M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]

[Mantice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Day 2 on re-dicovering 28mm - I begin to think... Why not a detachable goggled wide angle?

 

If M11 or whatever insist on being a dinosaur on their viewfinder (but assume they push further into eye-relief) around 0.7x, then why not a detachable magnifier for 75mm+ and a de-magnifier for 35mm- lenses?

 

There were so many solutions back in their glorious time that push further into rangefinder enjoyment, without sacrifice pragmatic aspect of documentary photography; still, WHY NOT YET?

 

M10 is good but no one is going to argue that it is "what M240 should have been", not having much innovation of its predecessors. (M8 first digital RF, M9 first FF digital RF, M240 with more advanced sensor, LF, and video...)

 

Innovation brings heated debates, and the more debates, the more reflection on customer desire to own one, and their need for "more". I personally view a claim product is a sign of a lagger on social network: yes the greater proportion of seemly satisfied customers, but might be a signal of a lower customer pool with lower quantity of satisfied customers...

 

My 1 cent, its Leica's job to figure out.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Mantice

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

If Leica do read this I would like to really need a unhindered 28mm frameline with eye relief

 

You can get as much as a 24mm view if you just accept that your unspecified eye relief is the issue. IOW, it is yours to work it out or move on. Consider an external  viewfinder. FWIW, I use the RF window for approximating focus, and move my eye just that tiny bit to the external for the frame lines.

 

You can be damned sure that Leica is not going to modify their VF for you or similar plaintiffs.

Edited April 15, 2018 by pico

[jdlaing]

A little testy today aren’t we Pico?

[Mantice]

 

 

You can be damned sure that Leica is not going to modify their VF for you or similar plaintiffs.

 

 

No offensive pico, we'll see about that

 

It'll be up to Leica to decided if there's more of us and if we are enough to make them a profit, and even if they stay as it, I won't be losing anything by typing my personal experience on appropriate thread.

 

Don't worry, I'm aware of my souring comments isn't for everyone in this thread, and I for one will decided what I'm going to do next; relax, I will be nice~

[rk-d]

Just the 22 MP.....was a deal-breaker for me for the $$$$. 

 

 

I understand this complaint, given the money involved for this camera. 

 

Having lived with a d800 for many years, I'm happy to have the smaller files. At normal viewing on my 5K monitor, I don't see any significant difference in resolution with what I shoot. 

 

I don't heavily crop, so the higher resolution is not worth the massive files and subsequent processing and storage requirements.

 

DR is another story. The d850 is essentially ISO invariant, able to push 6eV. I rarely push past 1eV, so that's not an issue but being able to shoot wide open in bright sunlight and retain highlights is pretty nice. 

 

That said, I actually prefer the rendering of noise on the m10 at ISO6400 compared to the d800 or 5dMarkIV and I never push past 6400, so the super high ISO results don't really apply. 

 

I think depending on subject matter and style, some of the thermonuclear SLR/mirrorless cameras out there can be overkill in the performance category. At some point, handling, size and lens selection becomes more important. It is for me, at least. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by rk-d

[Martin B]

I understand this complaint, given the money involved for this camera. 

 

Having lived with a d800 for many years, I'm happy to have the smaller files. At normal viewing on my 5K monitor, I don't see any significant difference in resolution with what I shoot. 

 

I don't heavily crop, so the higher resolution is not worth the massive files and subsequent processing and storage requirements.

 

DR is another story. The d850 is essentially ISO invariant, able to push 6eV. I rarely push past 1eV, so that's not an issue but being able to shoot wide open in bright sunlight and retain highlights is pretty nice. 

 

That said, I actually prefer the rendering of noise on the m10 at ISO6400 compared to the d800 or 5dMarkIV and I never push past 6400, so the super high ISO results don't really apply. 

 

I think depending on subject matter and style, some of the thermonuclear SLR/mirrorless cameras out there can be overkill in the performance category. At some point, handling, size and lens selection becomes more important. It is for me, at least. 

 

Understood, all depends on personal preference and shooting style. For me there is no way that I would ever go back to a less than 36 MP FF camera. But I also admit that the pricing plays a role in my thinking - for more than > $6K for the M10 is a no-no with this sensor for me, but I likely would have considered in a price range below $3K just to be able to use my M mount lenses without adapter directly on a decent digital M camera. Paying about this price for predecessor digital M cameras is a no-no for me, too due to depreciation in value of electronics. 

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Understood, all depends on personal preference and shooting style. For me there is no way that I would ever go back to a less than 36 MP FF camera. But I also admit that the pricing plays a role in my thinking - for more than > $6K for the M10 is a no-no with this sensor for me, but I likely would have considered in a price range below $3K just to be able to use my M mount lenses without adapter directly on a decent digital M camera. Paying about this price for predecessor digital M cameras is a no-no for me, too due to depreciation in value of electronics. 

 

 

Your requirements seem to eliminate all possibilities for an M. The CL might suit your sensibilities better.

[Martin B]

Your requirements seem to eliminate all possibilities for an M. The CL might suit your sensibilities better.

 

The CL is of zero interest to me since it comes with a cropped sensor. Leica remains film camera only for me. 

