Leica M11 Information

Is this thing comes with USB-C port exposed and no cover plug?
Click to expand...
The only camera I've ever seen no matter how cheap..that ever had an exposed port like that..esp on bottom..
Just askin for trouble..
Shoulda just kept the baseplate.
Or at the least..provided a 1 cent plastic plug..that you would most definitely lose regularly..lol..
 
Emile de Leon said:
The only camera I've ever seen no matter how cheap..that ever had an exposed port like that..esp on bottom..
Just askin for trouble..
Shoulda just kept the baseplate.
Or at the least..provided a 1 cent plastic plug..that you would most definitely lose regularly..lol..
Click to expand...
Are you using a case that covers the port for your mobile?
I like my baseplate, but I doubt the exposed port is going to cause any major issues.
 
Are you using a case that covers the port for your mobile?
Click to expand...
Samsung has waterproof rubber plug..
Apple is bare..but has case and port is set way back..
And to be certain.. not anywhere near the possible problems that a camera body poses..

but I doubt the exposed port is going to cause any major issues.
Click to expand...
And if it does..you can just ship the 9K cam back to get fixed..and all that implies..
 
raid said:
How is the M11 different from the M10 if you shoot it at 24MP?
Click to expand...

This is the exact question That I want to ask?
What is the main advantage in shooting on a higher resolution? Is that the sharpness ?? or the bigger view/ engagement ?
In 35mm vs Medium format, if you look into a same photo shot by two format at the asme size can we see a sharpness different ?
 
Calzone said:
Brian,

I found that Heliopan filters marked "Digital" have additional UV and IR filters incorporated. I discovered this on my MM, and using a Heliopan "Digital" filter really improved the S/N ratio, eliminated or minimized clipping, and made cleaner files. This was verified at PhotoPlusExpo when I directly asked a Heliopan rep.

Don't tell anyone my secrete. LOL.

Seems that stripping out nonvisual info strips out signal that I would call noise because it is unwanted. It seems at least in the M9 the IR filter still lets some IR through and then there is the UV on the other end of the spectrum.

I wonder if a Heliopan Digital would have the same dramatic effect on an M10 or an M11?

Also know that the Heliopan works on my SL and SL2.

BTW clean files make better prints.

Cal
Click to expand...

Will such a Digital filter also help with the purple smearing with very wide angle lenses, such as the Hologon 16/8?
 
Emile de Leon said:
The only camera I've ever seen no matter how cheap..that ever had an exposed port like that..esp on bottom..
Just askin for trouble..
Shoulda just kept the baseplate.
Or at the least..provided a 1 cent plastic plug..that you would most definitely lose regularly..lol..
Click to expand...

If it comes as exposed and no plug somewhere in this 8000 USD thing's package, it just so LCAG.
 
If it comes as exposed and no plug somewhere in this 8000 USD thing's package, it just so LCAG.
Click to expand...
Its 9K usd...lol..
Even though there are "upgrades" to this M..
It kinda reminds me of why I've traveling further and further..away from Leica..
Alternative lenses for 1/10 the price..come very close to Leicas quality now..even hard boiled Leica fans acknowledge this and save $$ on other brand lenses..to have enough money to buy the M..in whatever form..
And the bodies..they are the only game in town..unless you want Pixii..
I figure..its only a matter of time before a Chinese company decides to make and offer a FF rangefinder..and thats likely the end of the M unless complete redesign.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
This problem was in the first batch that was sold. Leica replaced the lugs for free.
With the M8, the IR problem was "somehow only noticed" after the camera was in the hands of people that bought them. Leica, and early reviewers, had to have noticed an issue.
The M11 may not have issues, may only need firmware fixes, etc.
Given the history of Leica with poor choices in cover glass, ie the M8 and M9, I would like to see more details on this new approach. The M10 did not have complaints. The M240- others have stated that it has more IR leakage than their M9.
Click to expand...

I have come to regard the once justly revered Leica as another marketing outfit like MS. It is obvious they could be doing a lot more than machining top and bottom plates to make quality cameras. I have an M8.2 and an M9 which both have had the sensor cover glass problems fixed. And I really like them. The M9 is my go-to. After writing software for 20 years I can tell you that I would never been able to release software as shoddily tested as are the Leica cameras. There seems to be no shame in Wetzlar. And to watch their pompous schmähvoll spiels about how wonderful their new camera is a little disappointing. It's like watching snake oil salesmen. They sound like people perjuring themselves. Leica is more a status symbol for too many than an actual useful tool. The pen does not make the writer.

That said what is the IR problem with the M240? This is the first I have heard about it. And you would be the person with the chops to know this. I have a couple and it sounds like B&W IR/UV filters are in order. I'll need them on all my lenses now.
 
I've read on the Leica forum that the M240 has more IR leakage than does the M9. This makes sense as the M9 used a very high efficiency IR cut filter. The most efficient IR absorbing glass reacts poorly with humidity. I suspect that Leica chose a more stable glass, but one that lets more IR through. The M8 has about 5% leakage. Someone with the M8, M9, and M240 cameras placed the M240 somewhere between them.
 
