Bill Pierce
Well-known
One of my favorite writers (and photographers) is Kirk Tuck. He is both an accomplished professional and an enthusiast (or whatever you would call someone who takes pictures they know they won’t get paid for). He takes good pictures. I’m an admirer. With a lot of internet attention on the recently introduced Leica M11, he recently wrote a piece asking what the consensus was on image stabilization, auto focusing and adapting lenses
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2022/01/im-genuinely-curious-to-know-few-things.html
Different photographers have different needs, but it is a touch disconcerting to see what is probably a pretty good camera attacked for not having stabilization and auto focus, especially if that attitude applies to any future camera that you intend on using.
For me, image stabilization is primarily something to help me hand hold long lenses steady. If anyone ever develops subject stabilization, a switch on the camera that made your subject hold still, especially my dog, that would be really useful with all lenses. Perhaps the Leica M12 will have that. But I don’t find lack of image stabilization a deal breaker on a camera that is primarily used with wide and normal lenses. The bright frame Fujis, in many ways the Leica M’s biggest competitor, also lack image stabilization.
As far as autofocus, some very good lenses with outstanding performance even wide open like the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar and Zeiss Loxia lenses are only available as manual focus lenses even when they have mounts to fit them on cameras that we think of as “autofocus” cameras. (And, minus autofocus motors they are small and light.) Frankly, in a lot of critical, wide-open, low light work I trust a magnified manual focus more than autofocus on many cameras and use it even with auto focus lenses. I’m also not a great fan of rangefinder focusing accuracy in difficult wide open situations, but when I have worked with digital M’s, the Visoflex viewfinder took care of that problem.
As far as Kirk’s questions about adopted lenses, I can’t answer because I no longer use any lenses that require adapters, but, boy, do I use lenses not made by the camera manufacturer - but that’s not Kirk’s question. I encourage you to read his column and reply to it.
And, of course, any thought on the absolute necessity of auto focus (pity the old masters who had to actually, manually turn those focusing rings) and image stabilization (they even had to use a tripod at times, but maybe it was OK because some of their cameras were pretty big and heavy) as replies to this column are clearly welcome even though your elderly moderator’s bias is clearly showing. More important, what do you think?
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2022/01/im-genuinely-curious-to-know-few-things.html
Different photographers have different needs, but it is a touch disconcerting to see what is probably a pretty good camera attacked for not having stabilization and auto focus, especially if that attitude applies to any future camera that you intend on using.
For me, image stabilization is primarily something to help me hand hold long lenses steady. If anyone ever develops subject stabilization, a switch on the camera that made your subject hold still, especially my dog, that would be really useful with all lenses. Perhaps the Leica M12 will have that. But I don’t find lack of image stabilization a deal breaker on a camera that is primarily used with wide and normal lenses. The bright frame Fujis, in many ways the Leica M’s biggest competitor, also lack image stabilization.
As far as autofocus, some very good lenses with outstanding performance even wide open like the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar and Zeiss Loxia lenses are only available as manual focus lenses even when they have mounts to fit them on cameras that we think of as “autofocus” cameras. (And, minus autofocus motors they are small and light.) Frankly, in a lot of critical, wide-open, low light work I trust a magnified manual focus more than autofocus on many cameras and use it even with auto focus lenses. I’m also not a great fan of rangefinder focusing accuracy in difficult wide open situations, but when I have worked with digital M’s, the Visoflex viewfinder took care of that problem.
As far as Kirk’s questions about adopted lenses, I can’t answer because I no longer use any lenses that require adapters, but, boy, do I use lenses not made by the camera manufacturer - but that’s not Kirk’s question. I encourage you to read his column and reply to it.
And, of course, any thought on the absolute necessity of auto focus (pity the old masters who had to actually, manually turn those focusing rings) and image stabilization (they even had to use a tripod at times, but maybe it was OK because some of their cameras were pretty big and heavy) as replies to this column are clearly welcome even though your elderly moderator’s bias is clearly showing. More important, what do you think?
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
When it comes to photography, I've come to realise that process is more important *to me* than outcome. That is, I enjoy the process of taking photos more than looking at the photos themselves. This is why I spend most of my time playing with obsolete, 50-year-old mechanical film cameras and my immensely capable Nikon Z6 collects dust in the corner and looks sad.
A digital Leica M appeals to me because it is the only camera on the market that is specifically designed to involve the photographer in the process, and that is largely down to it's optical/mechanical rangefinder/viewfinder and made-for-manual-focus lens system.
A Leica M with EVF and AF (as some seem to want) would make it just another mirrorless body with pretty industrial design and an eye watering price tag.
---
--
-
That said, I don't think I'd be too offended by an M12 with stabilisation...
A digital Leica M appeals to me because it is the only camera on the market that is specifically designed to involve the photographer in the process, and that is largely down to it's optical/mechanical rangefinder/viewfinder and made-for-manual-focus lens system.
