M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Where did you learn that (apart form the butt I mean)?  The broken line method is just one way to use a rangefinder. I mostly use structures. Read the FAQ about RF focusing.

 

 

A rangefinder needs a vertical line to focus properly. In another forum someone discussed a picture of a butt crack they had taken with their Leica camera. I thought that must be the perfect photo subject for a rangefinder.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

FAQ... https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/216580-leica-m8-m82-m9-m9p-mm-mtyp240-faqs-questions-with-answers/page-1?do=findComment&comment=2464049

 

Jeff

[evikne]

I still can't see that not all rangefinder focusing, except for zone focusing, is about looking for vertical lines or shapes in one way or another.

[jaapv]

1. The broken line method. Look for a vertical line in the image and bring it together in the rangefinder patch to be continuous.

2. The coincidence method. Look for a pattern in the image and bring it together to coincide. This may lead to errors with repeating patterns.

3. The contrast method. Once you have focus by method 1. or 2. a small adjustment will cause the rangefinder patch to "jump" into optimum contrast. At that point you have the most precise focussing adjustment.

# 2 and if desired #3

#2 does not have to be a vertical line. It can be a circle, a star shape, a blob, etc. Shapes, structures, whatever. Not just vertical lines.

[evikne]

If we for example focus on a circle, we still look for the vertical lines on the left and right side on it, not the horizontal lines on the top and bottom. That’s what I mean.

 

Vertical lines are everywhere, in all shapes. :-)

Edited May 14, 2018 by evikne

[jaapv]

Or the diagonal ones in a star, or the wavy ones in a blob, etc. ; or the dots in a structure, etc. But yes, the patch moves horizontally, reason we have to tilt the camera focusing sometimes.

[StS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another trick is to rotate the camera by 45 degrees. Most irregular patterns still have a preferred direction.

 

Stefan

[onasj]

In my opinion, too much discussion is focused on what isn’t possible, instead of what is. The history of camera evolution— even Leica’s history— is filled with advances in technology and brilliant insight that make possible what was once considered to be far-fetched. Did anyone think at the time of the M8 that relatively clean 12,800 ISO full-frame images would soon come out of a Leica M? We don’t need to hear why something is technically difficult— we know that modern digital cameras are marvels of engineering and technology. And yet every generation has substantially improved on its predecessors, with little sign of leveling off. I have enough faith in Leica’s resourcefulness and ability to engage those with relevant technology and ingenuity to believe that no laws of physics need to be violated to achieve a 40+ MP image with 14+ stops of dynamic range and other improvements, all in the M10 form factor. The only unknown to me is what Leica feels its present and, most importantly, its future customers will want, and how Leica will be able to grow its customer base by implementing the improvements underway for future M11, M12, etc models. Clearly it has shown a willingness to try to compete by repeatedly modernizing the M while preserving the form factor and photography experience that make the M special. I hope and expect that willingness won’t change anytime soon; after all, digital photography is a “red queen” industry.

Edited May 16, 2018 by onasj

[pgh]

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.

Not beside the point. What is beside the point is the form of the Leica in discussing current 35mm sensors. They don't get to be special in a comparative analysis. We can talk all day about how Leica is limited because of the inherent design of the M, but they are still using a sensor size that is the same as other cameras and therefore will be compared against them. No logical marketer or advertiser would insist on all consumers understanding this as some sort of excuse. In the end, most buyers won't care why they can't reach a certain level of imaging quality, it's just that they can't/won't.

 

The purpose of the Leica M and SL are to provide a high quality imaging system utilizing the 35mm full frame format. Your statement that "experts agree the the sensor is amongst the best on the market for the purpose intended" is wrong if we are to compare Leica sensors to other 35mm full frame cameras that are smallish and slowish. That's being kind by not comparing it to all 35mm full frame cameras, which in the film days the IQ would be put against. What you are arguing for is to only compare Leica against itself. It gets to exist in a vacuum. I, and most other consumers do not buy this. 

 

Speaking of marketing brownie points - as someone who has been deeply involved in advertising, and has made pictures for the express purpose of selling things to people and knows a bit about tailoring a less than complete message in the hopes of selling something - your statement is the epitome of such a thing.

 

An increase in resolution and dynamic range (or exposure latitude as some refer to it as) is not marketing points only, it is actual progress. You've made your point that you don't see the benefit of added resolution. Others have made their point why they do. Whether or not you need it, it is more than just the manipulation of the language around the conversation, it is something demonstrably improved. Insisting that Leica uses what is the best as considered by "experts" and then dispelling any other sensors of the same size, thereby essentially rendering literally whatever sensor Leica uses as some form of "the best available" is not responding to the actual criticism leveled, it is just twisting the language to avoid the substance of the discussion. Leica knows plenty about this too - they are master marketers. Their positioning the camera as a luxury item over a tool and the success that has brought them is what is allowing them to build a new hotel for fans to visit on dollars made with comparatively mediocre image quality producing cameras.  

