Leica M11 - your next camera? {MERGED}

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, sarav said:

What rangefinder has to do with resolution?

 Everything . RF accuracy is based on average circle of confusion values corresponding to A4 prints viewed at arms length more or less. Don't hesitate to correct me we didn't discuss that more than 100 times already . Just kidding but you see what i mean .

Edited November 13, 2021 by lct

[pgk]

Absolutely precise focusing on any camera system is slow. I used to use an 85/1.2 EOS lens on a dSLR. I was never absoultely certain of absolute focus using the focus point in the viewfinder because it was insufficiently large - hit rate was well below 100%. Using live view (or EVF) and zooming in helps and increases the hit rate with extremely fast lenses but first requires the precise point of focus position to be set and then zoomed in - takes time. Better but slower. The RF is easier but for precise focus the centre of the viewfinder has to be used and then the image recomposed - a little slower and can result in focus shift as the camera recomposes. Also the RF has to be very accurately operated - trickier with faster and longer lenses. So ALL systems are slow for precision focus as far as I am concerned. 

[Advertisement]

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

[haikos]

Out of curiosity, how many here are totally fine with the M10/R cameras and don't really feel an "upgrade" is needed? Why do we expect a new M every 3 years or less? Did we get conditioned to desire/expect/demand this due to other brands (including smartphones) seemingly cranking out a new camera every few months? Is it simply due to sensor technology advancement  and obsolescence of the previous? Is it consumerism?

Thanks!

[cirke]

my expectation are always the same , which EVF ?

[Malcolm Kays]

49 minutes ago, haikos said:

Out of curiosity, how many here are totally fine with the M10/R cameras and don't really feel an "upgrade" is needed? Why do we expect a new M every 3 years or less? Did we get conditioned to desire/expect/demand this due to other brands (including smartphones) seemingly cranking out a new camera every few months? Is it simply due to sensor technology advancement  and obsolescence of the previous? Is it consumerism?

Thanks!

Quite fine with my M10R and M10 M. Also happy with my M3 / Summicron DR which was in production from 1954 to 1966 ( up to 1968 for the M2). It is still working fine and a recent CLA showed shutter speeds were correct and a minor adjustment to the rangefinder was required. I would prefer Leica concentrate on producing more gems like the 50 and 35mm APO to actually exploit the capabilities of the current range and finally correct the firmware issues with the Visoflex "freeze".

[Rick in CO]

1 minute ago, Malcolm Kays said:

Quite fine with my M10R and M10 M.  I would prefer Leica concentrate on producing more gems like the 50 and 35mm APO to actually exploit the capabilities of the current range and finally correct the firmware issues with the Visoflex "freeze".

I agree, quite happy with my M10 - I would add, in addition to fixing the "freeze", an updated higher res EVF Visoflex.  Easiest and most affordable way to a EVF-M.

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe leica will see the 300 posts by 8 posters screaming out for an EVF M camera and be fooled into believing a great number of people actually want such a thing?

[Tailwagger]

I tend not to think of a camera as a tool any more than I would a piano. It may be more traditional to play a rag on an out of tune upright, but there's no law that says you couldn't bang one out on a pipe organ. It may even turn out to be a helluva a lot more interesting if you do. 

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment is certainly important, but there is truth in the cliche that the best camera for the job is the one you have with you.  Most of us can neither afford to own them all nor carry more than one or two at a time even if we did. And if we're being honest with ourselves, there is nothing an M can do that can't be easily duplicated by virtually any other camera including the vaunted, supposedly unassailable notion of seeing outside the frame.  We might far prefer the RF experience to an iPhone at arms length, a GR with an optical finder or an A1 with a 24-70 intentionally zoomed out for cropping to a more than sufficient 24MPx.  But there's nothing particularly exclusive about the M providing added visual context other than its a 24/7 fact of life with an optical RF whereas with any of the others you have to consciously adapt your shooting style when the situation calls for it. In the meantime, any of the SoCaNiFus can perform all sorts of technical cartwheels with ease that an M shooter at best would have difficulty duplicating. They support optics from 8 to 800mm, shutter and aperture priority, video, 30 fps, AF and MF, e-shutters with speeds to 1/16000th and beyond, double and triple the battery life, more DR, IBIS, lower cost, etc, etc, etc... the M... not so much.