A Leica M with EVF and AF (as some seem to want) would make it just another mirrorless body with pretty industrial design and an eye watering price tag.
---
--
-
That said, I don't think I'd be too offended by an M12 with stabilisation...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
M11 mumbling is the storm in the teacup.
CMur12
Veteran
I have developed a tremor in my hands over time, so image stabilization with any focal length is an attractive feature to me.
Nevertheless, I would not expect to see image stabilization or auto-focus in a Leica M-digital. Such features just seem philosophically incompatible with what the camera is and what it represents.
I do, however, think image stabilization, either optical or in-body, would be a worthy addition to the SL and CL lines.
- Murray
Nevertheless, I would not expect to see image stabilization or auto-focus in a Leica M-digital. Such features just seem philosophically incompatible with what the camera is and what it represents.
I do, however, think image stabilization, either optical or in-body, would be a worthy addition to the SL and CL lines.
- Murray
kshapero
South Florida Man
For me the Digital M, is the right combination of manual everything and a little automation; that's until the purist in me must shoot with my M-A.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Ridiculing folks who enjoy image stabilization and auto-focus is beneath you. You may not like it, fine. But so what? Many folks do like it and find it useful. We also have digital cameras now with built-in light meters which work very well. Would you prefer the old hand-held Sekonic for every shot?
I enjoy many of the steps of progress. If I did not I would be using a IIIf and working in a darkroom. Now I can just pull out the SD card and do the work in the computer. Modern cameras offer so much more to the user. I have a Sony A7M III and can go full manual if I wish. I do not wish. But I have the choice. I do not in a Leica.
I enjoy many of the steps of progress. If I did not I would be using a IIIf and working in a darkroom. Now I can just pull out the SD card and do the work in the computer. Modern cameras offer so much more to the user. I have a Sony A7M III and can go full manual if I wish. I do not wish. But I have the choice. I do not in a Leica.
Archiver
Veteran
Autofocus and IBIS are obviously useful, but not essential. Having shot with the M9 for over a decade, and cameras with varying levels of IBIS, I can honestly say that the M9 isn't terribly affected by the lack of IBIS. Rangefinders don't have autofocus, but manual focus can result in much more reliable focus when working with obstructions like window glass or obscuring objects. There are many times when I wish whatever autofocus camera I'm using had reliable and useable manual focus. Rangefinder focus is easier for me than using an EVF or even split prism in a SLR.
At the same time, autofocus makes my life much easier when it comes to sports and action, as well as video. Same with IBIS. So I enjoy both for different reasons and situations.
At the same time, autofocus makes my life much easier when it comes to sports and action, as well as video. Same with IBIS. So I enjoy both for different reasons and situations.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I`m no longer interested in the process just the result these days.
With auto focus and IBS I can shoot sports quickly with a short tele ,one handed from a moving platform (quad bike).
That is useful for me .
With auto focus and IBS I can shoot sports quickly with a short tele ,one handed from a moving platform (quad bike).
That is useful for me .
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I've watched and read some of the M11 reviews: not many reviewers moan about manual focus. They do question how 60mp's will behave without IBIS. Most reviewers do not mention the pixel-binning technology, probably because they'd not heard of it. As always, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Let the pixel peepers do their job so that we'll know how the M11 behaves in low light. My thoughts so far: the M11 is an attractive rangefinder and it is also very much a 'form over function' camera: no internal EVF; no IBIS; no second card slot because these features don't fit inside that prescribed small body. Cheers, OtL
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
IS is vital for me, and I won't even consider buying any digital camera that doesn't have in-body IS. I had a stroke in 2013 and I still have trouble holding steady; IS is what made handheld shooting possible for me after that.
I think the minute Leica makes the M more like every other camera on the market will be the minute they lose their core audience. IBIS is nice to have, but it isn't a deal breaker for me if a camera does not have it. Autofocus and Leica? You buy one of their other cameras, not an M. I feel the people who want to drastically change the M are not those who would actually buy it most of the time. I absolutely hate it when people want to change unique cameras and make them like every other camera available today. I think some people just like the luxury name.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
For me, and this is just my use, I choose not to have af- I have one DSLR with a couple of af lenses, but it’s rarely used - and am happy with IBIS if it’s there. It’s not a deal breaker though.
part of this is just that af slr’s are poor for manual focus due to the screen designs. So I tend to use only my film rangefinders or mirrorless digital (x pro2 sits in the middle not really being either!)
part of this is just that af slr’s are poor for manual focus due to the screen designs. So I tend to use only my film rangefinders or mirrorless digital (x pro2 sits in the middle not really being either!)
Dogman
Veteran
Nothing I can think of in modern cameras is a deal breaker. I like AF and IS but I can live without them. I prefer shooting in aperture priority but I can shoot manual without worrying about it too much. I'm not crazy about EVFs but I use them. Most of the other trappings of technology in cameras--WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.--are just things to ignore.