 

I don't care what one's personal opinion of the IQ is for their purposes and I'm not talking about that and I'm not even complaining about the M10 sensor here - but to say it is amongst the best as considered by experts (who are the "experts") is an inaccurate pitch for any discerning photographer to read when considering a purchase where IQ is of any concern, unless you qualify your statement to say that "experts agree that the sensor is the best sensor on the market available specifically and only in Leica cameras already and all other comparisons are invalid because they don't suffer the same hard engineering problems that Leica does." - that's a statement that I would say yes, that's accurate - but hardly a good pitch. 

[pgh]

That’s just as I thought.

Are you expecting me to do your research for you? I'm not interested in why an M10/SL sensor isn't as good as other cameras (although yes I am well aware they claim it's the best compromise given their design), all that matters is that it isn't, and therefore for some applications that those tools could normally be suited for, they're not - not in their current iteration. Wonder if they put all the $ into building a new hotel in to R+D for better sensors what could happen. Hopefully they're doing both. In the mean time, it's fine, but it's not amongst the "best" (if you own a Nikon or a Sony you know this every time you edit your pictures) - which is the claim I was responding to. 

[jaapv]

Your last sentence is exactly what I  -and others- have been saying all the time, so I don't understand what you are railing against. In any case I am happy that you agree.

As for pitch - I have absolutely no interest in that aspect.

 

BTW, they didn't put a penny into the new building - they are renting it from an affiliate holding company. The hotel is completely separate and separately financed too.

 

I do own a couple of Sonys, and yes, I know which I prefer each time I edit...

[pgh]

I think it's important to revisit Leica's history of the M. If we go back to the film days, the M3 (and before it, the barnack) was essentially a compromise on quality - reducing the film size (sensor) from large format to 35mm so that it could be squeezed into a well built, compact, and intuitive body with great lenses. In terms of absolute image quality, the M was never the best available, but it was incredible for its size. This made it perfect for its intended purpose: street and documentary photography. 

 

For its intended purpose, I think many would argue that the M10's sensor, like most other cameras nowadays, has reached the point of overkill. Many street and documentary photographers don't really need more than 24 megapixels, nor do they need more than the wide latitude of dynamic range that it currently offers.

 

And there have been world class photographers that have taken award winning images today with far lessor cameras. In terms of technology, we are all spoilt by what's available. 

 

I am sure that, for landscape and fashion photographers, more megapixels would be appreciated. But this was never the intended purpose of the M. There are and have always been better solutions out there. In the 1950s it was the Hasselblad 500c medium format, while today it can be Phase One or sony's / canikon's megapixel monsters. 

 

In all honesty, I am more concerned with the M's market. Its current user base appear to be a relatively small mix of passionate hobbyists, wealthy collectors, and seasoned photographers who are married to the M's way of operation. Given its price tag, and the millennial generation's preference for instant, automated results, there are less young photographers picking up an M. The M will always remain a niche product, but I am not sure that the current business strategy will be sustainable in 10-20 years time, when we will not have as many older M shooters around to inspire the younger generation. In this respect, I would argue that it may be beneficial to bring the M11's price tag down AND release a true digital CL (or far cheaper version of the M 262) as a way of bringing in the younger photographers into the M way of shooting. 

I am inclined to agree with you here about the market - not so much the sensor thing - as someone who regularly utilizes every MP a camera gives me (I actually print lots of images at a range of sizes).

 

As a weird mixture of being a fairly young photographer (early thirties), who also is also relatively seasoned (17 years shooting, the majority of those years using an M alongside other tools) and sort of married to the M way of operation - in that - all other things equal I would prefer to work with the M - I share your concern. I know a lot of my colleagues have distaste for the EVF, and love the M way of working, but simply aren't in a position to justify such an outlay for a niche tool. I think your notion of a digital CL / cheaper M would really bring in a LOT of new shooters. And the crop frame CL isn't it for many either. The 35mm sensor is still standard for a lot of people, and if it isn't, Fuji does the crop thing amazingly well.

