p.4 #1 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
Toertel76 wrote:
On my last city trips I have always used the M11-P plus MP for shooting, and I was mostly happy with it. Only here and there I was lusting an AF experience, so I have complemented this setup with a Fuji XE5 and the 23/2.8. Awesome, couldn’t be happier with it.
It’s the “complemented” part that gets me when we’re talking travel gear. I’ve got drawers full of gear and most of it has its purpose, but I can only use one camera at the same time and I can’t pack all of my stuff for travel. So, why limit myself to a travel system that limits me? If I were happy shooting from 21mm to 50mm and often at f/5.6 or f/8 and don’t expect to be rained on or see fast action, I’d be happy with the M as a travel system. But that’s just not me and it’s why I often take a versatile relatively low-res MFT kit over any of my larger high-res gear when I travel.
p.4 #2 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
johnvanr wrote:
Yes, for you they’re perfect, which is fine. For me, they’re not enough for travel. I always feel I need a longer lens than what works well on a M and the ability to shoot at faster apertures than I can nowadays comfortably focus.
So, I’m off to Scotland next week and taking a small MFT kit that also has the advantage of being weathersealed. I’ve considered my still unsold M11, but it would just be extra and why would I carry that extra bulk?
Yes, M does fit me well. But, I do understand your points. When in some landscape environments like the Dolomites I also want a longer lens than I have in my M kit (135mm). But that is pretty much the only time. I am comfortable shooting 90mm at f/2.8 on my M11 through the RF. Faster or longer and I generally switch to the Visoflex.
If that is a super compelling reason for the trip I change to my SL3 kit. That gives me high resolution, high DR, and low noise options up to 600mm. More than enough. With IBIS and hand held pixel shift it is really a stunningly good landscape kit. I can also mount M lenses and it is manageable in size and weight for a walkaround. About the same as a Q or M11 Silver with a grip installed. This kit also provides the best weather resistance available.
The SL3 is also my choice for portraits when class leading optics with super wide apertures, and strobes provide significant artistic advantages.
So for me the times where the M camera doesn't work are also the times when I most want high IQ, resolution, or very shallow DOF. I am unwilling to sacrafice thise capabilities and use MFT in such circumstances. For me, my MFT kit is for family events and evenings out with friends.
p.4 #3 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
1bwana1 wrote:
Yes, M does fit me well. But, I do understand your points. When in some landscape environments like the Dolomites I also want a longer lens than I have in my M kit (135mm). But that is pretty much the only time. I am comfortable shooting 90mm at f/2.8 on my M11 through the RF. Faster or longer and I generally switch to the Visoflex.
If that is a super compelling reason for the trip I change to my SL3 kit. That gives me high resolution, high DR, and low noise options up to 600mm. More than enough. With IBIS and hand held pixel shift it is really a stunningly good landscape kit. I can also mount M lenses and it is manageable in size and weight for a walkaround. About the same as a Q or M11 Silver with a grip installed. This kit also provides the best weather resistance available.
The SL3 is also my choice for portraits when class leading optics with super wide apertures, and strobes provide significant artistic advantages.
So for me the times where the M camera doesn't work are also the times when I most want high IQ, resolution, or very shallow DOF. I am unwilling to sacrafice thise capabilities and use MFT in such circumstances. For me, my MFT kit is for family events and evenings out with friends. ...Show more →
I tend to prefer something around the 90mm pretty often, so the tiny 45mm f/1.8 Olympus lens can't be beat in my book for travel. If I didn't have that habit of seeing 'longer' rather than 'wider,' my travel kit would most likely look different, whether it would be Leica-based or any other brand. Once you go beyond 50mm, few systems offer a small option.
For me, the studio kit is based around the Canon R5 and my landscape kit is increasingly based around the Fuji GFX100s. Wildlife is MFT again, with the 150-400mm as the core lens. Honestly, I wish I could narrow it all down to one system, but I find I can't because for some use cases, some kits just take the fun out of the experience.