Leica M11? Sounds like a fantastic camera, but.... It's an abstract concept to me due to price. As are all Leica digitals and the Leica brand lenses that fit them. I use X-Pros instead. I'll even pop an adapter onto an M-mount lens--not the current Leica lenses--and use it on the Fujis. No deal breakers.
Leica M11? Sounds like a fantastic camera, but.... It's an abstract concept to me due to price. As are all Leica digitals and the Leica brand lenses that fit them. I use X-Pros instead. I'll even pop an adapter onto an M-mount lens--not the current Leica lenses--and use it on the Fujis. No deal breakers.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
My only digital camera experience is with the Fuji XE2 and XT2 bodies and the Fuji 10-24 and 18-55 lenses. OIS made no difference in the lowest shutter speed I could successfully hand hold. In the rare instance I find myself in a low light situation where I would otherwise need to use a slower shutter speed, I just bump up the ISO. I do this though the Auto ISO parameters. Going from 1/30th to 1/15th is a problem; going from ISO 100 to 200 is not a problem.
With respect to autofocus, even with focusing aids turned on, I cannot focus manual lenses with any degree of confidence. I just pray that any error will be offset by depth of field. As a result, I don't use any of my film camera manual focus lenses. It is not really a problem since the two Fuji zooms cover the focal lengths I most often use. If I ever need a longer focal length, I will buy the appropriate Fuji lens.
These two shortcomings might be unacceptable to some photographers; for me, they are inconsequential, and an easy trade-off for size and haptics.
With respect to autofocus, even with focusing aids turned on, I cannot focus manual lenses with any degree of confidence. I just pray that any error will be offset by depth of field. As a result, I don't use any of my film camera manual focus lenses. It is not really a problem since the two Fuji zooms cover the focal lengths I most often use. If I ever need a longer focal length, I will buy the appropriate Fuji lens.
These two shortcomings might be unacceptable to some photographers; for me, they are inconsequential, and an easy trade-off for size and haptics.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
This is, in its way, one of the more important web pieces on the Leica M11.
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2213667251/leica-s-m11-risks-rendering-the-rangefinder-obsolete
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2213667251/leica-s-m11-risks-rendering-the-rangefinder-obsolete
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Yes, I’m inclined to agree. They’re right that the purpose of the M is shoot with a rangefinder. The evf M mount solution is the SL2, although that may be not quite as good as the M for some lenses. Whether that’s by design or simply a consequence of needing the SL2 to also work well with a wide range of af L glass and in a pro environment I don’t know.
To some extent I’ve concluded that all lenses designed for film are compromised on digital sensors as a result of the filter stack. Rangefinder lenses more than slr lenses. So my film rangefinders use m mount glass and my mirrorless has slr lenses. The Fuji has a 7artisans 35mm f1.2 welded to its mount.
Given the entry price of current M’s and the resale value of digital bodies, plus my experience with the M9 and Monochrom I think it will be a while before I buy another digital M. Otoh, I am sure it’s a great camera and hope it finds sufficient buyers to enjoy it and keep Leica going.
robert blu
quiet photographer
IS and autofocus can be or are very useful for some kind of photography, I agree. What I do not understand is why there are photographers who want them in a M camera,which is a very particular camera.
There are so many other cameras in the market with excellent AF and IS. The M is a camera designed to be used is a manual way for the photographers who like this way to make photos!around the rangefinder concept and minimalistic approach.
As for me I'm happy with my M10 (and even with the 10 years old X1!) and do not need to upgrade to M11 ! But it is good Leica make improvements which others will appreciate.
There are so many other cameras in the market with excellent AF and IS. The M is a camera designed to be used is a manual way for the photographers who like this way to make photos!around the rangefinder concept and minimalistic approach.
As for me I'm happy with my M10 (and even with the 10 years old X1!) and do not need to upgrade to M11 ! But it is good Leica make improvements which others will appreciate.
willie_901
Veteran
I like the approach Nikon one used and FUJIFILM film uses for their XF system. Use the lens for IS and offer lenses with and without IS.
I know very little about videography, but this approach may have disadvantages for video. If so, in-camera stabilization is a smart marketing choice.
My current cameras and lenses don't have IBIS. For my purposes, I don't miss it. If my interests were different, IBIS or lens IS would be useful.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I really enjoyed using Leica M for many years, including M8 and M9. But since that time, so many other appealing alternatives have become available! The omission of IBIS and AF alone might not dissuade me, but since I’ve already got great cameras with those features and more, I’m not sure what value I’d get from a Leica M11, save for more “Leica-ness”.
pluton
Well-known
If someone was paying me good money to shoot news, celebrity grab shots or sports, and then [probably] transmit the photos in a timely fashion, I'd be all over AF and stabilization.
Luckily, I have the pleasure of photographing what I want, and operating the equipment in the way I want. Manual focus always, tripod (the most disliked but genuinely useful thing) if needed.
Luckily, I have the pleasure of photographing what I want, and operating the equipment in the way I want. Manual focus always, tripod (the most disliked but genuinely useful thing) if needed.