The M review nobody asked for :)

[anonymoose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've had an M11 since Thanksgiving 2024 and wanted to share my review/experience--not for the long-time users of the M system, but for people considering the M system. Camera history:

• Canon 40D w/ 50mm f1.8 back in ~2008
• Long break from photography, then got back into it in the mid-2010's with Sony mirrorless cameras (A7S) that I mostly used to video vacations.
• 2020 I got back into photography (upgraded to A7S III), bought a Leica TL2 w/ 23mm f2, which turned into a Leica CL (2021) which turned into a Q2 (2022) which turned into a Q3 (2023), which turned back into a Q2 in 2024.
• 2024 bought an A1 for video + photo (A7S III is a webcam now)
• Thanksgiving 2024 I purchased an M11, returned it December 2024
• M10-R for about 3 days (returned)
• M11 again as of ~January 2025

What I am liking about it so far:

1. I am forced to choose focus whether I like it or not--this sets consistent foundation/repetitions for my photography. Choose aperture, set shutter speed, raise camera to eye, focus, frame scene, wait for right moment, capture.
   1. Oftentimes with my A1 I'll let it grab focus and I'd say 90% of the time it gets the thing I want (e.g. a person, something in the foreground, etc.) and this reinforces laziness--I'm no longer making a picture I'm simply capturing one. I've grown to really like the M11 forcing purposeful photography.
2. The shutter sound is very satisfying. The entire tactile experience is satisfying--it's engaging, mechanical, fun, and rewarding.
3. With my Sony + 35mm f1.4 GM, taking a good picture is simply too easy and has started to feel almost boring and cheap. In terms of the philosophy of capturing moments for later enjoyment, this is a good thing, but I also like the process of photography and I get bored easily. The M11 makes me earn good pictures and there's this weird psychology taking place where I'm excited to see if any of the last 20 pictures I took are keepers (like developing film) on my computer screen.
   1. On the M11, I'd say out of 20 pictures: 12 are properly focused, 6 are focused and framed nicely, and 0-3 are what I'd consider good/great shots.
   2. With my Sony, out of 20 pictures: 18-20 are properly focused, 16 of those are framed nicely, and I find myself having to choose between 5-10 to find my favorite, which is not an enjoyable process to me (flipping back and forth between them, asking my wife, printing them, etc.).
   3. With the M11 I don't have much to choose from and it forces me to move on and not get stuck overanalyzing photos to death--this has immense value to someone with mild OCD and constant need for perfection.
4. The rangefinder, in proper lighting conditions, is becoming really enjoyable to use except for when I'm holding it vertically (still figuring out ergonomics here). I'm not sure if this is normal practice, but I actually keep both eyes open and my brain has now figured out how to merge what I'm seeing with both eyes in a way that helps me focus the shot better. I'm also able to see even more of the scene with my left eye, then fine tune framing with my right eye. In low light I'm finding it a bit of a struggle.
5. I've struggled with ADHD my whole life, so the M11 absolutely punishing me with bad pictures (when I don't slow down) is something I need. I'm stubborn, so I'm still taking a lot of bad pictures.
6. 35 Lux @ f1.4 renders magical images especially with a nice light source adding glow.

What I'm not liking about it:

