Bill Pierce
Well-known
Sometimes I think digital camera makers go a little overboard. The final results in terms of sharpness and tonality are dependent on a lot more than the sensor. And menus, features and controls - well, simple activation and genuine usefulness are a little more desirable than clutter that is for the most part unproductive.
Still, specs and features sell. And, if you make cameras, selling is good; not selling is bad.
Since this is the Rangefinder Forum, let’s take a look at the new Leica M11. First look at its predecessors. The early Leica along with lenses like the Alpine Elmar were small enough you could take them mountain climbing. As film improved, the area of usage expanded, but key to the Leica’s success was the small size that let you carry a camera or cameras outside of a bag and ready to shoot. Yes, potential image quality wasn’t as good as larger formats, but there were a lot of arenas, certainly news for one, where the ability to carry a camera or cameras ready to shoot is essential. In the film only days it wasn’t unusual for photographers to own 35mm, roll film and sheet film cameras, choosing the parameters of portability, operating speed and image quality appropriate for the job.
Back to the present... The most prominent new feature of the M11 is the 60 megapixel sensor, a sensor that allows big prints and/or cropping plus the potential to take advantage of lenses like the new Apo lenses ability to resolve fine detail. Indeed, in order to take advantage of the sensor you are going to have to have very good lenses. But, the combination of 60 mg sensor and the best of lenses is going to be demanding on more than just lenses. You will need to shoot at quite high shutter speeds or use a tripod. Rangefinder focus may note be accurate enough in a lot of wide aperture situations and it would probably be wise to use the digital Viso for focusing even if it is not as quick as framing , focusing and shooting through the bright-line viewfinder.
Looking at the limits put on early reviewers, and in some cases the selection of early reviewers, dealing just with reviews and specs is hardly a way to come up with an informed opinion. But it is possible to say that the Leica rangefinder and its interchangeable lenses have changed enough since 1932 that it’s no longer the camera that beats the competition when you are climbing mountains. I’m not quite sure what the M11 is. If somebody does, I would really like to hear from them. Yes, really... Your thoughts?
Still, specs and features sell. And, if you make cameras, selling is good; not selling is bad.
Since this is the Rangefinder Forum, let’s take a look at the new Leica M11. First look at its predecessors. The early Leica along with lenses like the Alpine Elmar were small enough you could take them mountain climbing. As film improved, the area of usage expanded, but key to the Leica’s success was the small size that let you carry a camera or cameras outside of a bag and ready to shoot. Yes, potential image quality wasn’t as good as larger formats, but there were a lot of arenas, certainly news for one, where the ability to carry a camera or cameras ready to shoot is essential. In the film only days it wasn’t unusual for photographers to own 35mm, roll film and sheet film cameras, choosing the parameters of portability, operating speed and image quality appropriate for the job.
Back to the present... The most prominent new feature of the M11 is the 60 megapixel sensor, a sensor that allows big prints and/or cropping plus the potential to take advantage of lenses like the new Apo lenses ability to resolve fine detail. Indeed, in order to take advantage of the sensor you are going to have to have very good lenses. But, the combination of 60 mg sensor and the best of lenses is going to be demanding on more than just lenses. You will need to shoot at quite high shutter speeds or use a tripod. Rangefinder focus may note be accurate enough in a lot of wide aperture situations and it would probably be wise to use the digital Viso for focusing even if it is not as quick as framing , focusing and shooting through the bright-line viewfinder.
Looking at the limits put on early reviewers, and in some cases the selection of early reviewers, dealing just with reviews and specs is hardly a way to come up with an informed opinion. But it is possible to say that the Leica rangefinder and its interchangeable lenses have changed enough since 1932 that it’s no longer the camera that beats the competition when you are climbing mountains. I’m not quite sure what the M11 is. If somebody does, I would really like to hear from them. Yes, really... Your thoughts?
peterm1
Mentor
I tend to agree with you especially in relation to your last sentence about M cameras no longer being the "go-to" system.
