Intentionality, Passion or the technique when using Leica M9, and M11-P.

[spersky]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My reflections I thought to share.

I am currently reviewing the last 25 years of Photography in my lightroom catalog to make a heirloom quality heritage book of my family, kids, travels, and Landscapes over these last many years.

This is a many months long project to review thousand of images.  One common theme that I noticed in this extensive review.  The photos taken with Leica lenses and Leica digital and film cameras are so much more impactful and magical than the photos taken with my years of professional Canon, and Nikon gear, or iphones and Point and shoots etc.  They are noticeably better in technique and bokeh and rendering. In addition, Thorsten Overgaard always states on his youtube channel to always have a camera with you.  I seemed to always have a camera with me when I used the Leica M system.  The Leica lenses used were the 50mm Summilux, the 28mm Summicron, and the 90mm Summicron.

I know the other camera systems that I have used are top quality and renown for image quality.  Maybe it was about the passion and willingness to bring my gear with me.

This is not a gear comparison review,  Just an observation.   I do not even need to look at the exif data in lightroom to know what images where taken with Leica.  They are that much better in my catalog.  Call it my photography power-up.

Thanks

[maxinmanhattan]

same here.  cannot agree more.  I even do not want to bring sl2 with 35mm non-apo lens, the protruding evf makes one very uncomfortable.  the relatively flat back of m cameras with small lens are so much easier to carry!  but I have to confess these days my favorite camera is d-lux 8, such a cutie!  after processing dng files in Lightroom, these photos taken with d-lux 8 are very decent!

Edited September 15 by maxinmanhattan

[colonel]

For some reason I always get more keepers with Leica M.

[LocalHero1953]

On average, my photos with Leica cameras are better than in the period when I used other digital cameras. But there is nothing I can identify as 'passion' or 'emotion' involved in the difference, but two factors I can easily identify:

• Leica digital images have better IQ, attributable mainly to the lenses.
• I enjoy using Leica equipment for a variety of reasons, so I have worked harder at it, taken more photos, and therefore taken better photos.

In the film era I mainly used a M2 side by side with a Pentax MX and occasionally a Rolleiflex. Now I cannot tell which photos I took with which camera.

[Derbyshire Man]

I wouldn’t say my photos are better than my long history of using canon T90, 1x, 1xx or Fuji but I sure as hell prefer carrying the Leica gear than a 16-35L, 50 1.2L and 85L along with a body!

Still horses for courses though, for mission critical and/or fast moving/sport/focus critical I’d be reaching for the R5m2 with the M’s as back up B roll photo’s. 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had better bokeh with Canon 5D and 50L. Photos looks great as well.

But 5D started to acting up and 50L became loose on focus ring and Canon wasn't able to build it by original tightness. 

My M-E 220 was giving really good images in terms of color, rendering, but it was next to ruined by sensor replacement under warranty.

I'm more using it as BW alternative to BW film, which is OK.

No money, interest in updating it. 

I'm fine with Canon 5DMK2 and L lenses.

I would like to sell the rest of the cameras and get Q. Not sure about bokeh, quality, but I like Leica cameras, just because. 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is mainly M and LTM lenses that make the difference for me. I've been using them with other than Leica cameras (Sony mod, also Canon with R lenses) and i cannot say which photos i prefer honestly. Size matters too but my Sonys are not significantly bulkier than my M bodies, let alone when using an accessory EVF on the latter. What i prefer in the M11 is the "auto zoom" feature, when i have to press a button for focus magnification on non-M cameras. In spite of 50+ years practice with Leica gear, i'm not a Real Leica Man though 😉

[jaapv]

I do agree with the sentiment. I like using Leica cameras because they mesh with my photographic mind -  the M9M is a never-sell camera, and the rangefinder is my favourite focus tool. The SL series cannot be bettered as an indestructible do-anything camera for me. As for lenses there are some Leica ones that will always be in my bag, but not as only ones. However, that is as far as my “love”  goes. Some SL lenses are as good or better than M ones, so there are no brand- related loyalties in this respect.  I prefer the tools and not the engraving on them. However I do hail Leica for its commitment to produce this kind of equipment and will support them as long as they travel this road, alone and in their cooperation with others. 
Disclosure : Utterly perfect APO lenses are not my thing. I am more interested in the imperfections that render to my taste. Just a red dot does not make the photograph. 
And I do like the community of users. 

[jakontil]

I agree to some extent, the M stays with me despite having many other options and some were better photographic tools, but the M is more than just a tool, it’s like the extension of my body and yeah may be also bcoz i always carry it

[Olaf_ZG]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

And I do like the community of users. 

This for sure. 

[pgh]

I like using Leica M's the most, well, tied with Rollei TLR's.

But my full archive shows no bias towards them with regards to the better pictures I've made. Generally shows a bias against them, actually, until I more or less stopped using anything else about 5 years ago. 