 

Many, many photographers do not need all of the features in today's cameras - most still shooters still just want manual controls, usability, and the best IQ they can get in the thing that gets out of their way the best. No need for something super fast, no need for crazy lens options, high frame rates, all of this other stuff. Just the thing that does the basics the best. That could be an M still - but the price + lower IQ combo is just really hard to get past for many people starting or in early stages of their careers. I see Leica's focus on luxury brand building and get frustrated that they're not serving a population that they really could be, while at the same time looking less serious as a camera manufacturer and more as a fashion brand. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by pgh

[jonatdonuts]

I think we have almost exactly the same profile. Though I did take an 8 year hiatus starting from 2006 when film got too expensive and the smaller digital cameras were utter b@LL$. 

 

Leica's leadership does seem to be in good hands, however, especially from a development and innovation perspective. The X1 and M9 pushed the frontiers of what digital could offer for the street shooter, with the former arguably setting a new trend in the APSC world. The X series and its manual controls got me back into photography, and I could not resist the M10 when it came out. In my opinion, the recent decision to cram in new tech into the SL so that they could reduce the M10 to its simple, pure form was a brave, nostalgic, and ultimately, fantastic move. 

 

If they could work on a true digital CL aimed at the new film-loving hipster crowd - the majority of which are teens and early 20s that have fallen for the romance of film's yesteryears - it might be an effective way to build and sustain the M's future market. With a smaller size, aluminium build, and maybe even the M240 (or even M9 Kodak sensor), the CL could be brought down to USD 2k, and I'm sure sell reasonably well. By doing so, you would be bridging the rangefinder system to a new stream of youth, a number of which would undoubtedly go for the M in the future once they're more experienced with the rangefinder and financially secure in their professional lives. 

 

As for Leica's image, it may be more wise to move away from the celebrity endorsers and instead embrace the old school legends more tightly and publicly, especially while we're still lucky enough to have them with us - Nicky Ut for example. I think the camera-crazed youth would be far more inspired by revered photojournalists who were married to the rangefinder during their careers, rather than pop star celebrities who endorse the M as a sideline advertisement gig in between concerts. This might be a good way to ensure a new generation of serious professionals who use rangefinders. 

 

 

I am inclined to agree with you here about the market - not so much the sensor thing - as someone who regularly utilizes every MP a camera gives me (I actually print lots of images at a range of sizes).

 

As a weird mixture of being a fairly young photographer (early thirties), who also is also relatively seasoned (17 years shooting, the majority of those years using an M alongside other tools) and sort of married to the M way of operation - in that - all other things equal I would prefer to work with the M - I share your concern. I know a lot of my colleagues have distaste for the EVF, and love the M way of working, but simply aren't in a position to justify such an outlay for a niche tool. I think your notion of a digital CL / cheaper M would really bring in a LOT of new shooters. And the crop frame CL isn't it for many either. The 35mm sensor is still standard for a lot of people, and if it isn't, Fuji does the crop thing amazingly well.

 

Many, many photographers do not need all of the features in today's cameras - most still shooters still just want manual controls, usability, and the best IQ they can get in the thing that gets out of their way the best. No need for something super fast, no need for crazy lens options, high frame rates, all of this other stuff. Just the thing that does the basics the best. That could be an M still - but the price + lower IQ combo is just really hard to get past for many people starting or in early stages of their careers. I see Leica's focus on luxury brand building and get frustrated that they're not serving a population that they really could be, while at the same time looking less serious as a camera manufacturer and more as a fashion brand. 

[jaapv]

The problem with the professional market is that it is small, and not where the money is. Oh yes, every brand likes to have high-profile pros on board; it sells cameras, but the cameras are sold to amateurs, who, admittedly, demand professional standards for their gear, but don't have the needs a specialized professional has.

[robert blu]

...

The X1 and M9 pushed the frontiers of what digital could offer for the street shooter, with the former arguably setting a new trend in the APSC world. The X series and its manual controls got me back into photography, and I could not resist the M10 when it came out. In my opinion, the recent decision to cram in new tech into the SL so that they could reduce the M10 to its simple, pure form was a brave, nostalgic, and ultimately, fantastic move. 

...

 

 

+1

Beside my M10 sometimes I still use my about 8 years old X1 ! 

 

robert

Edited May 17, 2018 by robert blu

[jdlaing]

Are you expecting me to do your research for you? I'm not interested in why an M10/SL sensor isn't as good as other cameras (although yes I am well aware they claim it's the best compromise given their design), all that matters is that it isn't, and therefore for some applications that those tools could normally be suited for, they're not - not in their current iteration. Wonder if they put all the $ into building a new hotel in to R+D for better sensors what could happen. Hopefully they're doing both. In the mean time, it's fine, but it's not amongst the "best" (if you own a Nikon or a Sony you know this every time you edit your pictures) - which is the claim I was responding to.

 

No. I’m expecting you to ask the people that count in your quest for perfection instead of constantly complaining in a forum that represents less than one percent of all the Leica users.