I recently posted elsewhere in this site my thought that Leica's M system will eventually either merge in features with Leica's mirrorless offerings (which are impressive and getting better) as the M system is forced to adopt more mirrorless like features and become the kind of hybrid that some Fuji cameras already are - and probably ultimately will be phased out because Leica will not be able to support the M series, the Q series and the S series all at the same time. Such a range is a big ask for a relatively small niche company such as Leica.
Or, if they stick to M's current feature set ( which are pretty antiquated) these M cameras will even more, lose appeal for too many shooters as mirrorless cameras become more and more capable. Though I expect there will still be a diminishing few who will be happy with the M series' limitations. But as a result, I expect this also will tend to the system being be phased out eventually, though hopefully not soon.
The other factor that needs to be considered are the long term economics of owning a digital camera. Even Leica M cameras' second hand prices drop quite precipitously, quite soon after they were sold new. This is the reality of digital cameras. In the old (film) days Leica cameras were built to last and hence tended to hold their value somewhat more and were also kept longer- often for life. This is not quite the expectation with complex electronic gadgetry which always fails over time. Can people really justify buying a top priced new Leica M which they know will drop so much in price and may in effect be little more than highly expensive throw away toys for the well off? Admittedly Leica's mirrorless cameras do too - but these tend to have a richer feature set and in any event generally do not cost quite as much as M cameras when bought new. So they have a better value proposition than M cameras. This fact also suggests fewer M sales into the future.
I may be wrong of course as I do not have a crystal ball but I suspect I am not. I do not relish this thought. Speaking personally, I no longer shoot my digital M very much, primarily because as I grow older I need some of the advantages offered by mirrorless systems (e.g. IBIS, focus peaking etc. - though not AF which does not offer me much personally). But I never the less would rather see M cameras in the world rather than not existing at all.
I recently posted elsewhere in this site my thought that Leica's M system will eventually either merge in features with Leica's mirrorless offerings (which are impressive and getting better) as the M system is forced to adopt more mirrorless like features and become the kind of hybrid that some Fuji cameras already are - and probably ultimately will be phased out because Leica will not be able to support the M series, the Q series and the S series all at the same time. Such a range is a big ask for a relatively small niche company such as Leica.
Or, if they stick to M's current feature set ( which are pretty antiquated) these M cameras will even more, lose appeal for too many shooters as mirrorless cameras become more and more capable. Though I expect there will still be a diminishing few who will be happy with the M series' limitations. But as a result, I expect this also will tend to the system being be phased out eventually, though hopefully not soon.
The other factor that needs to be considered are the long term economics of owning a digital camera. Even Leica M cameras' second hand prices drop quite precipitously, quite soon after they were sold new. This is the reality of digital cameras. In the old (film) days Leica cameras were built to last and hence tended to hold their value somewhat more and were also kept longer- often for life. This is not quite the expectation with complex electronic gadgetry which always fails over time. Can people really justify buying a top priced new Leica M which they know will drop so much in price and may in effect be little more than highly expensive throw away toys for the well off? Admittedly Leica's mirrorless cameras do too - but these tend to have a richer feature set and in any event generally do not cost quite as much as M cameras when bought new. So they have a better value proposition than M cameras. This fact also suggests fewer M sales into the future.