Rationally, MFT could be my only system, as in most cases the resolution would suffice for the kinds of prints I nowadays make. But we're not totally rational, are we?
p.4 #4 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
johnvanr wrote:
For me, the studio kit is based around the Canon R5 and my landscape kit is increasingly based around the Fuji GFX100s. Wildlife is MFT again, with the 150-400mm as the core lens. Honestly, I wish I could narrow it all down to one system, but I find I can't because for some use cases, some kits just take the fun out of the experience.
But you shoot many different subjects. So do I, less than you but still.
However, my main subject is street so the M is still one of the best choices.
johnvanr wrote:
Rationally, MFT could be my only system, as in most cases the resolution would suffice for the kinds of prints I nowadays make. But we're not totally rational, are we?
Same here. I could shoot street with the Pen-F and I did, even the GM5. And I use the OM-1 II for the rest. I also use the EM-5 III for hiking, etc.
And I agree: I hardly see the difference in prints.
And being rational is useful sometimes but it never made anyone happy or a better photographer AFAIK
p.4 #5 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
johnvanr wrote:
I tend to prefer something around the 90mm pretty often, so the tiny 45mm f/1.8 Olympus lens can't be beat in my book for travel. If I didn't have that habit of seeing 'longer' rather than 'wider,' my travel kit would most likely look different, whether it would be Leica-based or any other brand. Once you go beyond 50mm, few systems offer a small option.
For me, the studio kit is based around the Canon R5 and my landscape kit is increasingly based around the Fuji GFX100s. Wildlife is MFT again, with the 150-400mm as the core lens. Honestly, I wish I could narrow it all down to one system, but I find I can't because for some use cases, some kits just take the fun out of the experience.
Rationally, MFT could be my only system, as in most cases the resolution would suffice for the kinds of prints I nowadays make. But we're not totally rational, are we?
p.4 #6 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
1bwana1 wrote:
My images these days mostly get printed on books, magazines, or large gallery sizes so resolution is vital for what I am doing.
Only for the gallery images, I assume. I submit to Alamy and they need enough resolution for a double-page spread as a minimum and all my cameras easily fulfill that requirement.
p.4 #7 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
johnvanr wrote:
That’s what the die hards say, that you need to train yourself to get it right. I believe it, to a certain extent, but then the question becomes whether that extra hurdle is worth it for the return you’re getting. If you enjoy the unique experience, sure, but I doubt you’re going to get any special images.
And then we go back to the OP’s original point, the M as a general travel camera. For some that may work, but that can only be because they have a style that matches what the M is good at and can deliver. For others, the M as a travel camera is too limited because they like to shoot in a more varied way than the M is good at. ...Show more →
Yeah, like the diff for someone mastering a manual transmission vs. the ease of use and %%% of performance of today's automated transmission marvels.
There'll never be anything to quite replace that experience of coordinated tactile shifting and the nuance of how one can manage shifting. Electronic paddle / slap shifter is a different experience that splits the diff of fully automated, and it can yield a degree of the performance characteristics, but not the same level of tactile engagement experience.
And ... this ^ ... takes time to develop / learn / master.
Whenever the human brain / body are being tasked to play nice with each other ... it takes time, effort, dedication, study and an intentional development cycle to get them in sync to where they are performing at high levels. There's the old adage about 10,000 hours kinda thing. Not that it takes that long, but the point being ... yeah, it takes time and dedicated effort ... for a while.
If someone doesn't understand that going in to using a M, their level of disenchantment is likely to jump in there more quickly than someone who understands and recognizes that the learning curve of connecting the eye / brain / hand has a requisite component of time / effort ... until it becomes "effortless". For those who have stuck with it to get it to that place ... their perspective about its ease of use is different from those who are still in the learning / developing phase.
Getting to a place of intuitive proficiency doesn't happen overnight ... and diff rates of use / learning will vary among folks. Some stick with it and are superior with it. Others are merely adequate. Yet others, abandon it or return to the convenience of something different.
