M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My Leica M11 suggestions:

 

 

Allow user to change image aspect ratio (3:2 is all that is available in M10)

 

Hm. Can you not cut in post processing? Considering that Leica reduces everything to the minimum then that feature is the least necessary. This is my opinion.

[Advertisement]

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

[JTLeica]

To those who want 42mp sensors, I genuinely do not. I have had them in the RX1 and A7 cameras and they're a total waste of storage and make the processing slow.

I have never once needed 42mp and I bet not more than one on this forum (the entire forum) has either. Unless you cannot compose a photo right first time, 16, 20, 24MP are more than enough.

 

I just wish for E shutter up to 16000th ish maybe 32k so you can us Noct in the sun if needed.

Cleaner ISO even though its amazing already.

 

Before the M11 though, please Leica, bring out a decent EVF?

[Ko.Fe.]

Image stabilizing and dust reduction. This will bring it to M240 size. M12 will bring it back to M10 size.

[james.liam]

 

36 MP is divine.

Albert        

 

 

Why? 36MP caused all sorts of trouble in the Nikon world when the D800 arrived. Not sure great gains were had for more routine users, beyond people buying brand new lenses that played well with the sensor.

---

Honestly, aside from inevitable improvement in high-ISO performance and a multiplicity of cosmetic variants to follow, the M10 fulfilled all the bullet points people here were groaning about for years. I remember walking into Leica Store-SoHo with my M6 in hand shortly after the M240 appeared and all I could think of was how fortunate I was to be with the prettier, skinny sister.

 

Personally, don't need 36/42/50 MP and all the technique/computing/storage issues that will arise. 

 

IBIS? [bloat, more electronics, more heat] A higher density EVF display? [power, faster chip & heat management] Flash sync port? [you really use it???] Quieter shutter? [it's petty damned quiet already for a mechanical one]

 

An e-shutter would indeed be wonderful and probably the most likely add-on for an M11; everything listed above will result in an M240-size or fatter. The extra stuff wished for above will likely follow in the next SL iteration, or if you really, really can't live without it now, hold on to a Canikon body and a few Sigma ART lenses.

Edited March 10, 2018 by james.liam

[lucerne]

Image stabilizing and dust reduction. This will bring it to M240 size. M12 will bring it back to M10 size.

We disliked the bulk of the 240 range of Cameras. Leica responded with the slimmer M10. It would be madness to reintroduce the thick body when everyone agrees that M6 thickness is most desirable.

[Reciprocity]

To those who want 42mp sensors, I genuinely do not. I have had them in the RX1 and A7 cameras and they're a total waste of storage and make the processing slow.

I have never once needed 42mp and I bet not more than one on this forum (the entire forum) has either.

Oh, I think your bet is lost, I need and use larger than 42MP although not in Leica M. I have interior designer and other high end ad clients who will take as big a file as I can give them so 46MP and 60MP cameras really up the ante when I need it to be upped.

 

You all just ought to stop telling people what they should want or what they should need, it’s not your place to do that and we are all different,

 

If someone wants a 42MP Leica M11, more power to them, it is their right and they don’t have to even give anyone a reason for it.

 

I don’t really need more than 24MP in a Leica M but there is no way in heck I would tell someone else they don’t need it, that’s a big crock of baloney.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Reciprocity

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don`t change a thing.   Nikons have 36 MP, buy one.

 

Buy the bigger Leica medium format if you need giant prints. 

[pgh]

 

 

 

Why? 36MP caused all sorts of trouble in the Nikon world when the D800 arrived. Not sure great gains were had for more routine users, beyond people buying brand new lenses that played well with the sensor.

---

Honestly, aside from inevitable improvement in high-ISO performance and a multiplicity of cosmetic variants to follow, the M10 fulfilled all the bullet points people here were groaning about for years. I remember walking into Leica Store-SoHo with my M6 in hand shortly after the M240 appeared and all I could think of was how fortunate I was to be with the prettier, skinny sister.

 

Personally, don't need 36/42/50 MP and all the technique/computing/storage issues that will arise. 

 

The D800 changed digital photography in terms of what you can do with print scale and the latitude of capture in one image. Problems? Yea, lots of sloppy photographers learned they had to focus a little bit more on technique when it comes to sharpness. On the other side of that, they learned they can be sloppier with exposures.