So how could anyone ever reasonably conclude that from a capability standpoint the M is ever the 'right tool' over virtually any SoCaNiFu?  Clearly each of us has any number of reasons for embracing the M over the others, often very different ones. But these days, after compactness, they are almost exclusively down to emotional or stylistic preference, not some clear and obvious technical advantage. For those who can't abide the M's sensibilities, there are just as many reasons to conclude, as they so often do, that it's a joke of a digital retro plaything for fools with more money than talent. Same is true for an EVF based M mount. There will be some who get it, others who can't fathom what the attraction is. Nothing new in that. 

[lct]

10 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Maybe leica will see the 300 posts by 8 posters screaming out for an EVF M camera and be fooled into believing a great number of people actually want such a thing?

Paying attention to pioneers is indeed expected .

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

I tend not to think of a camera as a tool any more than I would a piano. It may be more traditional to play a rag on an out of tune upright, but there's no law that says you couldn't bang one out on a pipe organ. It may even turn out to be a helluva a lot more interesting if you do. 

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment is certainly important, but there is truth in the cliche that the best camera for the job is the one you have with you.  Most of us can neither afford to own them all nor carry more than one or two at a time even if we did. And if we're being honest with ourselves, there is nothing an M can do that can't be easily duplicated by virtually any other camera including the vaunted, supposedly unassailable notion of seeing outside the frame.  We might far prefer the RF experience to an iPhone at arms length, a GR with an optical finder or an A1 with a 24-70 intentionally zoomed out for cropping to a more than sufficient 24MPx.  But there's nothing particularly exclusive about the M providing added visual context other than its a 24/7 fact of life with an optical RF whereas with any of the others you have to consciously adapt your shooting style when the situation calls for it. In the meantime, any of the SoCaNiFus can perform all sorts of technical cartwheels with ease that an M shooter at best would have difficulty duplicating. They support optics from 8 to 800mm, shutter and aperture priority, video, 30 fps, AF and MF, e-shutters with speeds to 1/16000th and beyond, double and triple the battery life, more DR, IBIS, lower cost, etc, etc, etc... the M... not so much.

So how could anyone ever reasonably conclude that from a capability standpoint the M is ever the 'right tool' over virtually any SoCaNiFu?  Clearly each of us has any number of reasons for embracing the M over the others, often very different ones. But these days, after compactness, they are almost exclusively down to emotional or stylistic preference, not some clear and obvious technical advantage. For those who can't abide the M's sensibilities, there are just as many reasons to conclude, as they so often do, that it's a joke of a digital retro plaything for fools with more money than talent. Same is true for an EVF based M mount. There will be some who get it, others who can't fathom what the attraction is. Nothing new in that. 

I see your point, but I don't think that a rag on a concert Bösendorfer would sound quite right.

[Alberti]

2 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Maybe leica will see the 300 posts by 8 posters screaming out for an EVF M camera and be fooled into believing a great number of people actually want such a thing?

Well, I bought an S5 for having an EVF with M-lenses (and LTM glass etc.) and while ergonomics of the S5  is a far distance of a Leica (Simplicissimus) it still handles very well. [It evidently needs to cater for too many markets] ,  I would not let the range-finder go. I just do not believe in an hybrid solution. \

So two lines RF-m and E-M would be fine with me. The simplified experience would certainly be great.

Anyway, I spent 11/11 with my E-M camera 😁

Edited November 13, 2021 by Alberti

[Tailwagger]

45 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I see your point, but I don't think that a rag on a concert Bösendorfer would sound quite right.

And yet there are some, apparently who do... well almost ... Brodmann but you get the point.