For many folks, I think they misunderstand the philosophical approach ... trying to put a square peg in a round hole kind of thing. Meaning, there are times I want / need uber-precision focus / framing, and a rangefinder patch approach may not yield the same level of uber-precision that other approaches can offer. But, for tactile zone shooting or pre-focusing and watching / waiting to enter the frame ... those applications can yield an experience in a way that the other approaches / methods do not.
Neither better / nor worse ... different ... and when well suited to your philosophical expectations, life is great. The disenchantment comes from having a mismatch in one's philosophical expectations of what a rangefinder experience is designed for / yielding.
When your head (and body) is in the game with a manual transmission, it is a joy that an automated tranny doesn't compare. When it's not, the convenience of automation is pleasant.
Such is life with a M (imo).
p.4 #8 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
RustyBug wrote:
Yeah, like the diff for someone mastering a manual transmission vs. the ease of use and %%% of performance of today's automated transmission marvels.
There'll never be anything to quite replace that experience of coordinated tactile shifting and the nuance of how one can manage shifting. Electronic paddle / slap shifter is a different experience that splits the diff of fully automated, and it can yield a degree of the performance characteristics, but not the same level of tactile engagement experience.
And ... this ^ ... takes time to develop / learn / master.
Whenever the human brain / body are being tasked to play nice with each other ... it takes time, effort, dedication, study and an intentional development cycle to get them in sync to where they are performing at high levels. There's the old adage about 10,000 hours kinda thing. Not that it takes that long, but the point being ... yeah, it takes time and dedicated effort ... for a while.
If someone doesn't understand that going in to using a M, their level of disenchantment is likely to jump in there more quickly than someone who understands and recognizes that the learning curve of connecting the eye / brain / hand has a requisite component of time / effort ... until it becomes "effortless". For those who have stuck with it to get it to that place ... their perspective about its ease of use is different from those who are still in the learning / developing phase.
Getting to a place of intuitive proficiency doesn't happen overnight ... and diff rates of use / learning will vary among folks. Some stick with it and are superior with it. Others are merely adequate. Yet others, abandon it or return to the convenience of something different.
For many folks, I think they misunderstand the philosophical approach ... trying to put a square peg in a round hole kind of thing. Meaning, there are times I want / need uber-precision focus / framing, and a rangefinder patch approach may not yield the same level of uber-precision that other approaches can offer. But, for tactile zone shooting or pre-focusing and watching / waiting to enter the frame ... those applications can yield an experience in a way that the other approaches / methods do not.
Neither better / nor worse ... different ... and when well suited to your philosophical expectations, life is great. The disenchantment comes from having a mismatch in one's philosophical expectations of what a rangefinder experience is designed for / yielding.
When your head (and body) is in the game with a manual transmission, it is a joy that an automated tranny doesn't compare. When it's not, the convenience of automation is pleasant.
Such is life with a M (imo).
People who know me make fun of me because I can go on and on about how perfect a car my Mazda MX-5 is in terms of delivering the pure joy of driving. I keep it, but it's in another country most of the time, and I just enjoy it when I can. My main car is a hoot and way more capable, but it ain't a Miata. I know where you're coming from but I cannot apply those same kinds of mythical thoughts to my M11. Which is why that's on its way out. No issue with those who can, though.
p.4 #9 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
johnvanr wrote:
People who know me make fun of me because I can go on and on about how perfect a car my Mazda MX-5 is in terms of delivering the pure joy of driving. I keep it, but it's in another country most of the time, and I just enjoy it when I can. My main car is a hoot and way more capable, but it ain't a Miata. I know where you're coming from but I cannot apply those same kinds of mythical thoughts to my M11. Which is why that's on its way out. No issue with those who can, though....Show more →
I met my wife because I saw her cruising down the I 5 freeway in a cute brand new Miata and chased her down. Both she and the car were irresistible.
p.4 #10 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
I've struggled with the exact thing many in here have mentioned as well. There's much to like about the digital M experience on paper:
- Extremely light and compact, especially the black M11 models with aluminum bodies. The M lenses are far more compact than their equivalent SLR or AF mirrorless lenses would run. If you're OK with f/2 or slower lenses, you can have an exceptionally compact full frame setup. Maybe the smallest and lightest FF camera money can buy?
