M 11 will be around in less than 4 years. The speculations and facts.

[jonatdonuts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hear you 100%. 

I think people really should do some research to learn why Leica rangefinder camera still have huge fan base nowadays. What’s the history of it? How the legendary people in the past use this cameras? Why 60 years ago Leica engineer design the camera this way? And then, people will understand why it’s a bad idea to think of putting video function into Rangefinder camera or using Leica for shooting wildlife. I really don’t want to offend anybody here since we all love Leica and we have a nice community here. But I think something just went wrong and I have to say something to make it right.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

I feel like I have to hide under a rock - I'll probably find some Leica engineers there as well - they have been making mirror boxes since the thirties - offering V lenses for M up to 800 mm, Dr. Paul Wolf used a Movie camera next to his Leica II, etc. The Leica "Rifle" shoulder stock set is the most sought-after accessory there is. (and the most expensive)

 

This nostalgic "purity" is something from the last decade, mostly new users it seems- and historically without any basis. It is technical nonsense as long as one function does not impair the other.

It is a camera, a tool, for St. Barnack's sake, not some religious idol  .

 

I have used M cameras for wildlife since 1988...  And macro. With the bellows-M provided by Leica, etc....

[thrid]

1) The digital M needs a more sophisticated metering system than is currently integrated. The current system is dumb and is easily fooled. Yes, in challenging lighting situations you can stop, take a shot, look at the histogram and adjust the exposure accordingly. But this is not practical, when working in fast moving situations.

 

Leica should design a sophisticated matrix metering system that is integrated in the RF unit and changes it's area of coverage according to the focal length mounted. This metering system would not change the view through the bright line viewfinder and in operation would be as transparent to the user as the current metering system, except it would deliver superior results. 

 

2) Leica should develop a sensor with a dual gain readout in the vain of the sensor used in the Arri Alexa. This would offer highlight roll off performance beyond what any other still camera manufacturer is currently offering and set the M system apart from the competition.

[Kevinfinity]

It seems that Leica already ditched the idea of reintegrating video back into the M, since they already have other, more suitable options for cinematographers. 

 

By sheer design alone, it is difficult to ever see the M as a professional video camera, even if they were to bring back the detachable bottom plates with all the ports. There is no AF, no through the lens focus, no IBIS etc.

 

I understand that there are those who would wish to have the option of shooting video for those one off moments, and if they did include that feature without compromising on size, weight, price, heat, operation etc, then why not? But this is difficult to execute well considering the M's limitations, and would probably only just exceed the quality produced by the phone in your pocket. The fact that the 4k video of 2017's flagship phones compares well with professional video camera systems in good to ok light speaks volumes. By the time the M11 comes out, the rapidly advancing tech in cellphones would have closed that gap even more. 

 

I had thought that the main success of the M10 was down to the fact that it stayed true to its philosophy and reduced the camera down to the bear essentials. That was what pulled me towards it anyways. Simple, lean, and straightforward; built only for its intended purpose. 

 

You got my point! Support.

[Danno_photoguy]

I know it will not happen, but I would love for the M11 to have some of the features of the original digital rangefinder camera; the Epson RD-1.  The two features I miss the most are the (film advance like) crank which cocked the shutter and the movable back display/screen that one could flip over so it was like it was not even there (it could also be move in various ways to aid viewing as well).  Although I have a M9, M246, and M10, I still take the RD-1 out from time to time as I really enjoy the shooting experience.

[jmahto]

1) The digital M needs a more sophisticated metering system than is currently integrated. The current system is dumb and is easily fooled. Yes, in challenging lighting situations you can stop, take a shot, look at the histogram and adjust the exposure accordingly. But this is not practical, when working in fast moving situations.

 

Leica should design a sophisticated matrix metering system that is integrated in the RF unit and changes it's area of coverage according to the focal length mounted. This metering system would not change the view through the bright line viewfinder and in operation would be as transparent to the user as the current metering system, except it would deliver superior results.

 

2) Leica should develop a sensor with a dual gain readout in the vain of the sensor used in the Arri Alexa. This would offer highlight roll off performance beyond what any other still camera manufacturer is currently offering and set the M system apart from the competition.

Sorry, I never had issue with Leica M9 and M240’s metering. But then, I don’t shoot slides with them. (joking aside, the metering is good enough if you are DNG shooter. Exposure is an aesthetic decision and not a technical one).

