60mp Rangefinder - Honest Opinions

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

Yes, exactly.  The accuracy of a rangefinder system depends on the base length of the rangefinder; the longer the base length, the better the accuracy.  With a vision-corrected eyepiece on a single lens reflex, the focusing accuracy is almost always superior to a rangefinder.  That's the primary reason why Nikon took the press market from Leica in the 1960s.  That's also why the Leica CL has been panned for not focusing accurately because of it's even smaller base length rangefinder.

There are many reasons to use a long-base length rangefinder that make them better (in my mind anyway) than an SLR in many situations, but pinpoint focusing accuracy with a wide open aperture isn't one of them.  

Do you use the contrast-jump method for your RF? It makes critical focus far more practical than focus magnification and and is exceedingly accurate. 

[JTLeica]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Do you use the contrast-jump method for your RF? It makes critical focus far more practical than focus magnification and and is exceedingly accurate. 

Can you describe this technique Jaap? You aren't talking about the flicker like effect in the evf when something is in focus? 

Edited August 30, 2023 by JTLeica

[Advertisement]

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

[gotium]

15 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Just to add, when shooting the M11 handheld and using the mechanical shutter, I sometimes still get very fine micro blur at 100% magnification – even with very high shutter speeds. For critical shots of still or barely-moving subjects/scenes, I try to remember to switch to the electronic shutter.

Is this what’s going on? I’ve had lots of frustration with blur with this camera.

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, JTLeica said:

Can you describe this technique Jaap? You aren't talking about the flicker like effect in the evf when something is in focus? 

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. For advanced users:

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.

[hdmesa]

37 minutes ago, gotium said:

Is this what’s going on? I’ve had lots of frustration with blur with this camera.

There’s an entire thread in the M11 forum devoted to blur — might take you an entire weekend to read through it, though  I think the same conversation happened with the M10-R.

For me, I normally get sharp shots on the M11, but some combinations of lenses and high mechanical shutter speeds will show very minor blur when zoomed in all the way on the computer later on. I find this happens most often with short/small and light lenses that are longer than 35mm in focal length such as my Voigtlander 40 2.8. Heavier and physically longer lenses like my LLL Speed Panchro II 50mm don’t provoke the issue. My solution will be to use the electronic shutter when using small, light lenses if my subject is static, which it usually is. I also need to try changing up my grip when using small lenses. I probably wouldn’t have this issue on the heavier silver M11. 

I also need to start using my soft releases again. They seem to help keep me from being shaky at the time of exposure for some reason.

Edited August 30, 2023 by hdmesa

[IkarusJohn]

The technique to get sharp images goes back to the 1960s, and beyond - holding your breath, elbows in, resting against something, not jabbing the shutter etc.  Motion blur of some description was a problem then, with slow films.

Back on topic, I haven’t read anywhere that higher MP makes focusing more difficult.  I can’t think why it would.

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@jaapv
Of course, everything you've said is accurate.  I've been shooting Leica rangefinders since 1974, and have used them, both using a rangefinder AND a Visoflex III (depending on the need)  to produce some or all of my income for much of that time.  I use all of the methods of focus you described as well, as appropriate.   Of course, I've also supplemented my Leicas with various other cameras as the need arose over the years.  The right tool for the job "thing."   

The chart you allude to illustrates what I said earlier; that the accuracy of a rangefinder is relative to the inherent DOF of the lens and aperture you're using.   Exact, critical focus is less important with wide angle lenses because of their inherent DOF, and is even less critical yet as the point of focus recedes from the location of the camera at normal working apertures; hence the rangefinder excels at being used with a preset aperture of f/8-f/11 requiring no focusing with lenses up to 50mm, and makes using a rangefinder camera exceptional fast at the eye; framing being the prime concern as exposure and focus can be pre-set.    Larger aperture wides used wide open require more care, of course.   All that being said, as a practical matter when making an image, if you only have one camera available, or you have a single array of lenses, an SLR is still often more practical throughout the focal length range, especially in the "portrait" lens and longer where parallax and accurate framing becomes an issue for rangefinders. 

The age of digital, "chimping" and "bokeh" have brought about a complete shift in thinking about focus and large aperture glass.   Large aperture glass was originally intended in the middle years of the last century to allow photographers to bring a photo to market where none could have been made otherwise; perhaps soft, slightly out of focus, or with slight motion blur, but a saleable image nonetheless.   That the optic had aberrations, or that the images were perhaps technically not perfect weren't considered as important as a press photographer bringing AN image for the publication.  And of course those images were printed with a 75 or 100 dpi half-tone screen anyway.   Today's incredible films and sensor sensitivities, the incredible resolution, fidelity,  and the preoccupation with separation of subject and background, and the "look" of the background have brought a whole set of issues and demands of a new generation of photographers who now have the luxury of deciding what they like and don't like aesthetically without having to worry about whether the photo is even "possible."