1. I am forced to choose focus! This makes capturing sudden moments with proper focus challenging. I've definitely missed a lot of shots of my daughter in the time it takes to dial in my settings, focus, and frame the shot. I'm trying to adapt to this by always having the camera on, set to an aperture that would be appropriate for a situation, have the focus ring in roughly the right position, and practicing frequently to develop muscle memory. This continues to get easier with time.
2. The price tag of course. I feel like my M11 does less and is capable of less while carrying a steeper price tag and that creates some sort of inherent discomfort as someone that grew up poor.
3. Having to use the rear display to dial focus on shots closer than 0.7m really ruins the experience for me. It makes me feel like I'm taking pictures with my Sony again. It has caused me to not really take any close up shots and I'm finding with the Summilux 35mm I'm sometimes too far away and have to rely heavily on cropping--hooray for 60MP!
4. Even at f2.8-f4 and 1/320 or faster shooting a stationary target, the Summilux 35 is nowhere near as sharp as the pictures I took with my Q3. I suspect I'd need to buy the APO 35 to get back to that level of sharpness (which I really like), but $9,000 camera and a $8,500 lens means the price of a used car to get pictures that my $6500 Q3 spit out with ease. I'm fortunate to be able to easily afford that, but as someone that grew up quite poor I don't know that I'll ever be comfortable with it.
5. I'm either unlucky or Leica gear is not quality controlled properly:
   1. First M11 (very lightly used): out of vertical alignment and freezing daily.
   2. M10-R (lightly used): out of horizontal and vertical alignment.
   3. Second M11 (very lightly used): properly aligned and not a single instance of freezing.
   4. First 35 Lux (lightly used): loose focus mechanism and back-focusing.
   5. Second 35 Lux (brand new): loose aperture ring and front-focusing.
   6. Third 35 Lux (current, lightly used): great other than a slightly loose aperture ring.
   7. First 75 APO (lightly used): something very wrong with it (back-focusing and generally weird images), returned.
   8. Second 75 APO (current, lightly used): something maybe off with it, not sure what yet as it's inconsistent. Problem still could be me.
6. I'm using my highly capable, expensive Sony A1 and even my Q2 much, much less now. I always reach for the M11 first unless I absolutely know the shot is going to be difficult to capture (e.g. daughter moving quickly) or I think I'll need to take a video as well. I put a Zeiss 55mm f1.8 on the A1 which compliments the M11 + 35 nicely. It's the closest look to Leica optics, so the images actually look stylistically similar.

What I'd change about the M11/M: nothing other than the 'refresh rate' of the Live View mode especially in lower-light. It feels as though it's choosing a slower shutter speed to expose for live view instead of a higher ISO, but guessing that's a purposeful decision.

What I've learned/what's changed:

1. With the M11 I am actually "making" photographs vs. capturing/taking them. It's enough of a difference that my wife can actually fairly accurately guess which photo was made with the M11 vs. captured with other cameras--not because of bokeh/colors/rendering/etc., but the "mood" or "staging" (her words) of the scene. She said my M11 images "feel more artistic."
2. I'm using my Sony's EVF more now than pre-M11 as a result. First, because it's becoming an ingrained habit and second because I've learned to enjoy it. Doesn't hurt that the Sony's EVF is much higher resolution than the rear display. Still nowhere near as enjoyable as the RF.
3. With the Sony I typically live in f1.4-f2.8 range to maximize bokeh/separation. With the M11 and manual focusing, I find myself using f2.8-f4 a lot more to ensure I'm capturing focus. This has made me more comfortable using higher f-stops on my Sony as well, which I believe has led to some better images.
4. I might want to rent an M6 and give film photography a try at some point to take this to another level--maybe in a few years.
5. I'm still not comfortable taking it out of Auto ISO unless it's a staged shot (e.g. landscape) where I have time to setup the shot.
6. I find myself enjoy photography even more. It's a process/experience that is more rewarding now.

tl;dr: I love the M experience and it's made me a better photographer. My early experiences have me worrying about reliability, but I'm ignoring it and treating the M11 and lenses with care. Attaching one of my favorite, non-personal photos.

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 February 22 by anonymoose

[Advertisement]

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

[Pieter12]

I know this is blasphemy, but for the kind of photography you seem to be interested in doing, a Fuji X-Pro2 would be a better and cheaper choice. The build is solid, the AF fast and the lenses are excellent. No compromises unless you intend to make 30x40 and larger prints.

[anonymoose]

3 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

I know this is blasphemy, but for the kind of photography you seem to be interested in doing, a Fuji X-Pro2 would be a better and cheaper choice. The build is solid, the AF fast and the lenses are excellent. No compromises unless you intend to make 30x40 and larger prints.

I've tried to use and like Fuji cameras (X100V, GFX, etc), but I never do. I'm a mechanical engineer that's spent most of my career focused on beautifully designed products, so the design and experience of things is important to me. Leica cameras really hit the spot there.

Landscape photography is my drug of choice and the M11 should serve me well, but I've been too busy with work to go out and do that, so it's been mostly photos of the family. Practicing my RF focusing on a fast-moving toddler on a daily basis will make taking pictures of giant, unmoving rocks much easier I hope

[thighslapper]

As you have discovered, Leica is a way of life rather than a means of easily taking photographs.

I finally threw in the towel due to the mechanical aspects of RF and lens adjustment which did not match my expectations for expensive precision optical equipment. Might have been fine in film days and for general reportage snapping, but for modern critical use I found it frequently frustrating. I have retained an M10M to occasionally remind me of how difficult and limiting manual RF use can be.  Some people seem to derive a masochistic pleasure in making photography as difficult as possible but I have decided I'm too old for any more torture.