[thrid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, I never had issue with Leica M9 and M240’s metering. But then, I don’t shoot slides with them. (joking aside, the metering is good enough if you are DNG shooter. Exposure is an aesthetic decision and not a technical one).

 

 

 

Well, we all shoot different subjects and under different circumstances. I'm glad to hear it works for you, but M shooters are a varied bunch and obviously we don't all have the same needs.

 

The current meter is fine for still lifes, many family pics, travel photos etc. Basically situations where you can take your time and aren't moving through rapidly changing or challenging lighting conditions. The current meter can be easily fooled and I think we are all aware of just how many 'test shots' we take to adjust exposure.

 

But shooting in fast paced documentary situations etc is a very different story.  Quite often taking a second shot or asking someone to repeat an action is obviously not an option under such circumstances. Therefore a dumb meter in a digital camera just doesn't cut it, unless your aesthetic choices include blown highlights or crushed shadows. And it is a technical issue if a paying client is involved.

 

I think we are all aware of the fact that digital is not as forgiving to exposure errors like negative film is and that includes shooting RAW. When film is exposed improperly it fails gracefully. Digital not so much. The dynamic range on the M240/M10 sensor is pretty good, but like all digital sensors except for the one in the Arri Alexa, they have poor shoulder roll-off performance and accurate exposure is important. 

 

I find it very curious how some people are so adamantly against improving the accuracy of the metering system in the M, even if an improved metering system was transparent to the user and didn't change the shooting experience, design or ergonomics of the camera and simply resulted in more accurate exposures.

 

PS: Before everyone tells me to learn how to use my tools etc, I should add that I have been shooting with manual cameras and an external meter for about 30 years. Yes, I have a 240 and have shot the M10, but I still feel there is a lot of room for improvement in that area.

.

Edited July 5, 2018 by thrid

[jmahto]

Well, we all shoot different subjects and under different circumstances. I'm glad to hear it works for you, but M shooters are a varied bunch and obviously we don't all have the same needs.

 

The current meter is fine for still lifes, many family pics, travel photos etc. Basically situations where you can take your time and aren't moving through rapidly changing or challenging lighting conditions. The current meter can be easily fooled and I think we are all aware of just how many 'test shots' we take to adjust exposure.

 

But shooting in fast paced documentary situations etc is a very different story. Quite often taking a second shot or asking someone to repeat an action is obviously not an option under such circumstances. Therefore a dumb meter in a digital camera just doesn't cut it, unless your aesthetic choices include blown highlights or crushed shadows. And it is a technical issue if a paying client is involved.

 

I think we are all aware of the fact that digital is not as forgiving to exposure errors like negative film is and that includes shooting RAW. When film is exposed improperly it fails gracefully. Digital not so much. The dynamic range on the M240/M10 sensor is pretty good, but like all digital sensors except for the one in the Arri Alexa, they have poor shoulder roll-off performance and accurate exposure is important.

 

I find it very curious how some people are so adamantly against improving the accuracy of the metering system in the M, even if an improved metering system was transparent to the user and didn't change the shooting experience, design or ergonomics of the camera and simply resulted in more accurate exposures.

 

PS: Before everyone tells me to learn how to use my tools etc, I should add that I have been shooting with manual cameras and an external meter for about 30 years. Yes, I have a 240 and have shot the M10, but I still feel there is a lot of room for improvement in that area.

.

Well, not really trying to argue (every one does have different needs and have different workflow), however your comparison with film is not accurate. In reversal film only the highlights have better roll off but dark areas are lost quite abruptly if you are not careful. On the other hand, you got to be careful of highlights in digital (and same with film slides). What I like about M’s simple metering is that it errs on the side of protecting highlights if there are bright lights. No denying that an evaluative metering will be better but that will require metering off the sensor which has own issues (slower, shutter shock etc). With this simplified metering, and with better than film’s dynamic range, digital M’s metering improvement is low on my priority list. Edited July 5, 2018 by jmahto

[AdamSinger]

I have an M10, am glad there is no video its what my  I phone is for (not serious). Avoiding excessive  and confusing functionality is one reason why I got rid of  the SL601, the other  was the shrinking of the M240 back to a real Leica  M seize.  

 

My M10 issues are :

 

Its currently back at Wetzlar, as it's suffering from teenage cheap vodka behind the bike shed syndrome and is reluctant to wake up. The battery doesn't last long enough. 