I may be wrong of course as I do not have a crystal ball but I suspect I am not. I do not relish this thought. Speaking personally, I no longer shoot my digital M very much, primarily because as I grow older I need some of the advantages offered by mirrorless systems (e.g. IBIS, focus peaking etc. - though not AF which does not offer me much personally). But I never the less would rather see M cameras in the world rather than not existing at all.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
The M11 is not yet available at B&H or the Leica Stores I checked. I am sure someone here will have one before long and will be able to tell us how it performs with Leica and third party lenses. I don't watch camera and lens reviews on YouTube. Perhaps you can recommend an online reviewer who is reliable. I am pretty sure it is difficult to be objective about Leica stuff, but perhaps someone has been able to maintain his credibility over time.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I think there used to be a pretty linear relationship between film size and tone in finished prints. So 35mm produced a certain look, 6x6 produced something smoother when enlarged, 4x5 could record more, 8x10 more and so on. So you could choose your poison. If you were climbing a mountain, you might well want a Leica (miniature as it was for its day) because that was your lightest alternative. So 35mm's portability and ability to record in extreme environments became its hallmark. and LF was the domain of studio photographers (pace St. Ansel). As the pixel density in electronic sensors increases, the more these old distinctions seem to be blending in terms of the camera's potential output. You could make a billboard sized enlargement of ANY of those M11 files without giving up much. Studio photographers 5-10 years ago did as much with less resolution at their command. But I wouldn't say that means that the device has no "purpose." It just means that it can be put to a broader range of uses than its film fore-bearers. And hey, we asked for it.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
https://www.reidreviews.com/ is a pay site that reviews a variety of cameras. But Sean Reid is an M Leica user, so, the M's get full attention. His is definitely a site I would recommend, heads and tails above most.
JeffS7444
Well-known
JeffS7444
Well-known
It's an attractive luxury object which can be used to take photographs. And those who are lured by it's siren song will take it's quirks and shortcomings in stride, even find ways to reframe these as virtues.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
I always enjoy your commentary even though I seldom post on here. I tend to agree with a lot of what you’ve said. I think camera manufacturers really don’t know what to do anymore. There are only a few areas that they can make tangible progression for the next model. ISO and dynamic range was the big thing for the last few years, but both imho are largely crutches for poor technique. Do we NEED to pull a zone 2 area up to a zone 6? I don’t think so and I think the ability to ends up destroying a lot of images by flattening them out. Sometimes limitations are our best friends. I know a lot of "pros" who genuinely have no idea about basic exposure. The cameras are so good they know they can fix it in post. Another "improvement" they could measure was Megapixels. I have a 50mp dslr that I use for specialized things, but you are correct in saying that the shooting experience is changed by needing a tripod etc. Another thing I did not foresee is the need to upgrade computers and storage regularly to handle the monstrous file sizes. Your older computer will run like sludge with a 50mp file compared to processing something in the 25-30mp size. I’m not really sure what specifically any camera company could do to improve their future products. Build quality? Interchangeable sensors?new type of sensor for more specialized types of photography? I don’t really know the answer, nor do I care because I have what I require to make images already. I’m curious, when film bodies were announced in the 70s/80s or earlier, what was the main selling point of the upgrades?
mothertrucker
Well-known
I’ve done a lot of backpacking in the mountains. Every ounce counts. I can’t imagine bringing my M240 into the mountains, it’s just way too heavy. When I went, I brought a cheap Kodak Star 335. Granted, I was broke. But I did not envy my friends who carried big SLR setups, and my pictures came out just as good. I could see taking a Ricoh GR today. Sir Edmund Hillary didn’t take a Leica to the top of Mt. Everest, he took a Kodak Retina 118. Small, light and tough, with a great lens.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The characteristics of being small and simple has an aesthetic and a virtue which can make a camera more desirable than a highly spec’d camera - especially if its image quality is “good enough”.
In my landscape photography there came a time when I realized a scene I casually photographed handheld with my 16MP X-Pro1 had more than enough detail I would ever need for enjoying my images. That’s a subjective, personal, assessment.
In my landscape photography there came a time when I realized a scene I casually photographed handheld with my 16MP X-Pro1 had more than enough detail I would ever need for enjoying my images. That’s a subjective, personal, assessment.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
+1. At this price most of real photogs are excluded.
nickthetasmaniac
Mentor
It has been a very long time since a Leica ILC system (digital or film) has been used by a serious mountaineering team. To be honest, I'm not sure the M-system was ever considered 'the camera that beats the competition when you are climbing mountains'. Certainly, all the mountaineering stories I read growing up (I read a lot) used SLR systems like Olympus OM. Not saying that it wasn't used by some climbers, but I don't believe it was ever the go to system.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Looks like Leica got the mountain climbing issue covered: 
https://www.caroline-fink.ch/launch-portfolio-leica-m11
https://www.caroline-fink.ch/about_en
Alpine Stories – Caroline Fink mit der Leica M11 (4K)
https://www.caroline-fink.ch/launch-portfolio-leica-m11
https://www.caroline-fink.ch/about_en
Alpine Stories – Caroline Fink mit der Leica M11 (4K)
Dralowid
Michael
But expedition leader Hunt did take a Leica.