Quite honestly, topics of discussion such as this thread weren't even conceived of yet at the turn of THIS century.  

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

You probably never saw an accuracy comparison. From Leica M Advanced Photo School. 
 

 

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!

 

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Do you use the contrast-jump method for your RF? It makes critical focus far more practical than focus magnification and and is exceedingly accurate. 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by hepcat

[DadDadDaddyo]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

The technique to get sharp images goes back to the 1960s, and beyond - holding your breath, elbows in, resting against something, not jabbing the shutter etc.  Motion blur of some description was a problem then, with slow films.

Back on topic, I haven’t read anywhere that higher MP makes focusing more difficult.  I can’t think why it would.

Indeed. This hasn't changed. Every edition of the old hardbound Leica Manual has this. As a just-turned-barely-past-ten I read my Dad's copies over and over. He must have noticed, because a few years later, on very special occasions, I would be permitted to use his IIIc (but not his IIIg). I had the darkroom going in the laundry room (I mean, my Mom had a washer and dryer in the darkroom), and I was cranking out results, developing film, enlarging, a happy guy!

In adulthood I got hold of an M3 and went to town. Then an M4 (gave the M3 to my son). When my Dad passed away in 2006, his whole kit came under my stewardship, and is still intact. 

Anyway, long story short, the text quoted above, breath held, elbows in, etc., was received wisdom handed down. Later the refinement, borrowed from other shooters: release the breath, then shoot at the arrival of post-breath stillness (your body has less tension after breathing out than while holding breath).

Practice, repetition, check results, more practice. It's a simple as breathing. Between 28 and 135mm, it's no problem. You just need practice and method; make up for either with high ISO to permit high shutter speed, but keep practicing...

Both my M11 and M11M require attention to detail, but such is as has ever been with Leicas! They reward diligence and expose the hasty. 

And, lest this seem like Leica glory-talk, *every* camera I've ever used (and that's a lot) do better when I stick to these principles, even the image-stabilized. What changes are the extremes to which you can take it. I've gotten handheld 1/2 second exposures with image-stabilized equipment. 

If someone needs a 1/250 shutter speed to get a sharp handheld shot with a focal length at or under 135mm, they simply need to work on their technique. 

It *is* susceptible to effort....

Edited August 30, 2023 by DadDadDaddyo

[FlashGordonPhotography]

9 hours ago, JTLeica said:

One question, how's the dynamic range compared to the Z7. That is definitely a real strength of the Nikon system.

No real world differences in DR but different implementation. The M11 is especially good at recovering shadow detail and the Z7 at highlight detail as it's highlight shoulder is more gentle. With ther M11 I tend to shoot to protect the highlights.

Also worth noting that modern software has made a dramatic improvement to usable ISO's from either system. Less noise means more usable DR. I like DXO mostly but the Lightroom tool is good too.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

The same sensor performs differently in different cameras as the choice of Bayer Filter, microlenses, IR filter/ coating and software will be different.  A few years ago the noise performance of Nikons was considerably better than Sony cameras with the same sensor. 

That difference has always been small and often exagerated. The D850 was only marginally better than the A7R3 and the A7R5 is slightly better than the Z7II. Slightly. The M11 is slightly better than the A7R5 but in the real world it's not a relevant margin. Even the SL2 sensor is close enough for any differences to be irrelevant in real world shooting. This is not the reason to choos one system over another. It's about as low in importance as you can get.

It's fun for people who've never used a camera to quote DXO Mark or P2P figures. But these are theoretical and standardised test that have only a casual link to real world shooting. Not to mention how AI noise reduction has pretty much made all this stuff irrelevant any way.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, JTLeica said:

How does the z7 fair with Leica lenses?

Not great with older and wider glass. The Z7 has a relatively thick sensor stack compared to the M11 and you'll see the difference with glass not designed to accomodate for it. ANy longer than a 50 will be OK but for 50 and shorter you'll need to pick and choose.

Mind you some of the new CV glass made specifically for Z mount is absolutely spectacular.

Gordom

[jaapv]

8 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

That difference has always been small and often exagerated. The D850 was only marginally better than the A7R3 and the A7R5 is slightly better than the Z7II. Slightly. The M11 is slightly better than the A7R5 but in the real world it's not a relevant margin. Even the SL2 sensor is close enough for any differences to be irrelevant in real world shooting. This is not the reason to choos one system over another. It's about as low in importance as you can get.

