M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]

[jonatdonuts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very sensible suggestions. 

 

I do very much like the base plate though. Nostalgic, feels very secure, and it only provides a few seconds of inconvenience, unless you use a tripod of course. 

 

Basing the framelines on the lens codes is such a simple and excellent idea. Pure genius. No reason why that could not be implemented, though I hope they would maintain the manual frame selector for occasions when you want to think about the appropriate focal length a little more before taking the shot. 

 

If they were to combine that with a switchable evf-ovf that doesn't compromise on quality then I think you've got another winner. 

 

 

 

 

Browsing through this discussion, I might have overlooked some points, however the wish-list for an M11 appears to be rather short - memory card and battery access has been mentioned (the base plate is discussed since the M8, so unlikely to change), an electronic frame-line selection and some want more pixels.

 

With the length of time I keep my cameras, it is very unlikely I will buy an M11; for the base-plate, I can live with it, but I can see, why there is a group, who does not like it. Whatever sensor Leica are planning in the future, after having spoken to photographers, who use the 42 MP Sony and reading reviews, I personally would appreciate to have at least a 20 MP-ish choice, since this appears to be the feasible limit for a hand-held camera - I'm aware that there are different views, so maybe Leica can offer two sensors in future.

More important to me is to keep compatibility to legacy lenses, since some of them offer a quite unique look, which can't be found in modern lenses (imperfections can be quite charming). Not sure about the international edition, the german April edition of LFI runs an interview with some Leica people explaining, why they made their sensor this way.

 

Coming to the frame selection - I could imagine a solution, where the mechanical lens detection over the cam is done by microswitches rather than mechanically. If the bit code of modern lenses is detected, it can display one single electronic frame. In case this code is missing, the traditional pair of frames could be displayed.

 

Diopter adjustment has been mentioned and would be appreciated by me as well.

 

What I would like to keep is the current form factor and camera balance (just spot-on perfect), the re-introduced frame selector and the current operation concept.

 

Stefan

[jdlaing]

Very sensible suggestions. 

 

 

Basing the framelines on the lens codes is such a simple and excellent idea. Pure genius. No reason why that could not be implemented, though I hope they would maintain the manual frame selector for occasions when you want to think about the appropriate focal length a little more before taking the shot. 

 

If they were to combine that with a switchable evf-ovf that doesn't compromise on quality then I think you've got another winner.

 

The frame line masks are mechanical and work with the lens flange. No electronics so not possible with the current design. It would require a lot more room and interfere with the viewfinder.

[jaapv]

S

 

Very sensible suggestions. 

 

I do very much like the base plate though. Nostalgic, feels very secure, and it only provides a few seconds of inconvenience, unless you use a tripod of course. 

 

Basing the framelines on the lens codes is such a simple and excellent idea. Pure genius. No reason why that could not be implemented, though I hope they would maintain the manual frame selector for occasions when you want to think about the appropriate focal length a little more before taking the shot. 

 

If they were to combine that with a switchable evf-ovf that doesn't compromise on quality then I think you've got another winner. 

Simple? how would you base the frame lines on the coding?

[jonatdonuts]

Forgive me, my understanding of the inner mechanics of the M are obviously very limited. 

 

I understand that digital M cameras are able to read the lens code via a combination of internal LEDs and sensors that scan the paint. From this scan, they can recognise the focal length of the lens and then make internal adjustments to the final picture quality i.e. light falloff, distortion etc. 

 

Now the M11 frame lines will presumably be LED, like that of the M10. In this case, would it not be theoretically possible for the frameline selector to be, in part, electronic, to the extent that it can omit certain framelines based on the receipt of an electronic signal that would come from the lens mount? In this case, it would be possible for the camera to scan the lens, send an electronic signal to the frameline selector, and ensure the most appropriate frame appears in the viewfinder. 

[jaapv]

Why do you presume they will be LED? That is not so simple and not case on the M10. On top of that, the mechanical frame line readout is part of the coding because of the WATE.

[pico]

Forgive me, my understanding of the inner mechanics of the M are obviously very limited. [...]

 

Now the M11 frame lines will presumably be LED, like that of the M10. In this case, would it not be theoretically possible for the frameline selector to be, in part, electronic, to the extent that it can omit certain framelines based on the receipt of an electronic signal [...]