I owned that camera for 5 years with no complaints, other than its bulk. The sensor was a revolution in full frame imaging. That was a long time ago now. It should be a standard option at this point. The computing and storage solutions are no problem with this size for most photographers at this point - because - again - this resolution is fairly normal. 

 

I find that most people talking about the resolution problems from full frame sensors don't have extensive experience using it, it's just a parroting of refutations by others on why they don't need it. If you don't need it, cool, but it's NOT a problematic thing. If it were that tough to shoot and manage files from these cameras you wouldn't have the D8xx and Sony A7Rxx series being the runaway successes that they are. Do you have to be a little more deliberate? Yes - is it difficult to get sharp images? No. Also, the high res sensors do great things with old lenses. I did not buy one new lens for the D800, and have used adapted film lenses on the Sony. They all did perfectly well and made high effective resolution images than they had previously.

 

Those who say get another camera for high res sensor in a thread about what you want in the next M specifically entirely miss the point. This is such a simple point. It's not about what you want in another camera. It is not hard to understand. 

Edited March 10, 2018 by pgh

[Irakly Shanidze]

 

I see no reason why you found it necessary to ridicule my suggestions.

If you have suggestions of your own, simply post them.

 

 

The reason is that M is meant to be light and portable. Everything in its design revolves around this idea. I would understand an articulated LCD on the SL, but here it is like buying a tropical fish and then trying to make it climb a tree so it could sing with birds.

Same with megapixels. Have you ever printed A0-sized photo?

[Irakly Shanidze]

The only thing that I would want changed in M10 is wireless connection. Wi-fi is cumbersome and does not connect automatically. I want bluetooth!

[james.liam]

The D800 changed digital photography in terms of what you can do with print scale and the latitude of capture in one image. Problems? Yea, lots of sloppy photographers learned they had to focus a little bit more on technique when it comes to sharpness. On the other side of that, they learned they can be sloppier with exposures.

I owned that camera for 5 years with no complaints, other than its bulk. The sensor was a revolution in full frame imaging. That was a long time ago now. It should be a standard option at this point. The computing and storage solutions are no problem with this size for most photographers at this point - because - again - this resolution is fairly normal.

 

I find that most people talking about the resolution problems from full frame sensors don't have extensive experience using it, it's just a parroting of refutations by others on why they don't need it. If you don't need it, cool, but it's NOT a problematic thing. If it were that tough to shoot and manage files from these cameras you wouldn't have the D8xx and Sony A7Rxx series being the runaway successes that they are. Do you have to be a little more deliberate? Yes - is it difficult to get sharp images? No. Also, the high res sensors do great things with old lenses. I did not buy one new lens for the D800, and have used adapted film lenses on the Sony. They all did perfectly well and made high effective resolution images than they had previously.

 

Those who say get another camera for high res sensor in a thread about what you want in the next M specifically entirely miss the point. This is such a simple point. It's not about what you want in another camera. It is not hard to understand.

You get no argument that the D800 revolutionized larger format digital imaging/printing. The DR of that sensor and ability to crop dramatically immediately relegated my D700 to annals if history. Nor are the technique issues difficult to overcome, especially with the ubiquity of image stabilization/vibration reduction. What I said was that for many routine users, the extra pixels weren’t game changers. As for the lenses, Nikon themselves published a long list of Nikkors whose resolving capabilities were not on a par with the 36MP sensor’s demands. Many of the legacy AIS lenses did fine, in fact, better than the earlier AF glass. It wasn’t a bumpless transition. That’s all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reciprocity]

What I said was that for many routine users, the extra pixels weren’t game changers.

And this is the issue I have, there is no such thing as a routine user. To assign this label not having taken great pains to interview thousands of not hundreds of thousands of users of these cameras only serves to diminish the significance of individuality.

 

There is just far too much of this assuming and speculation happening on the Internet and knowing how diverse the actual camera using population is, I am really suprised at the liberties of assumption taken.

 

When the D800 was announced, I ordered two using my NPS. I was replacing by then very inadequate D700 cameras and felt that the move to what is now average resolution was overdue. I also did a painless computer and storage upgrade and was off and running. I only had to replace one lens which was subpar even on film so again, fairly painless.

 

And that is my singular specific case, just like everyone else’s is. So let’s try to avoid the blanket labels such as average or routine, they are essentially crutches used in order to make an otherwise pointless point more palatable.