It's fun for people who've never used a camera to quote DXO Mark or P2P figures. But these are theoretical and standardised test that have only a casual link to real world shooting. Not to mention how AI noise reduction has pretty much made all this stuff irrelevant any way.

Gordon

I’ve never been overly excited about image noise or not Having shot a DMR and M8 and gotten good results I think that getting the exposure right is more important than sensor performance. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, JTLeica said:

I dont think the SL is a perfect option for landscapes yes just due to the significant weight and size of the zooms. But, no question those APO lenses are perfection. I look at the 16-35 / 24-70 and 100-400. All seemed somewhat sub par compared to the Nikon / Sony offering in terms of quality vs weight and size. The 100-400 seems a poor lens in Leica terms which is a real shame. No doubt the SL3 will have the 60mp sensor and an all important tilting screen.

The 16-35 is the equal of anything out there. Better than my 16-35 GM, Z14-30. Yes it's big, but it's an internal zoom. The 24-70 and 100-400 are borrowed Sigma lens designs. They're both actually very very good and comparable to most other brands lenses in that range. Unfortunately they're surrounded by better SL glass like the 24-90 and the sensational 90-280. In a super wide there's also the absolutely wonderful 14-24 but it's filter limited.

The system is BIG and HEAVY. That's the main downside. But the SL2 remains a brilliant landscape system. Metered exposeres to 30 minutes. The best (bar none) high res shot implementation on the market (shared with the S1R). A stunning EVF and reasonable read out sensor. IBIS as good as any 24x36mm system. And some of the finest glass ever made for absolute edge to edge performance if that's what you really need. The combination of the high res shot and an APO Summicron lens is unmatched in absolute IQ on any small format system. And I pretty much have all of them.

It seems from what I've read that you're prioritising size/weight and zooms with great IQ, filter use and no tripod. To be honest I don't know if anything is actually better than the Z7 with the f4 Z zooms for what you want. Maybe the Sony A7R5 with a 20-70 and 70-200 macro? Once you get into batter IQ you either up the weigh or lower the system flexibility (primes). I'm not convinced the M11 is the camera system for this without IBIS, unless you're prepared to add a small tripod to the kit.

Gordon

[charlesphoto99]

What I tell people if they are photographing and trying to catch a moment, is to just TAKE the shot, no matter what. Yes, it's nice to always have perfect focus and exposure, but sometimes one just has to aim for the feeling. And not worry when the moment arises that they're going to have micro blur when viewed at 200% in photoshop, or their shutter speed is too slow, or they missed the focus. Just take the shot. Of course, if shooting for commercial purposes, a different mindset is in order (depending on the brief). I'm insanely quick with an M (as I've been told by other photographers watching me work) but I wouldn't have gotten that way without lots of practice and not getting hung up on always obtaining 'perfect' results. 

 

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!

Edited August 30, 2023 by charlesphoto99

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

Later the refinement, borrowed from other shooters: release the breath, then shoot at the arrival of post-breath stillness (your body has less tension after breathing out than while holding breath).

 

Yes, I believe sharp shooters are trained this way.  Anyway, it works better for me than holding my breath; more relaxed.

And speaking of sniper techniques, our late friend, Lars, described this strap procedure, which I’ve found effective…
 

 

Jeff

[JTLeica]

15 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The 16-35 is the equal of anything out there. Better than my 16-35 GM, Z14-30. Yes it's big, but it's an internal zoom. The 24-70 and 100-400 are borrowed Sigma lens designs. They're both actually very very good and comparable to most other brands lenses in that range. Unfortunately they're surrounded by better SL glass like the 24-90 and the sensational 90-280. In a super wide there's also the absolutely wonderful 14-24 but it's filter limited.

The system is BIG and HEAVY. That's the main downside. But the SL2 remains a brilliant landscape system. Metered exposeres to 30 minutes. The best (bar none) high res shot implementation on the market (shared with the S1R). A stunning EVF and reasonable read out sensor. IBIS as good as any 24x36mm system. And some of the finest glass ever made for absolute edge to edge performance if that's what you really need. The combination of the high res shot and an APO Summicron lens is unmatched in absolute IQ on any small format system. And I pretty much have all of them.

It seems from what I've read that you're prioritising size/weight and zooms with great IQ, filter use and no tripod. To be honest I don't know if anything is actually better than the Z7 with the f4 Z zooms for what you want. Maybe the Sony A7R5 with a 20-70 and 70-200 macro? Once you get into batter IQ you either up the weigh or lower the system flexibility (primes). I'm not convinced the M11 is the camera system for this without IBIS, unless you're prepared to add a small tripod to the kit.

Gordon

Thanks for the considered reply Gordon.

I definitely dont doubt the APO Summicrons, I would absolutely love just to shoot from 20mm (if poss) to 90mm with just those lenses. I wouldn't pay the money required though, and would also want a second body, so my haul would be extremely expensive, not quite the right time for that.