[james.liam]

The CL is of zero interest to me since it comes with a cropped sensor. Leica remains film camera only for me.....For me there is no way that I would ever go back to a less than 36 MP FF camera

 

 

Unlikely you will ever see a sub-$3k contemporary FF Leica. Perhaps when an SL2 appears, the v.1 will close in on that price but an M at that price will be 2 generations behind. And it sounds like you require larger files and can deal with the logistics, so you know what you need. 

[Paul J]

PLEASE put movie mode back. I love it on the M 240 and have really been getting into it. I don't want a separate body for it, I want it ready to go at the press of a button.

 

And PLEASE, I really need USB back too!

Edited April 23, 2018 by Paul J

[pico]

A little testy today aren’t we Pico?

 

Not so much, just trying to be realistic for those who might have similar vision issues. Trying to bend a Leica M to every whim is not practical, thus the 'move on'' comment.

 

I do have a dream of a new body viewfinder, but no confidence that Leica will implement it.

Edited April 23, 2018 by pico

[Guest]

before getting too excited about what the next M would likely offer it would be nice to see whatever else Leica is able to offer on the M10 with what I feel is a long overdue and meaningful firmware update........

[IkarusJohn]

The M10 tempted me back into digital Ms, but to be honest, the SL does everything I need and I’m still reluctant to spend big money on a camera that doesn’t have the durability to match its price (based on previous electronic failures of digital Ms).

 

That aside, the M10 is close to the perfect M camera for me. The more critical issue is that the M10 is the best incarnation of a digital M. If we start from the basics, the optical viewfinder limits the ideal focal lengths for an M to 28-90 (without fooling about with the EVF). That means, optical rangefinder with lens and no add-on, Heath Robinson nonsense - a simple camera, with physical controls for ISO, aperture and shutter speed.

 

What could make it better? Well, obviously better dynamic range and sensor performance (I don’t care about MP one way or the other, provided more MP doesn’t make the camera more problematic to use - eg D800e and A7r). Not interested in IBIS or sensor cleaning, tilting LCDs (I’d buy the M-D version in preference), video, tethering or any of that nonsense, but if Leica included it I probablt wouldn’t care provided it didn’t get in the way.

 

I’d like an a la carte option. I’d also like USB-C charging and if they did away with the arcane removable baseplate in favour of the clickable battery from the SL and the TL2, with the SD card somewhere else (the door on the side of the SL and the TL2 works well). Single framelines, read from the 6 bit coding would also be good - I don’t particularly like the clutter of mutliple framelines. I also think the information in the viewfinder could be improved, particularly in manual - the single arrow is insufficient when compared to options from cameras of old, eg multiple arrows to show how far off the meter you are.

 

But, to be honest, if they released an M-D version of the current camera, with full WiFi control, I’d find it hard to resist. All cameras fall short of some one’s ideal - the trick is to work to the camera’s strengths. For the M camera, it’s about 28-90 photography reduced to control of the essentials. That’s hard to resist.

[Mantice]

I think we should allow us to express our wishes freely, at least in this thread.    We're here because we want Leica to be better, and there should be win-win in whatever Leica do.  Here I don't attack or argue with someone with a different need than mine; take example price is not a problem for me, but I respect other's opinion, and I can definitely benefit from a cheaper rapid-depreciating M body.

 

Absent of digital A La Carte is what puzzles alot of us - many of our problems could be solved right away, and it isn't like they need to re-invent the 0.58 finder...

[jaapv]

However, we are free to discuss the desirability and practicality of such wishes as well.

[Mantice]

However, we are free to discuss the desirability and practicality of such wishes as well.

True, this is free internet~

[jonatdonuts]

Understood, all depends on personal preference and shooting style. For me there is no way that I would ever go back to a less than 36 MP FF camera. But I also admit that the pricing plays a role in my thinking - for more than > $6K for the M10 is a no-no with this sensor for me, but I likely would have considered in a price range below $3K just to be able to use my M mount lenses without adapter directly on a decent digital M camera. Paying about this price for predecessor digital M cameras is a no-no for me, too due to depreciation in value of electronics. 

This is why a true Leica CL (digital version of the film classic - that is smaller, lighter, cheaper, rangefinder that takes M mount lenses) would still most likely generate a lot of interest...

[Martin B]

This is why a true Leica CL (digital version of the film classic - that is smaller, lighter, cheaper, rangefinder that takes M mount lenses) would still most likely generate a lot of interest...

 

+1. The original Leica CL was 35 mm film format like all other M cameras (obviously). To use the same serial name CL is misleading IMO since the cropped sensor does not cover the 35 mm frame. I suspect it was done also to avoid in-house competition with the M10. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Sensor size is of no interest. Sensor quality counts - and it is hard to differentiate between M10 and CL.

[Martin B]

Sensor size is of no interest. Sensor quality counts - and it is hard to differentiate between M10 and CL.

 

Then tell me how to take a photo with a 12 mm rectlinear lens with a cropped sensor camera. I quite often use the 12/5.6 lens with my M film cameras. Sensor size makes a huge difference!