The M11 is not a tautological object. The M11 exists not because of the existence of the technology it is made of, but because Leica thought that some people would like to buy a rangefinder camera with a 60MP sensor for a whole host of reasons, and they could make some money selling them. If Leica thought that no one would buy an M11, they wouldn't have made it regardless of the available technology. Who cares if other photographers are using 12 to 24 megapixel cameras? Who cares if you can't fathom spending that kind of money on a camera because you might drop it? Neither you nor the photographers using 12 to 24 megapixel cameras are part of the equation. If you don't want one, don't buy one. Do you think everything you don't want to buy is a tautological object?
Easy there, fella. I think you misunderstood. Or, more likely, my thoughts were not clearly expressed. My apologies if that's the case. But I'm detecting some heat in your response, and I'd like to diffuse that.
Bill asked for our thoughts. And I gave a response.
All technology is tautological.
All throughout recorded history, technology has shown no evidence of human involvement. Its capability grows exponentially regardless of human participation
(Kurzweil et al). "Tautology" is a bit of a linguistic stretch, I'll admit, but "it is because it is" fits from the view that all tools exist, and they increase in capability and complexity and cost until there is no need for the tool -- because it has been replaced by another, which is really just the evolution of the technology without evidence of human interaction. The
use of the tool is another matter entirely, which shows
all the evidence of human interaction.
So then,
the technology versus why or why not people choose a particular example of that technology are two separate things. A billboard, album cover, 6-foot wide platinum print, shot on 35mm film with an M6 on Velvia or any other stock will look different than if shot on an M11, or a Hasselblad digital back, or a Fuji X100 or a view camera. All tools constrain the user one way or the other. A chrome in 135 is limited by the format, emulsion, lens, etc., and the M11 is perhaps limited by lens, sensor size, need for a tripod, etc., (We can talk about the original ethos of the "small negative big print" concept being abandoned by Leica and Bill touches on that, but that is another discussion: one of applicability.) Ultimately, the choice is the photographer's. For personal choices that relate to the variation in experience. Their choice. Not yours, not mine. Hence my reference to 12-24 mp cameras. You're right: who cares, indeed?
Back to the specific technology in Bill's original post. .
So now you have a camera that demands lenses of even greater LPI. That's great! Eventually the lenses will be driven to standards that we can't even imagine and, in order to produce a market they will have to be priced so that we won't have to go to a lens rental outfit to use one like we do for cine lenses. This will drive design/manufacturing processes to far exceed the current standard. Sensors will eventually become as capable as the human eye with multiple ISO values in different areas of the sensor.
I most emphatically did not rule out people using it and making money with it. Or using it simply because they want to make photographs with it. Or simply obtaining one because they want to say they own an M11. I don't care. When I did this for a living in the late 70's to early 90's the ROI was always a factor. And, we spent a lot of money. If the M11 works for you, please buy it. That's the camera you should use. Use it. That's the camera for you!
As an aside, I'm not afraid of dropping anything. Quite the opposite. And, I've dropped everything - it's a natural occurrence if you are "active" with a camera. To paraphrase JSRockit, my life is far too rugged for an M11. It's not too rugged for an M3 or a D3 and and the Fuji gear that gets used a lot lately is easy to protect yet access. Further aside, I have zero faith in Leica's support post-purchase-- that's from personal experience. Again, a different discussion.
All technology is tautological when viewed from that perspective. Whether I purchase a specific piece or not is irrelevant. It is simply not a factor. I simply obtain the technology that is required to accomplish the task. There was no implication otherwise.
The M11 is way past good enough for most applications that a miniature-format camera is suitable for. "Most", being the operative word. What other people do is their business.
Best,
Shane
