Now, a week ago, I was thinking of selling my Q2M and getting a Q2 or Q3. But now I've come to the conclusion that the Q2M has a particular role to play with its special sensor and high-ISO capabilities, whereas the role of the M11 can be filled by several of my other cameras. Ideally, Nikon releases a Z7III with the MF functions of the Zf and Z6III and the higher resolution, but I think I can live without that for now.
Another factor is the new Fuji X-E5, which is small, uses small lenses and offers 40MP. Previously there was no small camera that wasn't a Sony that offered that kind of resolution in a small package.
As always, the question: am I missing something?...Show more →
If you don't enjoy focusing with the RF, I honestly think the Leica M might lose a lot of its purpose for you. That's really what makes it unique, and it's the reason I personally wouldn't go for the M11-V version unless it somehow combined both a rangefinder and EVF.
I get what you're saying about liking M lenses for their compactness, but in my experience they really shine best on the M itself. Sure, you can adapt them to other mirrorless bodies, but you don't quite get the same optimal IQ unless you stop down for zone focusing, which you mentioned.
Rangefinder focusing definitely takes some practice, especially with fast lenses wide open, but it's doable and I actually find it enjoyable once you get the hang of it. If you don't enjoy that part, then it sounds like your reflection is already leading you toward the right choice...
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you don't enjoy focusing with the RF, I honestly think the Leica M might lose a lot of its purpose for you. That's really what makes it unique, and it's the reason I personally wouldn't go for the M11-V version unless it somehow combined both a rangefinder and EVF.
I get what you're saying about liking M lenses for their compactness, but in my experience they really shine best on the M itself. Sure, you can adapt them to other mirrorless bodies, but you don't quite get the same optimal IQ unless you stop down for zone focusing, which you mentioned.
Rangefinder focusing definitely takes some practice, especially with fast lenses wide open, but it's doable and I actually find it enjoyable once you get the hang of it. If you don't enjoy that part, then it sounds like your reflection is already leading you toward the right choice......Show more →
I agree. If you don't enjoy the RangeFinder shooting experience then M cameras are absolutely not for you. After all M literally stands for "Messsucher", the German word for a "combined rangefinder and viewfinder" system. It is not actually a reference for the mount. You seem t like lenses compatible with Leica M cameras, but not the cameras. In fact judging from your lense collection Leica doesn't even play a leading role in lenses for you.
I don't enjoy adapting lenses to other bodies. The results never seem optimal to me in either experience or result. But yeah, you should probably sell your M camera bodies.
1bwana1 wrote:
I agree. If you don't enjoy the RangeFinder shooting experience then M cameras are absolutely not for you. After all M literally stands for "Messsucher", the German word for a "combined rangefinder and viewfinder" system. It is not actually a reference for the mount. You seem t like lenses compatible with Leica M cameras, but not the cameras. In fact judging from your lense collection Leica doesn't even play a leading role in lenses for you.
I don't enjoy adapting lenses to other bodies. The results never seem optimal to me in either experience or result. But yeah, you should probably sell your M camera bodies. ...Show more →
Another option is to sell the M11 and pick up the new M11-V when it's released. I think that's Leica's answer for situations like this.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you don't enjoy focusing with the RF, I honestly think the Leica M might lose a lot of its purpose for you. That's really what makes it unique, and it's the reason I personally wouldn't go for the M11-V version unless it somehow combined both a rangefinder and EVF.
I get what you're saying about liking M lenses for their compactness, but in my experience they really shine best on the M itself. Sure, you can adapt them to other mirrorless bodies, but you don't quite get the same optimal IQ unless you stop down for zone focusing, which you mentioned.
Rangefinder focusing definitely takes some practice, especially with fast lenses wide open, but it's doable and I actually find it enjoyable once you get the hang of it. If you don't enjoy that part, then it sounds like your reflection is already leading you toward the right choice......Show more →
You make an interesting point. I actually started photography with an old Yashica rangefinder, before switching to Praktica and later Pentax. I did prefer the manual focus aides in the Pentax over the Yashica rangefinder, but nowadays those aids are gone.
