Leica M11 and film lenses

[Andprayforrain]

Old thread, not sure what you decided, but I agree with ranger9 as the final result depends on both the lens and the sensor. That being said from your post here:



it looks like a Q2 would be a better option for you if the only thing that you miss from your camera is color.

I went with the Q2.

Here's what I want from Leica: a Q2-like camera with M-mount and no rangefinder. Before I die, please.

 

[Bad Example]

I am currently researching the Monochrom v M11. It's my understanding to elicit the full resolution from the 60megapixel chip, that the newer APO lenses are best. Makes sense. Although $9,000 + for a 50mm Summicron doesn't make much sense!

 

[martinsmith99]

Your thinking makes sense 🙂

 

[d_c]

All the lenses I'm using now on my M262 are 'film era'. I've had no problem with any of them in terms of their resolving ability, colour, etc, but I have had a retro-focussing problem with some of them wide open, i.e. they were focussing slightly behind where they were supposed to. This issue was something I experienced with a 35/f2 v4, a 50/f2 v4, and a 90/f2 v2, and it seemed consistent across only these lenses, whether the point of focus was determined by the rangefinder, or by scale focussing in a tripod setup measuring to the sensor plane. One plausible sounding explanation that I have read for this as an issue is that film era lenses were collimated to focus in the centre of the emulsion layer buildup on the film base, whereas the sensor is front face sensitivity only. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I do know that the problem with these lenses has been resolved for me by getting them serviced and re-collimated by Leica, which also means that they are now all 6-bit coded.

 

[David Hughes]

I think the answer to this question is a couple of questions; namely (1) what are you going to do with the pictures and (2) will you do it to all of them or just a few?

I ask because very few of us print everything and - the lab. people tell me - most are happy with 4" x 6". You may of course have a printer at home but these days mine only prints to A4 and to use the full frame that means under about 7⅔" by about 11½" allowing for a margin. That makes the digital cameras over 8 megapixels overkill.

And it gets worse, look at pictures only on the monitor and the computer system will reduce them to fit the monitor. That might mean the pictures from a 2 megapixel camera would be overkill.

Regardless of what they tell you a lot of what we see as quality depends on the size of the print or monitor. Do them 5 x 7 and most lenses will seem very good to excellent; do them 12ft wide and you can guess as well as I can.

Another factor is that the pixels at the edge of the picture are the ones people worry about but as they seldom print them I wonder why. That's because 8 x 10 is very popular and that's the edges chopped off of what should be 8 by 12 to use the full frame.

The last point I'd make is that on forums these technical things matter a lot and generate a lot of responses but in the real world very few people notice them. The picture I have printed most in all sizes up to A3+ is nothing like the best I've done but people like it mostly for the subject matter. The same applies to my website where the most popular picture appals me as it was done in a hurry to answer a point on a forum. And if you want a true answer backed by hard cash look at ebay and see how bad a picture can be and still sell things by the dozen...

Regards, David

 

[ptpdprinter]

I think the answer to this question is a couple of questions; namely (1) what are you going to do with the pictures and (2) will you do it to all of them or just a few?

I ask because very few of us print everything and - the lab. people tell me - most are happy with 4" x 6". You may of course have a printer at home but these days mine only prints to A4 and to use the full frame that means under about 7⅔" by about 11½" allowing for a margin. That makes the digital cameras over 8 megapixels overkill.

And it gets worse, look at pictures only on the monitor and the computer system will reduce them to fit the monitor. That might mean the pictures from a 2 megapixel camera would be overkill.

Regardless of what they tell you a lot of what we see as quality depends on the size of the print or monitor. Do them 5 x 7 and most lenses will seem very good to excellent; do them 12ft wide and you can guess as well as I can.

Another factor is that the pixels at the edge of the picture are the ones people worry about but as they seldom print them I wonder why. That's because 8 x 10 is very popular and that's the edges chopped off of what should be 8 by 12 to use the full frame.

The last point I'd make is that on forums these technical things matter a lot and generate a lot of responses but in the real world very few people notice them. The picture I have printed most in all sizes up to A3+ is nothing like the best I've done but people like it mostly for the subject matter. The same applies to my website where the most popular picture appals me as it was done in a hurry to answer a point on a forum. And if you want a true answer backed by hard cash look at ebay and see how bad a picture can be and still sell things by the dozen...

Regards, David

Sounds like some great arguments for just using your phone,

 

[David Hughes]

Sounds like some great arguments for just using your phone,

A lot of people do and just look what a competent photographer can squeeze out of just any old camera. A few of us try it now and then just in case we forget how to take a photograph...

Regards, David