Jump to content

Leica M11 - your next camera? {MERGED}


Al Brown

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Over two thousand posts ago…


Going in circles here… as with every new launch.

Jeff

This was the state of the art in 2017. I do not know if Leica gave up on hybrid viewfinders or if they are revisiting it as technology progresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sarav said:

I agree...and it's boring. If you don't want/use a rangefinder there are tons of camera in the market which can mount an M-lens via adapter.

M=Messsucher

Nothing boring about that then.

How do you explain the M1, MD, MDa & MD-2?  None of these had coupled rangefinders, yet … they were M cameras, probably because they had an M mount, don’t you think?

Look, there are lots of good reasons for Leica not to produce an MEVF - cost, lack of demand, less profit (if people don’t buy the OVF version - not sure it’s more profitable) and detracting from the L mount cameras (which Leica has invested a lot in).  Technological difficulty? No.  Because Ralph Gibson likes to see around the patch?  I don’t think so.  Because M means coupled rangefinder?  Seriously?

I think Leica can think up another system name for a camera with an M mount and EVF, but how stupid would that be?  You can have an M11, M11-P, M11-M, M11-D for your M lenses, or a … Y11?  Nothing like confusing a potential buyer.  Imagine a Sony owner who is sick of the whole paradigm.  Like many here, she finds Leica and is inquisitive - she learns about M lenses and thinks she might give them a try.  She’s used to EVFs and is nervous about the OVF (it can be intimidating). She is in the shop and the assistant says she could try the new EVF based Leica Y.  No, she says, I want an M camera …

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about this silly letter and what it stands for? Who cares . To me the M stands for the  Leica M mount. The R was for R mount 

just like any other system  FD.. nikon F .. Z   It’s just a letter that is designated to Identify a type of camera and it’s lens mount system.. I could not care less about some silly love affair with a 70 year old focusing system that is clearly inferior in this day of age. 
 my attraction to the M system over the 30+ years have always been  A. compact fast Lenses B. The quality of the craftsmanship of the Cameras.  As for ergonomics or comfort , it has never been a good fit in my hands .. and the focusing  or should I say the rangefinder it has been something that I learned to work with but had never been my favourite. I always preferred manual focus on Cameras like the F3 or the F1n .. these were excellent systems with bright viewfinders and interchangeable screens. 
 So I would welcome a M camera with a very good EVF .. something in the same resolution as the SL2 

..

Edited by Artin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its more plausible that the Q or Cl/Sl will be adapted with a hybrid EVF rangefinder variant/ off shot than with the M system given the backlash of hardcore M users less disrupt the status quo.

Imo EVF is most effective when you have AF system. Or at least electronic contacts to lenses similiar to native sony manual lenses

The contact g system was an effective electronic rangefinder system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cboy said:

Its more plausible that the Q or Cl/Sl will be adapted with a hybrid EVF rangefinder variant/ off shot than with the M system given the backlash of hardcore M users less disrupt the status quo.

Imo EVF is most effective when you have AF system. Or at least electronic contacts to lenses similiar to native sony manual lenses

The contact g system was an effective electronic rangefinder system.

 

That is not true and certainly not what I see, 8 years ago when I brought this up in their forum there were hardly anyone that supported an ever would be a good solution for the M. But today it seems like there are a lot of supporters to this .. It is a proven fact today that almost all the fast M lenses. Such as the summilux and noctilux lenses especially the 50s  75s the 90s and all the super wide lenses are much easier to frame and focus on the SL2 and SL2s cameras then on any Rangefinder ever made by Leica regardless of what optical focusing aid you throw at it..  I think the Time has come to move to the current century with this platform. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Artin said:

As for ergonomics or comfort , it has never been a good fit in my hands .. and the focusing  or should I say the rangefinder it has been something that I learned to work with but had never been my favourite. I always preferred manual focus on Cameras like the F3 or the F1n .. these were excellent systems with bright viewfinders and interchangeable screens. 
 So I would welcome a M camera with a very good EVF

If the ergonomics and comfort don't suit you, then why an MEVF? Or would you imagine it be a completly different shape and size?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ianman said:

If the ergonomics and comfort don't suit you, then why an MEVF? Or would you imagine it be a completly different shape and size?

No it would be same shape and size , I still will use a grip or a case with a bump like I do now.  It’s all about the glass for me , I just hate gigantic autofocus lenses 

with the M system I can put 2 lenses in my pocket and one on the camera over my shoulder and walk about all day long. An SL2 with a 24-90 is a whale 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cboy said:

The contact g system was an effective electronic rangefinder system.

As someone who dumped Contax G for my first Leica M, the ineffectiveness of the Contax G manual focusing was a prime reason.

It was more or less "though-the-finder, match-needle, scale focusing."

The camera "suggested" a measured distance on a scale with an LCD pointer, and the user twiddled the focus dial to match the suggested distance with another LCD pointer.

Took about 4x as long as snapping together the Leica RF images (or even the split-images on a good SLR screen). Pretty second-rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows ? Maybe this is as good as it gets with Manual focus lenses .. I am not saying that evf does not have its challenges, for one thing given a very shallow depth of field on long fast lenses it is also a change focusing with a magnified evf  with focus peaking then reframe , on a moving subject such as kids running around is near impossible. So solution is a great clip on accessory EVF with very hi resolution, good IBIS and and that is probably all we can wish for.

to be honest 40 mpx is probably the max resolution that this platform can handle as it is , it a stretch without Ibis . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2021 at 10:42 AM, ianman said:

Do you use a RF camera?

I did  M9 and M240  with nearly all the best and most expensive M lenses , sold everything when the M10 came out

with 40 or even 60 mp and so good lenses the RF is just a nonsense

Edited by cirke
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cirke said:

I did  M9 and M240  with nearly all the best and most expensive M lenses , sold everything when the M10 came out

with 40 or even 60 mp and so good lenses the RF is just a nonsense

Really? I can't understand....Velvia 50 has a very small granularity, with Imacon scanners I can scan slides at 8000dpi, I've never said: "Rangefinder is nonsense with this hires scan and fine granularity!".
What rangefinder has to do with resolution? I can shoot with Noctilux wide open in the night and the phocus plane is perfect, razor sharp (with analog and digital bodies).

I'm happy with HiRes sensors like the one in the M10R, I can obtain a nice and dense image, film-like. Analog and digital pictures are now more alike. I hope M11 can even better M10R in this regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chasing more pixels and technical perfection of lenses, sharpness and plane of focus to achieve large format prints, becomes asymptotically less enjoyable.

The real distraction is squeezing the luminance range a scene presents onto the sensor or film sensitivity and dynamic range.

Give me an ISO-less sensor with 16+ stops of dynamic range, so all I need concern myself with is capturing the image how I see it 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Artin said:

Sure l can get sharp images at night with shooting wide open with noctilux on static subjects posing still no problem. Try that on moving subjects , not a chance 

Ok, if you are chaseing animals or fast moving subjects, M-Camera is not adequate; otherwise you can adapt your style of picture.

I'm not saying M-Camera is for every photography necessities. I utilize M-Camera for street and documentary photos and R/SL where M can't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D. Just kidding but you see what i mean :cool:.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Fang changed the title to Leak image of M11
  • jaapv changed the title to Leica M11 - your next camera? {MERGED}

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...