At the moment, if I have to focus manually, I prefer the rangefinder of the Leica over focus peaking, but neither works to my satisfaction with reliably nailing focus with longer lenses or wide open. All other options slow me down, including zooming in and Nikon's implementation. I don't think the new EVF Leica M would be a solution either.
So, sometimes I think I'm just too impatient and I should practice more with the M11. Haptically, I do like the camera and I do like its files and exposure latitude. It's also the smallest package I can take anywhere with the highest image quality, though much of that is not needed 99% of the time. It's actually often the camera I first think of when I go out.
That's probably why I asked for input, because rationally I know what to do, but emotionally I'm not so sure. It's strange to tie emotions to an inanimate object, but we all know of stuff we regret getting rid of.
Maybe I should give it more time, now that the weather is getting more attractive to shoot on a daily basis.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Another option is to sell the M11 and pick up the new M11-V when it's released. I think that's Leica's answer for situations like this.
We cross-posted. I doubt I like the M11-V. No EVF really does it for me in terms of manual focusing, unless I use the zoom function, but that's too slow for me most of the time.
johnvanr wrote:
You make an interesting point. I actually started photography with an old Yashica rangefinder, before switching to Praktica and later Pentax. I did prefer the manual focus aides in the Pentax over the Yashica rangefinder, but nowadays those aids are gone.
At the moment, if I have to focus manually, I prefer the rangefinder of the Leica over focus peaking, but neither works to my satisfaction with reliably nailing focus with longer lenses or wide open. All other options slow me down, including zooming in and Nikon's implementation. I don't think the new EVF Leica M would be a solution either.
So, sometimes I think I'm just too impatient and I should practice more with the M11. Haptically, I do like the camera and I do like its files and exposure latitude. It's also the smallest package I can take anywhere with the highest image quality, though much of that is not needed 99% of the time. It's actually often the camera I first think of when I go out.
That's probably why I asked for input, because rationally I know what to do, but emotionally I'm not so sure. It's strange to tie emotions to an inanimate object, but we all know of stuff we regret getting rid of.
Maybe I should give it more time, now that the weather is getting more attractive to shoot on a daily basis.
My use of RangeFinder focusing I feel adds to both my enjoyment and my results.
When things are happening to quickly for deliberate RangeFinder focusing I use range focus methods. This means selecting the proper focal length, aperture for needed DOF, proper positioning myself, required frame rates, and finally setting proper exposure. When the action/opportunity presents itself this is actually faster and less compositionaly restrictive than any AF system I have used. Composition is usually better because so much understanding of the subject and pre planning is required.
When I am shooting subjects more slowly and deliberately I very much enjoy the RangeFinder experience. Even when using longer lenses wide open for very shallow DOF. The deliberate approach required slows me down and results in my paying much more attention to all aspects of the image giving better results.
I find the limitations of RF photography to be an asset overall. It definitely affects what kind of images a create, and therefore the character of my images.
If these things don't apeal to you move away from RF cameras. But if you enjoy these kind of challenges maybe put more work into it. Make process as important as results. That is the core of the Leica experience.
1bwana1 wrote:
I find the limitations of RF photography to be an asset overall. It definitely affects what kind of images a create, and therefore the character of my images.
Well said. The rangefinder's unique process gives the images a different character, but enjoying that process takes patience and a bit of practice.
johnvanr wrote:
You make an interesting point. I actually started photography with an old Yashica rangefinder, before switching to Praktica and later Pentax. I did prefer the manual focus aides in the Pentax over the Yashica rangefinder, but nowadays those aids are gone.