If you want more 'fun' try getting some old visoflex gear and ancient lenses so you can fill an SD card with 'characterful' images. If you are lucky a few might be acceptably sharp and in focus. 

[anonymoose]

4 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

As you have discovered, Leica is a way of life rather than a means of easily taking photographs.

I finally threw in the towel due to the mechanical aspects of RF and lens adjustment which did not match my expectations for expensive precision optical equipment. Might have been fine in film days and for general reportage snapping, but for modern critical use I found it frequently frustrating. I have retained an M10M to occasionally remind me of how difficult and limiting manual RF use can be.  Some people seem to derive a masochistic pleasure in making photography as difficult as possible but I have decided I'm too old for any more torture.

If you want more 'fun' try getting some old visoflex gear and ancient lenses so you can fill an SD card with 'characterful' images. If you are lucky a few might be acceptably sharp and in focus. 

"a way of life" is a great description. For now, it's a new challenge and provides the dopamine hits my brain is always hunting for. It will be temporary, but I'll enjoy it while it lasts

I anticipate using the M, in some capacity, until I need glasses (hopefully 10+ years from now), then passing the camera down to my children to (hopefully) enjoy. By that point, the improvements in my photography thanks to the M workflow should carry over to non-M cameras absent the RF experience.

Edited February 22 by anonymoose

[3D-Kraft.com]

I see a lot of similarities (also bored by the perfection of the A1 and their lens ecosystem) which led me to re-visit an M to slow down.

 

vor 1 Stunde schrieb anonymoose:

I might want to rent an M6 and give film photography a try at some point to take this to another level--maybe in a few years.

Perhaps you should try the M9 first (but only when you get one with ID15/ID16 sensor). It is propably the digital camera with a shooting experience closest to analog film. No live view, similar dynamic and ISO range, similar shutter sound, unique colour rendering.

The first months after purchasing a second M9 (the first time I used one was 2010), it was also my first choice camera. Meanwhile, the relationship between A1 and M9 is more balanced again, as my favorite M lenses (Thypoch Simera 28/1.4, Noctilux 50/1 and Noctilux 75) can also be used excellently or even better (with AF) on the A1.

Edited February 22 by 3D-Kraft.com

[Stevejack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also have the A1, and it’s an absolutely incredible camera. I use it for the things it’s designed for, or when I can’t afford to miss a shot. It’s a very modern, digital way to make photographs. It’s brilliant. 
 

The M is what I use as an antidote to that. As you say, it punishes you when you get it wrong and when you’re using it fully manual you have to be thinking about your exposure all the time and making constant adjustments to craft the mood of the scene.  I don’t enjoy using the M on auto-ISO but that’s more about discipline for the way I want to use it.
I also zone focus a lot, way more than I use the rangefinder. 90% of the time I’m just estimating distances and using narrow apertures. The exposure / focusing is all done before the camera is raised to my eye. That’s just the way I enjoy using it, and I do it this way whether I’m using the rangefinder or the Visoflex. For me the attraction is the M lenses, the size, and the layout of the exposure controls. It makes shooting in this way such a pleasure, better than any other camera system out there. 

[LeicaR10]

Anonymoose,  You laid out a well written expose of your M and Sony experience.  During my nearly 50 years with Leica and other camera manufacturers, I discovered the Leica M to be one of what I call a slow pleasure experience.  I primarily used Leica R, S and SL systems for my business mostly because of the optical qualities and rendering.  If I needed fast and robust, for my clients or detail oriented works, those were my go too systems.  The M for me is different.  When I want to slow down, or go hike in really challenging terrain, the M is my go to camera.  I must admit my experience and reliability rate with Leica is quite high.  I would not hesitate if I felt either my cameras or lenses needed CLAs and that was not often necessary. Then again, I rarely bought used Leica gear because I found in my early years, that often I was buying someone elses problem that was either not found by the dealer or deliberately overlooked.  I would not walk out of a store if the lens, rattled or seemed to be not up to spec even new.  When I got it back to the office, tested the lens or camera and wasn't right, back it went and exchanged or refunded.  Later, my issues evolved around firmware bugs, but I found myself either able to live with the problem awaiting the fix, or simply swap the camera back to what worked for me.  My final point, in all my years of creating photographs, judging photograph exhibits and shows etc, it always came down to content of the photograph. I knew many photographers who agonized over their gear and I did so myself early on, but I realized later, it gets down to mastering the camera (tool) at hand and most important, content, and how the scene is rendered. With the M camera, it helped me focus (no pun intended) on what I want to convey to the viewer that makes the person: Stop, Look, Think and perhaps Feel something about that moment in time.  I would use this ideal with success in my works and even shared it with my many workshop clients who often came to the same realization.  For myself and many others, they found themselves enjoying their photography and others who viewed those photographs could see and feel the difference.  IMO, at the end of the day, its not the gear, rather its the M slow pleasurable experience that helped me and workshop clients create and capture most excellent photographs for that moment in time.  I enjoyed reading your experience, thank you for sharing along with the other posters.   r/ Mark

