M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Comparison with Nikon's VF is not useful. There is huge difference in clarity between M's VF and Nikon's (with all AF points etc). Leica should not compromise on clear and bright VF.

 

Maybe the new Contax has what many are looking for. It will have hybrid VF with tons of DSLR like info (configurable of course). Never mind that it was announced on April 1st

 

https://photorumors.com/2018/04/01/breaking-contax-digital-rangefinder-camera-to-be-announced-soon-pictures-specifications-and-more/

Edited April 3, 2018 by jmahto

[indergaard]

The 75mm framelines inside the 50mm framelines are basically my horizon leveller. Please don't remove that!

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

For the next iteration of the M after the M10, ( which I do own along with a M240 and a MM1 ), I'd like to see just a few simple "improvements".

 

First and foremost for me would be the availability of a .52 viewfinder. I'd also really appreciate it if the next M did recognise that many of us use WA lenses on our M's so a finder that would show 21/24 framing would be very welcome even if it's only available as an a'la carte build.

 

Frame lines as they are at present?.....They're ok, but to have the red line option as per the M240 would be a welcome addition.

 

Keep the OVF pretty much as is, don't mess with any digital hybrid nonsense.......BUT it really is about time Leica found a way to incorporate a +/- dioptre. Many, I suspect most, Leica M users are like me getting up the ladder and the eyesight is just one more thing that suffers with aging, so I believe that the M could help us out on this and have some degree of OVF dioptre adjustment if possible.

 

It's also time to walk away from the removable baseplate all M's are still saddled with, why Leica has not incorporated a bottom door like on the Q I don't know, does anyone know why they've stuck with this? Is it structural? I doubt it.

 

Sensor. Frankly the sensor in the M10 I find perfectly adequate for the system as it is. I have no problem with it but if there's incremental improvements to come in the next M then fine. I personally don't need more pixels if by providing that would compromise the camera in any other way. I trust that Leica is putting the best possible sensor in the M that is presently available, why would they not do so?

 

I would like to have a Mini-USB port, I do not use that much on the M240, but when I do I appreciate having it there.

 

ASA knob? I could do without it. Never found an immediate need to change ISO on most of my usage of the M10, I like the simplicity of the M9's top-plate.

 

Battery life? Once a few charging cycles have gone by the battery life is just fine. I have two batteries, go out with both but rarely use the second one. 

 

Body shape, weight and size is about perfect.

All in all I'm very happy with the M10, no particular hurry to await a M11 or whatever comes next......

[feelssadman]

So far the thing that really seems to be sticking out is a virtual level indicator and a variable dioptre. (And maybe a shorter RF magnification)

[david strachan]

Yes, i think a variable dioptre would be great...

And a flash synchronization offtake..

 

...

[cp995]

So far the thing that really seems to be sticking out is a virtual level indicator and a variable dioptre.

 

These are my only wishes too!

Edited April 4, 2018 by cp995

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So far the thing that really seems to be sticking out is a virtual level indicator and a variable dioptre. (And maybe a shorter RF magnification)

Your phrasing “sticking out” might be apropos for the variable diopter, as I fear it would add bulk, which is always a concern with the M user base. And things get more complicated with magnifiers, which may require a different diopter correction.

 

This has been discussed here for years, and since Leica has a variable diopter on other cameras, I suspect it’s a real design challenge for the M.

 

But I’d like to have it, too, if it doesn’t compromise other aspects. Meanwhile a single + .5 diopter is all I need, and I don’t share my camera with others.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

I'm just having to get into the add-on diopter needs for my M's, and with four of them plus the M10 and a 21/24/28 OVF to suit up it soon becomes a costly proposition. Many other adjustable diopters on other cameras don't "stick out" but even if it took up the depth of one of the available OVF magnifiers I'd happily live with that.

[Jeff S]

I'm just having to get into the add-on diopter needs for my M's, and with four of them plus the M10 and a 21/24/28 OVF to suit up it soon becomes a costly proposition. Many other adjustable diopters on other cameras don't "stick out" but even if it took up the depth of one of the available OVF magnifiers I'd happily live with that.

They don’t stick out because the top plates are typically bigger. The M has its own challenges with the VF/RF design. Leica has shown that they’re not philosophically opposed; I suspect the design challenge is more that you think, including the magnifier issues mentioned.

 

Jeff

Edited April 4, 2018 by Jeff S

[Guest]

Hi Jeff, I didn't mean to suggest that it would be an easy thing to do, if it was I'm sure that they would have offered it before now but it would be good if Leica would keep it in mind again when they look at the next M design.

It was more of a "wish-list thing" now that aging eyes underline the need. I'm sure that twenty years ago it wouldn't have been on my wish-list.

[Jeff S]

Yep, at 67, I only recently benefitted from a +.5 diopter, in addition to the glasses I’ve worn for ages to correct for distance and astigmatism (and sunglasses for light sensitivity). Aging’s a bitch... except for the alternative.

 

Jeff

[jmahto]

They don’t stick out because the top plates are typically bigger. The M has its own challenges with the VF/RF design. Leica has shown that they’re not philosophically opposed; I suspect the design challenge is more that you think, including the magnifier issues mentioned.

 

Jeff

I have read (can't recall where) that variable diopter affects the clarity of VF. There may be a technical problem.

[schattenundlicht]

Aging’s a bitch... except for the alternative.

Jeff

That is one to reiterate every morning

[Mantice]

If Leica do read this I would like to really need a unhindered 28mm frameline with eye relief, either by screw on Frankenfinder or have it a’la carte.