At the moment, if I have to focus manually, I prefer the rangefinder of the Leica over focus peaking, but neither works to my satisfaction with reliably nailing focus with longer lenses or wide open. All other options slow me down, including zooming in and Nikon's implementation. I don't think the new EVF Leica M would be a solution either.
So, sometimes I think I'm just too impatient and I should practice more with the M11. Haptically, I do like the camera and I do like its files and exposure latitude. It's also the smallest package I can take anywhere with the highest image quality, though much of that is not needed 99% of the time. It's actually often the camera I first think of when I go out.
That's probably why I asked for input, because rationally I know what to do, but emotionally I'm not so sure. It's strange to tie emotions to an inanimate object, but we all know of stuff we regret getting rid of.
Maybe I should give it more time, now that the weather is getting more attractive to shoot on a daily basis.
Yes, I agree the rangefinder has its limitations, especially when using long lenses wide open. I've had success with the 90/2, which gives the same depth of field as a 50/1.4, but the smaller framelines make composition more challenging. I think the system works best if most of your shooting is between 28 and 90mm but ideally 35-75. I'd also encourage giving it a bit more time. As you mentioned, focusing with the RF can actually be faster than zooming in with an EVF, and for me, part of the fun is relying on my eyes' resolution to compose instead of a tiny monitor. With practice, you start to envision depth of field in your head before seeing the final image, which makes reviewing the results later even more enjoyable. The RF also pairs beautifully with vintage glass that has high SA, since you can nail focus more easily compared to an EVF, which tends to rely on contrast and doesn't always give the sharpest results.
Also, don't give up on the M11-V idea just yet. We just don't know what Leica will do. They could add new ways to focus using the EVF and also have a hybrid solution with EVF + RF.
1bwana1 wrote:
My use of RangeFinder focusing I feel adds to both my enjoyment and my results.
When things are happening to quickly for deliberate RangeFinder focusing I use range focus methods. This means selecting the proper focal length, aperture for needed DOF, proper positioning myself, required frame rates, and finally setting proper exposure. When the action/opportunity presents itself this is actually faster and less compositionaly restrictive than any AF system I have used. Composition is usually better because so much understanding of the subject and pre planning is required.
When I am shooting subjects more slowly and deliberately I very much enjoy the RangeFinder experience. Even when using longer lenses wide open for very shallow DOF. The deliberate approach required slows me down and results in my paying much more attention to all aspects of the image giving better results.
I find the limitations of RF photography to be an asset overall. It definitely affects what kind of images a create, and therefore the character of my images.
If these things don't apeal to you move away from RF cameras. But if you enjoy these kind of challenges maybe put more work into it. Make process as important as results. That is the core of the Leica experience. ...Show more →
I agree that it’s often the fastest way. That’s why I’m not looking to move away from zone focusing. I’ve come to rely on it for most of my street shooting.
I think where folks get into "difficulty" with the M is that some folks like it for the body experience (including RF), whereas others like it for the lens experience. Some like it for both. Some don't like either.
Understanding which side of the equation in the M world (lens vs. body vs. neither vs. both) is most important to you ... is key (imo) to understanding how you want to build your strategy. If the unique properties / attributes of the body / lens aren't calling to you ... then, yeah ... why have your resources (money, time, bag space, shelf space, etc.) tied up in it.
Given the variety of considerations, you might want to take a "blank paper" approach ... and list out what your criteria is (regardless of platform / system). It might be that no single system will cover them, then it is a matter of assessing a concise approach to building the multi-platform system.
That said, there's this other thing ... JOY ... which of your gear brings you JOY. Since you don't seem overly resource constrained, this could be a key determinant to help you separate the wheat from the chaff. It's one thing to have a variety of tools that can do a lot of different things, but when you get right down to brass tacks ... is there something that brings you more joy than others. OR ... is the basis of your joy in having the versatility of such tools.