 

Probably. More complex apparatus has been fit into smaller space. Before going further, here is a somewhat simplified diagram of the finder.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

This diagram shows the earlier version that used a semitransparent window to illuminate the frame masks. Later versions use an LED to do the same. There are masks that slide against each other to create frame lines projected into the user's optical path.

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Forgive me, my understanding of the inner mechanics of the M are obviously very limited.

 

I understand that digital M cameras are able to read the lens code via a combination of internal LEDs and sensors that scan the paint. From this scan, they can recognise the focal length of the lens and then make internal adjustments to the final picture quality i.e. light falloff, distortion etc.

 

Now the M11 frame lines will presumably be LED, like that of the M10. In this case, would it not be theoretically possible for the frameline selector to be, in part, electronic, to the extent that it can omit certain framelines based on the receipt of an electronic signal that would come from the lens mount? In this case, it would be possible for the camera to scan the lens, send an electronic signal to the frameline selector, and ensure the most appropriate frame appears in the viewfinder.

The frame lines aren’t LED. They are lit through slits in a mechanical metal frame by an LED bulb instead of through a window with natural light.

[pico]

It is encouraging  that Leica is quietly forward looking into, for example, viewfinder design. I have lost track, but someone posted a link to a Leica patent that shows such an effort.

Edited May 10, 2018 by pico

[Herr Barnack]

My forecast:

 

- Touchscreen

- NEW BSI-Sensor from TowerJazz

 

I guess earliest within 2021

 

 

Gaaah!!  Abomination!!

 

PLEASE, Wetzlar M Camera Design Poobahs:  NO TOUCHSCREEN! 

 

The last thing we need when the decisive moment is upon us is to have the camera thinking we want it to do something other than release the shutter  because we inadvertently touched the touchscreen! 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[Jeff S]

It is encouraging that Leica is quietly forward looking into, for example, viewfinder design. I have lost track, but someone posted a link to a Leica patent that shows such an effort.

Maybe this... https://www.google.com/amp/s/leicarumors.com/2015/10/14/leicas-patents-for-optoelectronic-rangefinder.aspx/amp/

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Forgive me, my understanding of the inner mechanics of the M are obviously very limited.

 

I understand that digital M cameras are able to read the lens code via a combination of internal LEDs and sensors that scan the paint. From this scan, they can recognise the focal length of the lens and then make internal adjustments to the final picture quality i.e. light falloff, distortion etc.

 

Now the M11 frame lines will presumably be LED, like that of the M10. In this case, would it not be theoretically possible for the frameline selector to be, in part, electronic, to the extent that it can omit certain framelines based on the receipt of an electronic signal that would come from the lens mount? In this case, it would be possible for the camera to scan the lens, send an electronic signal to the frameline selector, and ensure the most appropriate frame appears in the viewfinder.

The frame lines work mechanically as shown in this thread....

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/66999-anatomy-of-the-leica-m8-framelines/

 

The M10 lines work the same way, except that they’re illumated by LED (like the M240) rather than by an external window.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Maybe this... https://www.google.com/amp/s/leicarumors.com/2015/10/14/leicas-patents-for-optoelectronic-rangefinder.aspx/amp/

 

Jeff

Which was probably filed to scupper Konost.

[Jeff S]

Which was probably filed to scupper Konost.

Possibly. Leica did say that they tried to incorporate a hybrid M finder but ended up with unacceptable compromises with both viewing approaches.

 

Jeff

[pgh]

there are full frame sensors for many purposes If you would put a “top” Nikon DSLR sensor in an M10 the results would be sh!t. That is the fallacy in your thinking.

But they would not be for the SL. It is not just the M, for one.

I readily acknowledged the difference in design regarding the M in my post, so no, there is not a fallacy in my thinking. Understanding that full frame sensor, regardless of the body it's housed in, is what I am discussing as a point of comparison is not hard, and that's where your fallacy comes in.

 

You're a great salesperson, trying to poke holes in every little statement to invalidate it. Saying Leica uses some of the best sensors around is nonsense. They're fine yes, but not in the top league. Take the M out of it. Leica has a full frame, ground up designed system with a middling sensor. There's no rangefinder backwards compatibility excuse there, not that it matters in parsing out ff 35mm sensors across the board. 