The 24-70 and 100-400 would be a non starter for me, a sub optimal lens that is very heavy, the worst combo, the 100-400 seems significantly worse than the Nikon and Sony, but it'll improve in a second version maybe. But the 24-90 and 90-280 would be a perfect combination, just so heavy as you say. I walk a long way with my gear so weight is second most important to image quality... I did read that the 16-35 is superb when stopped to 5.6.

I do think the Z7ii is the best option for now, probably, there will be a iii coming at some point. I do have the 24-120 and also the 20mm 1.8 too. 

By the way, I do use a tripod  maybe there was a typo somewhere that said I dont, but yes I use a tripod all the time. 75% plus of my favourite images are using a tripod, at least.

To use the M instead, I would really want a 15mm Voigtlander, 21 SElmar, 50 APO (maybe summarit or Voigt APO Lanthar) and a 90 Macro or summarit. That would give great quality, but for long trips I would still want to take a Nikon with 100-400... So maybe it defeats the point.

I wont rush in, as I normally do... Nothing is stopping me taking images right now... My Q3 arrived yesterday too. I might compare the 28 to my 3 zooms at 28.

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by JTLeica

[charlesphoto99]

2 hours ago, JTLeica said:

 

I wont rush in, as I normally do... Nothing is stopping me taking images right now... My Q3 arrived yesterday too. I might compare the 28 to my 3 zooms at 28.

 

This is the best attitude to take. My M10-R is in the shop so I've been shooting with my old, beat up M9. Yes, it's clunky, the electronics seriously outdated, etc but the experience itself is in some ways much purer than its newer siblings. And it still makes pictures, pretty damn good ones at that. 

And keep in mind the M11P and/or M12 will be along shortly enough. 

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Thanks for the considered reply Gordon.

I definitely dont doubt the APO Summicrons, I would absolutely love just to shoot from 20mm (if poss) to 90mm with just those lenses. I wouldn't pay the money required though, and would also want a second body, so my haul would be extremely expensive, not quite the right time for that.

The 24-70 and 100-400 would be a non starter for me, a sub optimal lens that is very heavy, the worst combo, the 100-400 seems significantly worse than the Nikon and Sony, but it'll improve in a second version maybe. But the 24-90 and 90-280 would be a perfect combination, just so heavy as you say. I walk a long way with my gear so weight is second most important to image quality... I did read that the 16-35 is superb when stopped to 5.6.

I do think the Z7ii is the best option for now, probably, there will be a iii coming at some point. I do have the 24-120 and also the 20mm 1.8 too. 

By the way, I do use a tripod  maybe there was a typo somewhere that said I dont, but yes I use a tripod all the time. 75% plus of my favourite images are using a tripod, at least.

To use the M instead, I would really want a 15mm Voigtlander, 21 SElmar, 50 APO (maybe summarit or Voigt APO Lanthar) and a 90 Macro or summarit. That would give great quality, but for long trips I would still want to take a Nikon with 100-400... So maybe it defeats the point.

I wont rush in, as I normally do... Nothing is stopping me taking images right now... My Q3 arrived yesterday too. I might compare the 28 to my 3 zooms at 28.

 

The 15 and 21 primes could be replaced by the WATE if you could get by with 16mm on the wide end. The WATE + 50 APO would be a great combo.

[JTLeica]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The 15 and 21 primes could be replaced by the WATE if you could get by with 16mm on the wide end. The WATE + 50 APO would be a great combo.

What would you say the quality of the wate is vs that of the 21/15 combo?

To be honest. If I kept the Q and it’s looking that way. Could just buy a 15/18mm as I wouldn’t need a 16/21/28 really. And the 28 is more 26/27.

I will own a 50 Apo one day. I could do with just a 15, Q3, 50 APO, 90/135. 4 lenses. 2 bodies if worst one failed, albeit not two M’s.

Appreciate your help 🙏

Ps. When I bought my first M the WATE was my dream lens.

Edited August 31, 2023 by JTLeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hdmesa]

16 minutes ago, JTLeica said:

What would you say the quality of the wate is vs that of the 21/15 combo?

To be honest. If I kept the Q and it’s looking that way. Could just buy a 15/18mm as I wouldn’t need a 16/21/28 really. And the 28 is more 26/27.

I will own a 50 Apo one day. I could do with just a 15, Q3, 50 APO, 90/135. 4 lenses. 2 bodies if worst one failed, albeit not two M’s.

Appreciate your help 🙏

Ps. When I bought my first M the WATE was my dream lens.

Never used the WATE. 15/Q3/50/90 sounds pretty good, though.