 

It’s up to Leica marketing to figure out if this is important or not, but I for one will not continue to tolerate a hindered frameline, and 5 years is a lot of one’s lifetime to wait for such essentials. OVF RF is what makes Leica M, and I don’t see a point losing such competitive advantage.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Mantice

[rk-d]

I am new here. Just purchased an M10, but have previously been using an M6 for a few years. I'm currently shooting with a 50mm 1.4 Summilux and a 28mm Elmarit.  I've been a CaNikon shooter for 13 years now. 

 

I think sensor development hit a peak with the Nikon d800. Sensors have continued to improve from there, of course, but the differences have been incremental. One can shoot with a d800, for instance, and not really want for much. This is a 6 year old camera. 

 

What's the point? The m10 sensor has superior low ISO performance, IMO. DR may technically not be as good - I don't bother with DXOMark - but DR is certainly practically as good as that sensor when shooting with a modicum of competence. My most recent camera was a Canon 5D Mark IV and shadow recovery actually seems a little better.

 

MOST importantly, the *quality* of noise that this camera produces is outstanding. It looks like film. That matters to me more than anything. The quality of noise from the M10 is better than any camera I've ever used. 

 

Long story short - I can be perfectly contented with this sensor for many years to come. It certainly blows the M6's 35mm results out of the water.

 

As to what the M11 could offer that would be temping.... It's probably sacrilegious, but... I do think the option of a transparent overlay that allows the option of focus peaking through the optical viewfinder that can be used simultaneously with the rangefinder view would be pretty cool. That's about the only innovation I can think of that would make a significant change in the camera's operations. Otherwise, it's very close to perfect. 

[Martin B]

I am new here. Just purchased an M10, but have previously been using an M6 for a few years. I'm currently shooting with a 50mm 1.4 Summilux and a 28mm Elmarit.  I've been a CaNikon shooter for 13 years now. 

 

I think sensor development hit a peak with the Nikon d800. Sensors have continued to improve from there, of course, but the differences have been incremental. One can shoot with a d800, for instance, and not really want for much. This is a 6 year old camera. 

 

What's the point? The m10 sensor has superior low ISO performance, IMO. DR may technically not be as good - I don't bother with DXOMark - but DR is certainly practically as good as that sensor when shooting with a modicum of competence. My most recent camera was a Canon 5D Mark IV and shadow recovery actually seems a little better.

 

MOST importantly, the *quality* of noise that this camera produces is outstanding. It looks like film. That matters to me more than anything. The quality of noise from the M10 is better than any camera I've ever used. 

 

Long story short - I can be perfectly contented with this sensor for many years to come. It certainly blows the M6's 35mm results out of the water.

 

As to what the M11 could offer that would be temping.... It's probably sacrilegious, but... I do think the option of a transparent overlay that allows the option of focus peaking through the optical viewfinder that can be used simultaneously with the rangefinder view would be pretty cool. That's about the only innovation I can think of that would make a significant change in the camera's operations. Otherwise, it's very close to perfect. 

 

I wonder how you compare the results with film taken with the M6 with digital files from the M10. Film and digital are two different media - they complement each other but can never achieve exactly the same. Color film is probably the closest which can be reproduced in digital, but from my experience certainly not B&W. The Leica monochrome gets close but still the pictures don't reveal the mood of film B&W shots (grain, highlight effects etc). The best is to use film and digital in parallel depending on the situation and scenery. You have two excellent tools to do so - I do the same with my M6 even I am using for digital a Sony A7R. 

[rk-d]

I wonder how you compare the results with film taken with the M6 with digital files from the M10. Film and digital are two different media - they complement each other but can never achieve exactly the same. Color film is probably the closest which can be reproduced in digital, but from my experience certainly not B&W. The Leica monochrome gets close but still the pictures don't reveal the mood of film B&W shots (grain, highlight effects etc). The best is to use film and digital in parallel depending on the situation and scenery. You have two excellent tools to do so - I do the same with my M6 even I am using for digital a Sony A7R. 

 

 

I use a pretty good lab that digitally scans the images, and I get hard copies. You can never be 1:1 on these comparisons, of course.

 

I agree that film has it's own particular charm that can't be replicated in digital. The images of m10 that I've seen using identical lenses have obviously superior sharpness, dynamic range to similar shots taken in film, but I'll grant that film is not just about resolution, etc. I love my M6 and have no intention of getting rid of it or stop shooting film. 

 

I like what I'm seeing with the m10 files, though. There is an organic quality to it's noise that reminds me of film. It can't be a true replacement for film, but the files are more "alive" appearing than what the Canon that it replaced produced. 

Edited April 14, 2018 by rk-d

[Martin B]

I use a pretty good lab that digitally scans the images, and I get hard copies. You can never be 1:1 on these comparisons, of course.

 

I agree that film has it's own particular charm that can't be replicated in digital. The images of m10 that I've seen using identical lenses have obviously superior sharpness, dynamic range to similar shots taken in film, but I'll grant that film is not just about resolution, etc. I love my M6 and have no intention of getting rid of it or stop shooting film. 

 

I like what I'm seeing with the m10 files, though. There is an organic quality to it's noise that reminds me of film. It can't be a true replacement for film, but the files are more "alive" appearing than what the Canon that it replaced produced. 

 

Yes, the M10 is definitely a great camera - and it all depends on the style what kind of photography it is used for. Enjoy!

[Csacwp]

The M10 sensor is great. It’s noticeably more filmic than the SL sensor.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Martin B]

The M10 sensor is great. It’s noticeably more filmic than the SL sensor.

 

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