[jdlaing]

But they would not be for the SL. It is not just the M, for one.

I readily acknowledged the difference in design regarding the M in my post, so no, there is not a fallacy in my thinking. Understanding that full frame sensor, regardless of the body it's housed in, is what I am discussing as a point of comparison is not hard, and that's where your fallacy comes in.

 

You're a great salesperson, trying to poke holes in every little statement to invalidate it. Saying Leica uses some of the best sensors around is nonsense. They're fine yes, but not in the top league. Take the M out of it. Leica has a full frame, ground up designed system with a middling sensor. There's no rangefinder backwards compatibility excuse there, not that it matters in parsing out ff 35mm sensors across the board.

 

When you wrote to Leica and asked for a “better” sensor what was their answer?

[jaapv]

But they would not be for the SL. It is not just the M, for one.

I readily acknowledged the difference in design regarding the M in my post, so no, there is not a fallacy in my thinking. Understanding that full frame sensor, regardless of the body it's housed in, is what I am discussing as a point of comparison is not hard, and that's where your fallacy comes in.

 

You're a great salesperson, trying to poke holes in every little statement to invalidate it. Saying Leica uses some of the best sensors around is nonsense. They're fine yes, but not in the top league. Take the M out of it. Leica has a full frame, ground up designed system with a middling sensor. There's no rangefinder backwards compatibility excuse there, not that it matters in parsing out ff 35mm sensors across the board. 

Beside the point. There is no difference in requirements for the M and SL sensor. The SL is designed to be fully (retro)compatible with M lenses, as Leica clearly stated at the introduction of the camera. Leica is not a manufacturer that will drop existing customers like a brick in the pursuit of marketing brownie points.

 

In fact, they took care to integrate the M, SL and CL/T systems as far as possible.

[John Ricard]

I didn't read every single post in this thread, but from what I have read, no one seems to have mentioned my major gripe with the M10 - the overall sluggishness.  Unlike my 10 year old Nikon D3s, the camera doesn't turn on instantly. Images don't display instantly on the LCD screen.  And while the buffer is much, much better than the M9 and M240, the camera can't just quickly blast through endless frames the way my $1,000 Sony A600 does.  

 

So my wishlist for an M11 would be:

• Snappier overall performance
• Return of movie mode
• Removal of baseplate

 

And that's it.  Leave the rest of the camera as is.

[jonatdonuts]

I didn't read every single post in this thread, but from what I have read, no one seems to have mentioned my major gripe with the M10 - the overall sluggishness. Unlike my 10 year old Nikon D3s, the camera doesn't turn on instantly. Images don't display instantly on the LCD screen. And while the buffer is much, much better than the M9 and M240, the camera can't just quickly blast through endless frames the way my $1,000 Sony A600 does.

 

So my wishlist for an M11 would be:

• Snappier overall performance
• Return of movie mode
• Removal of baseplate

And that's it. Leave the rest of the camera as is.

Yes, I think that was one point not picked up by many M users. It could be because the M is predominantly used for photography that allows for a little more time and demands a lot more thought to produce the best results. For these uses, the speed of the M10, while not snappy, is adequate.

 

More speed is always welcome, however.

 

I have noticed a locking up when firing 5-10 shots (in single mode) in quick succession. Camera doesn’t keep up and freezes indefinitely.

 

For the movie mode, it looks very unlikely that it will return with the M11, given Leica’s preference to pack all new tech into the SL, and keep the M purely focussed on stills.

 

I’m starting to think I’m the only one who still likes the baseplate...

Edited May 13, 2018 by jonatdonuts

[david strachan]

I don't mind the baseplate. It's amusing and a tip to the past. Dropped, and dinged, but easily fixed...only once; a lesson learned! Now open over a soft short fall.

 

As for speed and focusing...well slow, considered, it's partly what Leica is based on.

 

 

...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonatdonuts]

#savethebaseplate

 

 

I don't mind the baseplate. It's amusing and a tip to the past. Dropped, and dinged, but easily fixed...only once; a lesson learned! Now open over a soft short fall.

 

As for speed and focusing...well slow, considered, it's partly what Leica is based on.

 

 

...