I no doubt would like to have one and believe it to be a very capable camera. However, I do not want to pay for it nor is it the right camera for me at the moment. That said, not everyone uses cameras in rough situations or has the same wallet thickness as me. Some people can purchase an M11 like I buy a beer and simply enjoy using it is safe situations. Leica will do well with this camera.
Dogman
Mentor
I'm not real sure the higher resolution cameras really do require such superior lenses. Maybe it's just a way for camera makers to get customers to buy new lenses as well as the new megaultrapixel camera. When the D800 came along, I recall articles saying photographers must upgrade their lenses to take advantage of the better image quality of the new high resolution Nikon sensor (or Sony sensor as the case might be). When I finally got around to buying a D800 some years later when used prices were within my reach I tried out both new and old Nikkor lenses. The images were sharper with higher resolution even with the "cheap" variable aperture plastic lenses. And I'm a guy who never uses a tripod.
I don't put a lot of stock in megapixels. Every 12 to 18 months we see new "ultimate" resolution sensors come along but the actual quality of photography plods along as it always has. You don't need all that crap to make good pictures. You need good seeing ability. Along with access, stamina and drive. I was looking at the Time magazine website the other day and featured were the photos of a Ukrainian photographer documenting to physical destruction and human suffering of the Russian invasion. The photographer (don't remember the name, sadly) was wounded in the fighting and there was a photo of him accompanying the article. Around his neck was a Nikon D700 and a Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2D lens, both gear and photographer looking a bit worn. I smiled when I saw that. It's probably my favorite Nikon camera of all time. I use mine frequently and find it more than satisfactory for what I do. It's only 12 megapixels but it's 12 big fat megapixels that do the job.
As time goes by I recall and believe more and more that what real photographers need is a "hockey puck" camera. I think the late Marty Forscher came up with that term. A camera that works under all conditions and gets the job done. I guess it would be nice if it also had 800 megapixels and weighed half a pound but let's not get too carried away.
I don't put a lot of stock in megapixels. Every 12 to 18 months we see new "ultimate" resolution sensors come along but the actual quality of photography plods along as it always has. You don't need all that crap to make good pictures. You need good seeing ability. Along with access, stamina and drive. I was looking at the Time magazine website the other day and featured were the photos of a Ukrainian photographer documenting to physical destruction and human suffering of the Russian invasion. The photographer (don't remember the name, sadly) was wounded in the fighting and there was a photo of him accompanying the article. Around his neck was a Nikon D700 and a Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2D lens, both gear and photographer looking a bit worn. I smiled when I saw that. It's probably my favorite Nikon camera of all time. I use mine frequently and find it more than satisfactory for what I do. It's only 12 megapixels but it's 12 big fat megapixels that do the job.
As time goes by I recall and believe more and more that what real photographers need is a "hockey puck" camera. I think the late Marty Forscher came up with that term. A camera that works under all conditions and gets the job done. I guess it would be nice if it also had 800 megapixels and weighed half a pound but let's not get too carried away.
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
These guys did too:
Leica Canada by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
But Mallory took a VP Kodak -- if they could only find it!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Canuck made or German made, in the late 1970s to the mid 1980s their stuff was still generally somewhat affordable and had not yet taken an astronomical leap in prices only fit for for doing well lawyers and doctors.
mothertrucker
Well-known
The difference between making it to the top or not, I guess!
Just kidding - I was not aware of that, read up a bit more about him after your comment. My Everest knowledge is clearly lacking.
I agree. This is a pretty big myth.