Tough question to look in the mirror sometimes. But, if you're gonna noodle out the riddle of your conundrum, it may require some tough questions / decisions. The matrix of options / scenarios is grand ... if streamlining is your mission ... yeah, you're gonna have to cut some things that you otherwise like. And, that's a task not everyone enjoys doing. So, it's key to lean into that decision making process in a way that offers a more focused joy outcome, that trumps the unjoyful process of streamlining when you've got plenty of options.
I think where folks get into "difficulty" with the M is that some folks like it for the body experience (including RF), whereas others like it for the lens experience. Some like it for both. Some don't like either.
Understanding which side of the equation in the M world (lens vs. body vs. neither vs. both) is most important to you ... is key (imo) to understanding how you want to build your strategy. If the unique properties / attributes of the body / lens aren't calling to you ... then, yeah ... why have your resources (money, time, bag space, shelf space, etc.) tied up in it.
Given the variety of considerations, you might want to take a "blank paper" approach ... and list out what your criteria is (regardless of platform / system). It might be that no single system will cover them, then it is a matter of assessing a concise approach to building the multi-platform system.
That said, there's this other thing ... JOY ... which of your gear brings you JOY. Since you don't seem overly resource constrained, this could be a key determinant to help you separate the wheat from the chaff. It's one thing to have a variety of tools that can do a lot of different things, but when you get right down to brass tacks ... is there something that brings you more joy than others. OR ... is the basis of your joy in having the versatility of such tools.
Tough question to look in the mirror sometimes. But, if you're gonna noodle out the riddle of your conundrum, it may require some tough questions / decisions. The matrix of options / scenarios is grand ... if streamlining is your mission ... yeah, you're gonna have to cut some things that you otherwise like. And, that's a task not everyone enjoys doing. So, it's key to lean into that decision making process in a way that offers a more focused joy outcome, that trumps the unjoyful process of streamlining when you've got plenty of options.
johnvanr wrote:
There’s no one system that would do it for me, I’m pretty sure of that. It would be a very lengthy post discussing why, though.
I am thinking that as far as image creation goes almost any of the larger camera makers could provide a solution in a single system of a few bodies and compatible lenses. Although we can't see a good crossection of your images here I am betting that if you review your portfolio you will see that this is true.
So it must be form factor, workflow, and shooting experience that you are trying to optimize. Which system provides your favorite workflow?
johnvanr wrote:
I could afford to keep it, but I can also afford to buy the new Hasselblad.
Wish I had your problems.
I'd sell the M11 if I were you. You clearly don't enjoy the rangefinder much, and you're apparently not in love with the whole "M-experience".. so long story short / as you already know: there are other cameras out there that suit you better.
I'd sell the M11 if I were you. You clearly don't enjoy the rangefinder much, and you're apparently not in love with the whole "M-experience".. so long story short / as you already know: there are other cameras out there that suit you better.
I know, first-world problems. That part of life was easier when I didn't have the choice.
1bwana1 wrote:
I am thinking that as far as image creation goes almost any of the larger camera makers could provide a solution in a single system of a few bodies and compatible lenses. Although we can't see a good crossection of your images here I am betting that if you review your portfolio you will see that this is true.
So it must be form factor, workflow, and shooting experience that you are trying to optimize. Which system provides your favorite workflow?
In principle, any camera/kit that I use when I go out to shoot an event in the rain could be my all-round kit. That would then be the Canon R5/6II with a weather sealed lens or the OM-1 with a weather sealed lens. But I don't like carrying the Canon if I don't have to, because I find it too large. And I generally prefer primes, but the Canon primes are either large, not very fast, not weather sealed or not great. It's a bit better with the OM-1, but there you run into noise limits.
And then there's my preference for being to zone focus, but also to switch to AF. In another thread, it became clear that there are very few systems that allow for that combination.
As I've stated many times before, I want a Contax G-sized FF digital camera, with similar small and excellent lenses, but a better viewfinder and AF than the G offered. I'd still miss zone focusing, but I'd have my small FF kit with superb glass and AF.