 

BUT the biggest problem is focus. For  an M11 to compete with  Sony et al  it will need to contemplate  boosting resolution to  40MP +  as this becomes  the  high end camera resolution norm.  In turn it will be harder to focus accurately.  This affects all camera makers but especially if you are relying on a range finder combined with a high resolution digital sensor that  may not be sufficiently  accurate enough for fast lenses longer than 50mm. I experienced  this on the  M10  with my 1.4 75,  90  Summicron , (not the latest) and my F4 135;  where the rangefinder said they were in focus  did not agree with where the  EVF  said they were in focus. The EVF was right the rangefinder wrong . Sent camera and lenses back to Wetzlar,  not  totally  cured,  but it is better.

 

My Leica dealer said I was not alone on this issue.

 

To be fair these are older lenses, I have no problem with the Noctilux. So I suspect if you buy new lenses this will be  less of an issue,  but as resolution rises  this problem will increase, and there will be more 'back focus’  problems. The ghastly horrible, truth may be that the CRF  cannot keep up with  21st century.

 

For me a major reason to have a digital  M Leica is high ISO and to use my older lenses, ( I will keep my film Ms for as so long as I can use them ). If a CRF is not accurate  enough for a world of rising resolution, a focus  confirmation light, like  the green dot in the Nikon would  be a great .  Also maybe make the effective base of the rangefinder  longer, as it was on the M3, and also let the customer have the option to de-clutter the viewfinder, i.e. less frames. (yup my perfect  M11 is an M3 with a 40mp sensor  but that's just personnel taste) .

 

If Leica can’t resolve this, then the siren lure of the Sony A7/9 will get ever greater, as they too iterate, to ever better cameras that can use Leica glass.  Who knows may be the A7 iv could have a "German Sensor' emulation button’  for use with  your Leica lenses that allows you to choose that M10 look, on  a Sony camera.

[wlaidlaw]

As a regular reversal film user, I would strongly disagree about the latitude of slide film. It is around +/- 0.5 EV and it is just as easy to get blown highlights. It is not like colour negative where you can happily over-expose by 2 or 3 EV or B&W where +/- 1.5 EV is just fine. The metering on my M7, which is similar to the non-live view metering on digital M’s, is very good until you go to 28mm or wider, where you have to be careful of not picking up too much sky lighting and under-exposing as a result.

 

Wilson

[Tragg]

Will Leica ever introduce and M13  ?

[Keith_W]

If Leica can’t resolve this, then the siren lure of the Sony A7/9 will get ever greater, as they too iterate, to ever better cameras that can use Leica glass.  Who knows may be the A7 iv could have a "German Sensor' emulation button’  for use with  your Leica lenses that allows you to choose that M10 look, on  a Sony camera.

 

 

A quick search through my posts will tell you that I am not a typical "defend Leica at all costs" kind of forum member. However, I did move to Leica from the A7S2 for two reasons: (1) the cameras were absolutely horrible to use, and (2) the gigantic lenses defeated the purpose of the small body. I was willing to give up conveniences like a superior sensor, IBIS, and autofocus to move to a completely manual camera, which costs a bomb - only so that I could get a compact, well handling full frame camera. I think that any Leica person who moves to Sony will soon become frustrated, and even angry with the camera. Those cameras are amazing from a technological and engineering point of view. But they are severely let down by the shooting experience. 

[LocalHero1953]

There's an extraordinarily narrow view on show here of how video is shot and used.

Not all videos are shot for feature films.

There is a world of video out there that uses short clips, talking heads, 'moving stills', short 'art' story telling etc that doesn't require complex dedicated video equipment, but lightweight simple equipment with high IQ. Some of it is shot on smartphones.

The M240's functionality allowed it to be used for that purpose without either carrying a separate video camera nor the IQ and lens compromises of a smartphone. I suppose someone might try to shoot a feature film on the M240 (just as they might use it to shoot birds in flight), but only 'because it's there' not because it's fundamentally good for it. But the world is bigger than that - look at social media of almost any variety.

 

Comments like "putting video in the M ruins the concept" reads to me like ".....ruins the concept I have in my head" which is not the same thing. The reality is that video per se does not ruin the M and how it can be used - it can be used with or without video - though it clearly ruins some people's perception of it.