[james.liam]

And this is the issue I have, there is no such thing as a routine user. To assign this label not having taken great pains to interview thousands of not hundreds of thousands of users of these cameras only serves to diminish the significance of individuality.

 

There is just far too much of this assuming and speculation happening on the Internet and knowing how diverse the actual camera using population is, I am really suprised at the liberties of assumption taken.

 

When the D800 was announced, I ordered two using my NPS. I was replacing by then very inadequate D700 cameras and felt that the move to what is now average resolution was overdue. I also did a painless computer and storage upgrade and was off and running. I only had to replace one lens which was subpar even on film so again, fairly painless.

 

And that is my singular specific case, just like everyone else’s is. So let’s try to avoid the blanket labels such as average or routine, they are essentially crutches used in order to make an otherwise pointless point more palatable.

You’re a member of the NPS. You’re not a routine user.

 

The people on this forum spend a King’s ransom on equipage they understand intimately. The technical knowledge here on digital imaging, computing and the physics of optics is nothing short of astounding. Leica takes its cues from discussions here. These are not routine users.

 

When the D800 appeared with the accompanying hype, I must have taught about a dozen former P&S and APS-C DSLR owning acquaintances around me the basics of their new toy. Several returned the camera because they were unwilling to upgrade their computers and storage. Few got beyond the basics. They’re the ‘average user’, and where these companies make their money.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited March 10, 2018 by james.liam

[onasj]

For me it’s all about the sensor. As an a7riii owner, I would be thrilled if the M11 used that sensor (or better!), minus the thick sensor stack of course...

[jdlaing]

For me it’s all about the sensor. As an a7riii owner, I would be thrilled if the M11 used that sensor (or better!), minus the thick sensor stack of course...

It won’t work as well with M lenses as a sensor designed for M lenses.

[Narsuitus]

The reason is that M is meant to be light and portable. Everything in its design revolves around this idea. I would understand an articulated LCD on the SL, but here it is like buying a tropical fish and then trying to make it climb a tree so it could sing with birds.

Same with megapixels. Have you ever printed A0-sized photo?

 

Light and portable may be important features for some photographers but not for me. I want a camera that is rugged, dependable, produces high-quality images, and has good ergonomics. If I want light and portable, I have plastic cameras I can use instead.

 

Originally, I did not like the idea of an articulated LCD. However, after using an articulated LCD on a Canon G11 compact digital, I found it very useful when shooting on a copy stand and for over-the-head and ground-level shots.

 

I have not yet needed to make an A0-sized print (33.1 x 46.8 inches).

When I need to make large-sized prints, I usually use a medium format or a large format film camera.

To date, the largest print I have made from a small format digital camera has been 24x57.5 inches.

Most of my images from small format digital cameras are 16x20 or 20x24 inch prints.

 

I have been very satisfied with the large prints I have been able to get from the 24mp cameras I have used. However, I was very impressed with the image quality of the Nikon D850 digital SLR with its larger megapixel sensor and thought that Leica should be able to compete.

 

I have also been very satisfied with the size and ergonomics of the Leica M10. I would not accept any so-called improvements that increased the size or interfered with the handling of future versions of the M10.

[Narsuitus]

The only thing that I would want changed in M10 is wireless connection. Wi-fi is cumbersome and does not connect automatically. I want bluetooth!

 

Since the wireless connection in the M10 does not work with my Android phone, I personally have no use for it. However, I would not deny this Wi-fi feature or your suggested bluetooth improvement to other photographers.

[Tailwagger]

For me it’s all about the sensor. As an a7riii owner, I would be thrilled if the M11 used that sensor (or better!), minus the thick sensor stack of course...

 

Head scratch. If its ALL about the sensor and you own an r7iii, then... Strikes me that its not about the sensor at all, its about the system, form factor, lens family, controls, UI, menu system, etc. Sensor characteristics might be in there somewhere, but clearly its not everything as so many complaining about the lack of pixels in the M already have alternative cameras elsewhere that have filled that void. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Martin B]

36 MP is divine.

Albert     

 

Why are so many focused on 36 MP? This is not new at all anymore, technology from 2013. There is no written rule that Leica should always use sensor tech from 1-2 generations behind.....

[Martin B]

For me it’s all about the sensor. As an a7riii owner, I would be thrilled if the M11 used that sensor (or better!), minus the thick sensor stack of course...

 

+1. Nothing more to add to this.