Edited February 23 by LeicaR10

[Pieter12]

On 2/22/2025 at 11:44 AM, anonymoose said:

Landscape photography is my drug of choice

I don't think of any M camera as being particularly suited to landscape photography.

[anonymoose]

7 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

I don't think of any M camera as being particularly suited to landscape photography.

It's interesting you say that because landscape photos taken with an M11 and M10-R were what drew me to the system to begin with!

Why don't you think they're particularly suited for it?

[M11 for me]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Pieter12:

I don't think of any M camera as being particularly suited to landscape photography.

You will have to explain that one 🤔

[LocalHero1953]

2 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

You will have to explain that one 🤔

Real men shoot landscapes at 10"x8"?

[Dazzajl]

7 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Real men shoot landscapes at 10"x8"?

Real men and their mule! ☺️

[M11 for me]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

Real men shoot landscapes at 10"x8"?

You are right. I forgot this. And of course they carry a very solid tripod. Preferably in wood to absorb shutter vibrations.

[Pieter12]

1. It is a rangefinder camera with a small viewfinder (vs a DSLR, mirrorless, or technical camera if you stick to digital). A lot of what makes for good landscape photography is careful composition and deep focus. Sure, with a digital M (maybe not the 11D) you can use the monitor but that kind of slows everything down and goes against the raison d'etre of a rangefinder camera.

2. There is no depth of field preview, just the scales on the lens (once again you can take a test shot and use the monitor to check).

3. Sure, you can shoot landscape photos with any camera. Lewis Baltz took amazing urban landscapes with a Leica--carefully composed and squared up using a tripod and Kodak Technical film--that are practically indistinguishable from 4x5. But if I were to set out to shoot landscapes, a RF would be low on the list of cameras I would go for.

[jakontil]

On 2/24/2025 at 7:08 AM, Pieter12 said:

I don't think of any M camera as being particularly suited to landscape photography.

You should try the 21mm SEM 😝

[Pieter12]

11 minutes ago, jakontil said:

You should try the 21mm SEM 😝

That is about a lens, not a type of camera. I still stand by my opinion that a rangefinder is less than ideal if your main intent is to shoot landscapes.

[Chris W]

On 2/24/2025 at 5:58 PM, Pieter12 said:

1. It is a rangefinder camera with a small viewfinder (vs a DSLR, mirrorless, or technical camera if you stick to digital). A lot of what makes for good landscape photography is careful composition and deep focus.

I don't get this either. By the way, I think the worst camera function for landscape is auto-focus.

But I don't see why a Leica M can't have accurate and deep focus if you set the correct f stop on the lens. I have taken a lot of landscapes on my M6 back in the day. Many photographers seem to be obsessed with f1.4 or f2. 

The M is a slow camera, which is perfect for landscape. One of the main issues I see with modern M shooters is they seem to be using the back screen, instead of the M's key attribute - the rangefinder.

Edited March 1 by Chris W

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Robert Blanko]

I love using my Ms for landscape photography, even and particularly my M11-D. No need for a screen or autofocus. Rangefinder works well for normal focal lengths and for wide angle lenses relying on the lens scale is usually a better idea than setting the focus to a particular point.

Compared to the days when I was lugging around my Nikon D850 with several lenses I really appreciate saving weight - without compromising optical quality. Well suited for traveling.

[jaapv]

On 2/25/2025 at 2:52 AM, Pieter12 said:

That is about a lens, not a type of camera. I still stand by my opinion that a rangefinder is less than ideal if your main intent is to shoot landscapes.

Please state why.