- The feeling of involvement is certainly higher when you have to manually focus and select an aperture at a minimum, and can even pick your own ISO and shutter speed if you care to. The program auto modes on modern mirrorless cameras, let alone the heavily computational photography aides in the new OM and Fuji models, really feels like it disconnects you from the actual making of a photograph and converts it into taking a photograph.
- The P models are extremely discreet, which I like. Between their unassuming compact box frame, no big hand grip, and the absence of visible logos, they don't call attention to themselves like other 60MP FF cameras might.
That said there's also some stuff to dislike, particularly when traveling and shooting in all manner of lighting, crowds, pacing, environments, etc.
- Manual focusing is hard to nail at faster apertures and faster scenes. The solution many land on is zone focusing at f/8 or f/11 but sometimes you want the isolating aesthetic effect of a wider aperture and it's nice to have a competent AF system that can instantly snap to focus the second something cool happens in front of you.
- No zoom lenses. This is less of a problem for me than many since I'm not a professional and have only been shooting with primes since I bought my first real camera in 2023. That said I do see the value of traveling with a 24-70mm as that covers basically everything you could encounter. It would counter my personal preference of a light and compact setup, but it's nice to have some focal length flexibility.
- No weather resistance. It rains or snows basically everywhere in the world you might want to travel to, and you never know if today's sunny day will lead to tomorrow's drizzle or thunderstorm. This is a real vulnerability of the M cameras, and there have definitely been travel days I was happy to have the Q2 with me as a backup.
The final thought I have on digital M is maybe unique to me, but the digital sensor is so perfect that I feel silly using it with an archaic manual focusing device like a rangefinder. It stinks having an optically perfect picture marred by missed focus. It sound dumb but I would actually rather have a more optically "imperfect" photo, such as one shot on film, if I was using an inherently error-prone focusing system like an RF.
That's why I ended up selling my M11-P and now I use my MP when I want the complete "old school" experience with film, manual focusing, manual exposure, the whole thing. Or I use my A7R4 when I want the pristine digital experience with as many aides as I care to use.
p.4 #11 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
My biggest photography regret is not buying an M10 the day it was released-
The M just fits my shooting style and is so easy to bring along with me I feel I missed thousand of moments with my family when trying to lug around larger systems-
p.4 #12 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
The main downside of the traditional M system (excluding the new EV1), is that both the rangefinder mechanism and the lens must be perfectly calibrated from the factory and remain that way over time. This was not nearly as critical in the film era, but digital cameras, especially those with high resolution sensors, demand much greater tolerance precision... No matter how good your sensor or lens is, if that initial alignment is even slightly off, your focus will be off without you realizing it. You'll think you're nailing shots, but the results won't be optimal. And once that happens, any other mirrorless system, autofocus or manual, will give you more consistently accurate results.
Assuming your M body and lenses are perfectly calibrated and in sync, which, trust me, is not the norm (), the remaining differences come down to personal preference. I much prefer being able to focus while composing at the same time. I never have to interrupt the process by magnifying the image or relying on focus peaking. For me, it feels more natural and keeps me connected to the scene. It's much faster for me, especially with lenses that have focus tabs, where I can already get 90% of the way to focus by feel before even aligning anything through the viewfinder. The only other mirrorless camera so far that's given me a similar experience is the Nikon Zf, due to its focus confirmation..
That said, the Zf's focus confirmation, while super useful, isn't quite a replacement for rangefinder focusing, and that reminds me of the second reason I prefer the M. You don't get a preview of the final image, which, to me, removes distractions. I can just focus on composing and focusing without getting pulled into evaluating the final output in the moment. Of course, that assumes you are comfortable judging exposure and visualizing depth of field without seeing the final rendering. That takes some practice, especially if you are coming from a mirrorless camera.
p.4 #13 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
Agree on all of those, Fred. One thing I'll say is you can turn off image preview on your mirrorless camera. I do this on all of mine and recommend it to my friends purely for the purpose of eliminating that distraction. A good EVF (5m dots or more) lets you compose and focus concurrently, and you trade the ability to see things outside your frame in exchange for imperfect parallax compensation and potentially missing key edge elements in the final photo.