Emile de Leon said:
Its 9K usd...lol..
Even though there are "upgrades" to this M..
It kinda reminds me of why I've traveling further and further..away from Leica..
Alternative lenses for 1/10 the price..come very close to Leicas quality now..even hard boiled Leica fans acknowledge this and save $$ on other brand lenses..to have enough money to buy the M..in whatever form..
And the bodies..they are the only game in town..unless you want Pixii..
I figure..its only a matter of time before a Chinese company decides to make and offer a FF rangefinder..and thats likely the end of the M unless complete redesign.
Click to expand...

If Pixii were able to do it and Epson with Cosina…
 
Sonnar Brian said:
I've read on the Leica forum that the M240 has more IR leakage than does the M9. This makes sense as the M9 used a very high efficiency IR cut filter. The most efficient IR absorbing glass reacts poorly with humidity. I suspect that Leica chose a more stable glass, but one that lets more IR through. The M8 has about 5% leakage. Someone with the M8, M9, and M240 cameras placed the M240 somewhere between them.
Click to expand...

If the M8 has a 5% IR leakage I am assuming the M9 has less as it is so often presented as not needing the IR cut filter. And the M240 at the purported midpoint between. I'll have to do some shooting of the M240 alongside the M9 and see what happens. If I can overcome the inertia of age I can set up a tripod and shoot some lenses tomorrow. I'll do the M9 and the M240 without IR filters just to see how it looks that way. Maybe an unfiltered M8(.2) would be interesting. Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f/1.2 Aspherical Lens, Canon 50mm LTM f/1.4, Jupiter 8 (coated), Pentax SMC M f/1.5. I think that would be a fair readout: M8.2,M9 and M240.

Any suggestions?

To me the important question is not what is bandied about on other boards but what is you experience and knowledge on this.
 
Emile de Leon said:
I figure..its only a matter of time before a Chinese company decides to make and offer a FF rangefinder..and thats likely the end of the M unless complete redesign.
Click to expand...

In general I agree, but I believe the rangefinder market is relatively tiny so even if other companies can make a camera at half the price, it will saturate almost instantly and won't leave much room for profit. Leica prices their cameras in a way that allows them to be profitable. Pixii is a good example. They have a camera that at best costs $1500 (compared to an X-E4 + the rangefinder) but they set the asking price at $3000. They know that if they sell them even at $2000 they will probably have just one successful year and then its over...
 
Freakscene said:
Leicas are cheap in comparison to microscopes, spectrophotometers, polymerase chain reaction thermocyclers and many other pieces of equipment I need to buy pretty often. I recently replaced the camera on our Zeiss stereo microscope here at work and it cost a lot more than a Leica. Everything is relative.

Marty
Click to expand...

Ah, a fellow scientist!

What I am saying is that people more money for the experience not the quality of the result.
You can get a camera package that offers more at a smaller price than either a Leica or a Zeiss. That is even for microscope cameras which I frequently use:
https://www.flir.eu

Whether that is wanting fancy looking cameras, looking through a nice optical viewfinder, or having a box that plugs in on your microscope and a program to go with it, it is still just the experience that you are paying the price for.
 
olakiril said:
In general I agree, but I believe the rangefinder market is relatively tiny so even if other companies can make a camera at half the price, it will saturate almost instantly and won't leave much room for profit. Leica prices their cameras in a way that allows them to be profitable. Pixii is a good example. They have a camera that at best costs $1500 (compared to an X-E4 + the rangefinder) but they set the asking price at $3000. They know that if they sell them even at $2000 they will probably have just one successful year and then its over...
Click to expand...

How could you know the price for Pixii? I mean, it is a tiny company making something unique. Surely it costs them more to make so few cameras than a mainstream company.
 
jsrockit said:
How could you know the price for Pixii? I mean, it is a tiny company making something unique. Surely it costs them more to make so few cameras than a mainstream company.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I have no way of knowing the actual cost of the Pixii. I was just trying to place a ball-park price of a similar camera. X-E4 is fairly close having the same sensor. Also it has a mechanical shutter and an LCD. These go for $900. Also Fuji aren't giving them at cost and again just guessing the markup could being something between 10-20% since they also profit from the lenses. So if you add the development costs, that would raise the price of the camera, but given this is a second generation camera now I don't expect it to be as high as it was with the 1st generation. Since they are not going to sell that many (I think their volume on v1 was ~1000 if I am not mistaken) how small can their margins be?
 
boojum said:
If the M8 has a 5% IR leakage I am assuming the M9 has less as it is so often presented as not needing the IR cut filter. And the M240 at the purported midpoint between. I'll have to do some shooting of the M240 alongside the M9 and see what happens. If I can overcome the inertia of age I can set up a tripod and shoot some lenses tomorrow. I'll do the M9 and the M240 without IR filters just to see how it looks that way. Maybe an unfiltered M8(.2) would be interesting. Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f/1.2 Aspherical Lens, Canon 50mm LTM f/1.4, Jupiter 8 (coated), Pentax SMC M f/1.5. I think that would be a fair readout: M8.2,M9 and M240.

Any suggestions?

To me the important question is not what is bandied about on other boards but what is you experience and knowledge on this.
Click to expand...

I use the Light Bar of the Wii for a good IR source. You can also use a remote control for a TV or other device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top