On my 35mm negatives I can usually tell the Leica from the shape of the frame (less perfect rectangle) or the rendering of the Summicron (if I shot wide open), but not always. I shot a Contax G2 alongside an M6 for a long time, and the 35mm and 45mm have a bit of different look. I generally did just as well with the Contax - some ways better (moments captured), some ways worse (missed focus totally w the contax more often, but nailed hard to focus moving subjects more)

I do enjoy the particular look of pictures made with my M lenses, but when drilling down into the essence of the pictures themselves, I haven't done any better with M's at work.

Actually, maybe my most successful cameras were my Nikon D700 and the Pentax 645D. Probably due to when I used those I was shooting a ton of jobs and personal projects with a huge variety of subject matter. I was just non-stop for years with them.

Though at this point I've used my M10s so extensively they will maybe catch up just due to volume. 

Thinking a little more - one area where the M wins for me - I've made more good personal images (family/friends or projects) with the m6 and/or m10 than anything else. Probably that matters most in the end anyways. I often have the feeling of using an inferior tool for the job, but also of not caring. I tend to commute by bike in town, and I get passed by people on e-bikes all the time. It's the same feeling here. But I'm not getting an E-bike. I like the work and feeling of greater connection to moving my body through space. 

[Tseg]

Agreed, it is pretty much about the equipment.  Don't buy into that marketing spin that it is the photographer.  

[JoshuaR]

My best pictures have definitely been made with M cameras. Especially M digitals. Followed by medium format film pictures made with my Pentax 67ii. Followed by my Fuji X100-series cameras.

Why those cameras? I truly don’t know. I think I just click with them. The Pentax is the big outlier. I didn’t even buy it myself; my cousin gave it to me, after she’d stopped using it.

Maybe one element is that there’s just a little friction in the operating process? I’ve noticed that, among the pictures I made with my SL2-S, the more interesting ones were done with manual lenses. 

I think I gravitate toward a hand-made quality in my pictures, and so I like cameras that involve a certain amount of struggle.

[DadDadDaddyo]

On 9/16/2025 at 7:01 AM, jaapv said:

Disclosure : Utterly perfect APO lenses are not my thing. I am more interested in the imperfections that render to my taste.

This is the thing. 

I look at shots over taken over the years and the "presence of clinical technical perfection" doesn't seem to be a prevailing characteristic of those ones that stay with me, those ones that I come back to over and over. 

In the people pictures it's about the gesture caught, the look, the distilled moment, the caught lightning.

In the landscapes (and urban landscapes) it's about light, and texture, and juxtaposition, and arrangement. 

All of this presupposes some threshold degree of technical quality, but the pictures aren't about the technical quality. 

The Leica is my instrument of choice for the extent to which it gets out of my way, the way it disappears in my hands. 

Because the pictures aren't about the camera, either. 

 

[jaapv]

Agree, but when we are talking about the rendering of the scene, which is part of the feeling( for want of a better word) of a photograph, the quality of the imperfections is important. I cannot imagine something like HCB’s puddlejumper being as good a photograph in utmost APO perfection. 

[LocalHero1953]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Agree, but when we are talking about the rendering of the scene, which is part of the feeling( for want of a better word) of a photograph, the quality of the imperfections is important. I cannot imagine something like HCB’s puddlejumper being as good a photograph in utmost APO perfection. 

I can, easily. No better, no worse.

[pgh]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I can, easily. No better, no worse.

Tough one. 

At the time it represented something more novel than it would now. It might be just as good a picture in modern rendering but something that good also crosses the AP wire or gets uploaded to Instagram almost every day now by a name you’ve never heard and will not hear again, so I don’t think it would be as meaningful.

To me, that picture is well known just as much because of the time and context it was made in, as it is the inherent quality it has as a photograph. 
 

It might not be better or worse as captured by an m11, but it definitely wouldn’t be the same. 

Edited September 23 by pgh

[DadDadDaddyo]

Yeah, I hear what you're saying...

But I'm hopeless; to me saying the puddle jumper is defined by its context is like saying Bach is defined by his context, that anyone can write a fugue today.

Heck, I'm sure an AI can probably do it.

But that fact doesn't take away from the accomplishment achieved by Johann Sebastian...

[charlesphoto99]

The most remarkable thing about the puddle jumper is the poster of the ballet dancer in the background jumping in the opposite direction. Sometimes it's the smallest details that cement the power of a photograph, often even subconsciously into the viewer. Photographs also become more important or powerful when taken in context of a body of work. If this was one and done by Cartier-Bresson, and not the beginning of an amazing career, we most likely wouldn't even be aware of it, let alone discussing it almost 100 years later. Note also the photo was most likely taken without a rangefinder. 

IMO at the end of the day what always designates a successful photo is the light. One could go find a puddle and have somebody jump all day long in 60mp/APO gloriousness, but if the (good) light isn't there, it will just be an exercise in reflexes, nothing more. HCB got the perfect light with that one. 

Edited September 23 by charlesphoto99

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Exactly, something that gets forgotten in these endless “best gear” discussions.