I think the Nikon Zf and Fuji X-Pro mirrorless cameras are about as close to perfect as I have seen for a mirrorless AF camera. They both have discreet, unassuming bodies and very clean, functional designs. If they could make a Zf mk2 with lighter aluminum and maybe a 40-50MP sensor I would be all over that. Also, to be honest, where is Sony on the rangefinder style mirrorless camera? Where is the X-Pro4?
p.4 #14 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
Doesn’t Nikon have some pretty decent rangefinder film camera’s from back in the day? I wonder why Nikon never went back to that product space and developed a digital version.
icarus_ wrote:
Agree on all of those, Fred. One thing I'll say is you can turn off image preview on your mirrorless camera. I do this on all of mine and recommend it to my friends purely for the purpose of eliminating that distraction. A good EVF (5m dots or more) lets you compose and focus concurrently, and you trade the ability to see things outside your frame in exchange for imperfect parallax compensation and potentially missing key edge elements in the final photo.
I think the Nikon Zf and Fuji X-Pro mirrorless cameras are about as close to perfect as I have seen for a mirrorless AF camera. They both have discreet, unassuming bodies and very clean, functional designs. If they could make a Zf mk2 with lighter aluminum and maybe a 40-50MP sensor I would be all over that. Also, to be honest, where is Sony on the rangefinder style mirrorless camera? Where is the X-Pro4?...Show more →
p.4 #16 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
tofunjay wrote:
Doesn’t Nikon have some pretty decent rangefinder film camera’s from back in the day? I wonder why Nikon never went back to that product space and developed a digital version.
icarus_ wrote:
Where is the X-Pro4?
We are all wondering all of those things, though it's clear the X-Pro 4 is coming well before a Nikon rangefinder-style camera.
p.4 #17 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
1bwana1 wrote:
Inside and at the core of every one of the cameras you mentioned. Sony does leave some things to its customers...
I wish they wouldn't. Which camera out there combines a Sony sensor and AF with vintage/rangefinder style compactness and discretion?
I do not enjoy traveling with this. It immediately marks you as a photographer at best and a theft target at worst. These pro bodies with their massive L-shaped bodies and lenses are recognizable and draw way too much attention for my comfort.
p.4 #18 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
tofunjay wrote:
Doesn’t Nikon have some pretty decent rangefinder film camera’s from back in the day? I wonder why Nikon never went back to that product space and developed a digital version.
They do (I happen to be selling a couple in the BST forum ). Unfortunately I don't think Nikon is interested in making one, though I might have thought from Fuji's incredible success with the X100 cameras that other companies would be interested in a fixed lens rangefinder style digital camera.
Something like a Z SP with the original SP's 35mm f/1.8 lens and Zf internals would be awesome.
p.4 #20 · Leica M11-P as a Travel Camera: A Love–Hate Experience
icarus_ wrote:
I do not enjoy traveling with this. It immediately marks you as a photographer at best and a theft target at worst. These pro bodies with their massive L-shaped bodies and lenses are recognizable and draw way too much attention for my comfort.
If that bothers you, traveling with a Leica may give you a nervous breakdown. I say don't worry about it. Why do you care if people know you are a photographer? Insure your gear and shoot without worry.
), the remaining differences come down to personal preference. I much prefer being able to focus while composing at the same time. I never have to interrupt the process by magnifying the image or relying on focus peaking. For me, it feels more natural and keeps me connected to the scene. It's much faster for me, especially with lenses that have focus tabs, where I can already get 90% of the way to focus by feel before even aligning anything through the viewfinder. The only other mirrorless camera so far that's given me a similar experience is the Nikon Zf, due to its focus confirmation..
). Unfortunately I don't think Nikon is interested in making one, though I might have thought from Fuji's incredible success with the X100 cameras that other companies would be interested in a fixed lens rangefinder style digital camera.