 

[jaapv]

I think Strawinski might be a better example than John M. Cage  

 

 

[Tailwagger]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I think Strawinski might be a better example than John M. Cage

True for rag the music, but I was ragging on you by punning on the notion of how a rag, of the cotton variety, when laying on the strings of a Bösendorfer might have merit to some.  Out-rag-ious behavior on my part... couldn't help it... 153 pages of this cacophonous thread drove me to do it. 😃   Permit me to apologize and confess that I tend to prefer Igor to John except when I'm trying to annoy my neighbors. 

[erniethemilk]

I’m not sure an EVF M11 is such a great idea to be honest. Once Leica go EVF on the M it starts to become just another RF style camera and starts competing with the likes of the Fuji offerings rather than ploughing it’s own unique furrow. 
 

[MrFriendly]

7 hours ago, lct said:

 Everything . RF accuracy is based on average circle of confusion values corresponding to A4 prints viewed at arms length more or less. Don't hesitate to correct me we didn't discuss that more than 100 times already . Just kidding but you see what i mean .

Is the optical performance of the OVF high enough to accurately focus a APO 35mm on a digital M?

[sarav]

3 minutes ago, MrFriendly said:

Is the optical performance of the OVF high enough to accurately focus a APO 35mm on a digital M?

A 35mm Lens f2.0 has a large depth of field from 67cm. on so RF is up to the task even if it is slightly misaligned...

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, erniethemilk said:

I’m not sure an EVF M11 is such a great idea to be honest. Once Leica go EVF on the M it starts to become just another RF style camera and starts competing with the likes of the Fuji offerings rather than ploughing it’s own unique furrow. 
 

No need to worry. There's little doubt that M11, 12... etc will retain an optical finder and provide the EVF as an add-on.  Leica has been pretty clear that it has no intention of abandoning the current formula.  When we speak of an Mevf, it is as a sibling, not a replacement.

[IkarusJohn]

So, the M11 is somewhere the round the corner, and as with most releases these threads go wild with speculations that will almost certainly never eventuate.  We saw with the M(240), Leica presented what was possible, rather than what was a good idea, with its video, add on multi-tool baseplate etc, and they then ran quickly back for cover with the M10, minus this and that, more like a traditional M.

So, what of the future of the M?

The lenses give us a clue - no new lens wider than 21mm; the 24 Summilux and 18 SEM quietly dropped out of the catalogue; no zoom, despite the availability of live view; nothing longer than 135mm; the new lenses no wider 28mm or longer than 90mm; and new lenses that push the practicality of the OVF with depth of field wide open beyond the realistic capability of the OVF (by Leica’s own admission) and a close focusing distance shorter than the coupled rangefinder can cope with.

It seems to me that Leica is wedded to the fact that its M camera is here to stay in the 28-90 focal range, with small manual focus lenses that are the best they can make, and they will continue to make new versions.  The EVF will be improved (apparently), but Leica won’t use that opportunity to expand that focal range.  

From a handling point of view, and for the way the M cameras are used, this is a good decision, to my mind.  If you want longer, AF, zoom, video, IBIS, faster shutters and all the other things photographic development can provide, then Leica has other excellent offerings, which provide these things in a better package.

What might be controversial about the next M might be nothing more than the loss of the baseplate - but if they’re prepared to do that, they’ve opened pandora’s box, and offended many here.  All hell might break lose - some will announce with rage that they’re selling all their Leica gear and moving to Canada.

Edited November 13, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erniethemilk]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

No need to worry. There's little doubt that M11, 12... etc will retain an optical finder and provide the EVF as an add-on.  Leica has been pretty clear that it has no intention of abandoning the current formula.  When we speak of an Mevf, it is as a sibling, not a replacement.

I can’t see Leica producing an optical M11, an EVF for the M11 & a dedicated M11 with EVF. 

Too much dissipation of the M line and it eats into other products in the range. 
 

However, as we all know with Leica, pretty much a thing is possible.