 

Like some others here, I am moving away from the M to the CL and SL. The absence of video options and the absence of a silent electronic shutter are just two of the reasons*. There's a risk that this will leave the M more closely tied than ever to a shrinking and more conservative market that wants none of these things.

 

 

Edit: since this thread is about the M11..........I wonder if the M11 will have liveview and an external EVF? Will it be worth Leica's while in a shrinking and conservative market to put in the R&D to manage it and to design and make a new external VF?

 

 

 

* Others include: better metering with a histogram and exposure simulation in the EVF; faster focusing under reasonable lighting conditions; the light weight of the CL and a design not tied to the past (the M baseplate and use of brass). I acknowledge issues on the other side of the coin (easier framing and RF focusing under some conditions, full frame in a small package etc) but my personal scales are tilting away from the M.

Edited July 5, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

Very well said, Paul.

[jonatdonuts]

I am glad that, arising from this discussion, is the limitations of the M10 rangefinder mechanism to truly and consistently maximise the potential of current lens and sensor technology for street and documentary photography shot at wide apertures. Any improvements in sensor technology - which the M11 will undoubtedly bring - will only highlight this bottleneck further. 

 

While I love the rangefinder focussing philosophy, and I am a firm believer that great pictures do not need to have critical sharpness, it seems pointless to advance sensor or lens technology further without first addressing the rangefinder limitation, which has already reached its threshold. 

 

Some sort of focus confirmation or switchable OVF to EVF overlay (while still maintaining the rangefinder patch) when using fast lenses would ensure that the rangefinder can continue to be relevant: producing fantastic results with the latest technology of 2020++. Otherwise there is really little point of improving the M10 from its already lofty position, at least from the point of view of documentary and street photographers. I for one have very little interest in a 36 or 46 megapixel sensor for a rangefinder when I know that the majority of my street photos, taken of subjects who move beyond my control and at fast apertures, will not be able to maximise every detail due to the failure of achieving critical sharpness. 

 

In regards to video, I apologise for being abrasive, and I have definitely had too much beer this evening, but I still haven't come across a single convincing argument as to why video should reintegrated back into the M when it is a) not fit for purpose b ) there are much better Leica (or other) alternatives out there and c) will not significantly offer you a better alternative to your 2020++ cellphone for those one-off moments. 

 

However, if there was a way to integrate video into the M without compromising its other features (operation, heat, ergonomics, battery life, size, price etc) then why not? 

Edited July 5, 2018 by jonatdonuts

[jaapv]

Video because:  The M is primarily a photo journalist's and travel photographer's tool. Both disciplines have a need for simple, short video clips. Think: "talking heads", folkloristic documenting in a travelogue, etc. One can use a cellphone, but it is a lot better to use the same lenses and style as the accompanying photographs do.

 

No need for the more sophisticated video controls of the SL and CL, let alone the offerings by Panasonic and Canon.

[Kwesi]

I confess, I haven't read all 17 pages so please forgive me if this has already been said.

All I really want in the M11 are ALL the capabilities of the M240 plus the inevitable increase in megapixels and iso, in an M10 sized body.

[trickness]

I don't think video will come back in the next M - they'll iterate on the 10. Longer battery life, improved heat dissipation, perhaps higher megapixels, perhaps reduced weight. Maybe an improved external EVF solution, plus they'll probably mess with the viewfinder ratio as they seem to do it in each new version. Improved Maestro sensor with better dynamic range, less noise at higher ISO. That's the recipe. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

...........................................

a) not fit for purpose b ) there are much better Leica (or other) alternatives out there and c) will not significantly offer you a better alternative to your 2020++ cellphone for those one-off moments. 

 

a) read my post. It depends on your purpose.

b ) those alternatives are not the M. If you want the M, and if the M can do video and that video is fit for the particular purpose, another camera is not better.

c) er... read my post. A 2020++ phone does not have the same optics as a Leica M

 

I think you are missing the point. A quick and dirty video of my latest grandson, for which I might use my phone, is only one option. There are other high quality 'art' videos or other conceptually innovative shorts out there that the M240 was suited to. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

...................................

 

However, if there was a way to integrate video into the M without compromising its other features (operation, heat, ergonomics, battery life, size, price etc) then why not? 

This is a rational argument, which I understand. I have never heard the actual reasons why Leica omitted video, though I could understand if these constraints played a part.