Bill Pierce
Well-known
The Leica rangefinder camera has been around for a long time. It was not only the first 35mm rangefinder, it outlasted the competition from Zeiss, Nikon and Canon. It has been the primary working tool for a lot of photographers. It certainly was mine. There was a time when I had 3 around my neck, 3 more backing those up in case of theft or breakdown when I was on an out-the-country assignment for a few months and 3 with Norm Goldberg getting maintenance, lubrication and rangefinder checks. The M11 casts $9,000. Leica M lenses range from $2,400 for a 28/2.8 to $14,300 for a 75/1.25. That’s a little more than the $200 I used to pay for a lightly used M film body. And it asks the question is the current Leica worth it?
And the answer is, it depends. For one thing, it depends on how and what you are interested in photographing. The bright line finder has frame lines for lenses from 28 to 135mm, but the fixed magnification of the bright frame finder means that the longer lenses have relatively small viewfinder images. And Leitz has always been honest about the rangefinder’s ability to accurately focus longer lenses at large maximum apertures. The bright line finder that lets you see what is happening outside of the frame with an image that is sharp from close to distant is often heralded as an advantage for street and news photography. In truth, if you are working in that 35 to 75mm range that works well with the bright line finder, almost any picture situation, even a landscape, benefits from the ability to see what is just outside the frame and reframe if advisable. It also has to be said that Fuji offers two excellent APS-c cameras with bright line finders at a much lower price than the full frame M11.
For longer lenses, there is an accessory electronic viewfinder, the Visoflex, that. like the mirror housing predecessor of the film Leicas, allows for through the lens focusing and viewing. It’s not only excellent for longer lenses, it provides focusing accuracy for those high aperture lenses that strain the rangefinder’s accuracy. But, once again, it has to be pointed out that the two bright-line Fujis can also provide through the lens viewing and both manual and auto focusing.
The M11 provides 60mg files with the option of shooting at smaller sizes. In general this has been touted as an advantage if you want to make giant prints. I find a lot of cameras with less megapixels make good large prints if you don’t feel that you have to press your nose against them. The real advantage that I find is the ability to crop. A good lens, accurate focus, no camera motion along with a high megapixel sensor can allow for considerable cropping. Consider the Leica Q2 with a fixed 28mm lens and viewfinder frames and jpg cropping for 35mm, 50mm and 75mm frames. That said, the M11 is not the only camera with a lot of megapixels.
Leitz can’t make all the components for their digital cameras as they did for their film cameras. There were some problems with earlier cameras, but those seem to be gone. I never had a film Leica wear out in spite of heavy usage sometimes under rough conditions. I think you can probably say the same for the M11. I suspect your grandchildren will be able to use that old M11 you pass down to them. Will there be shiny new cameras with features the M11 doesn’t have? Of course, there are already. But there is something to be said for a single, simple camera, even limited, that becomes so familiar that you use it without thinking about it. Instead, you think about what is in front of it whether it’s your family and friends, your travels, your job or your hobby.
That’s right, I don’t think that M11 user has to always be interested in photography, just interested in what they photograph. It’s the kind of simple, long lasting camera that has limitations but is really good at simply documenting something, good for a certain kind of photographer but also good for the person whose primary interest is in the subject. And has a lot of money… Most photographers can get cameras with more features for less money. I think the days are passed where I could afford 9 Leica bodies. And there is the rub. At a time where digital cameras are still evolving and improving, albeit not as rapidly as they were, do you want to pay a high price for for a camera, one of whose major virtues is its long life? Your thoughts?
And the answer is, it depends. For one thing, it depends on how and what you are interested in photographing. The bright line finder has frame lines for lenses from 28 to 135mm, but the fixed magnification of the bright frame finder means that the longer lenses have relatively small viewfinder images. And Leitz has always been honest about the rangefinder’s ability to accurately focus longer lenses at large maximum apertures. The bright line finder that lets you see what is happening outside of the frame with an image that is sharp from close to distant is often heralded as an advantage for street and news photography. In truth, if you are working in that 35 to 75mm range that works well with the bright line finder, almost any picture situation, even a landscape, benefits from the ability to see what is just outside the frame and reframe if advisable. It also has to be said that Fuji offers two excellent APS-c cameras with bright line finders at a much lower price than the full frame M11.
For longer lenses, there is an accessory electronic viewfinder, the Visoflex, that. like the mirror housing predecessor of the film Leicas, allows for through the lens focusing and viewing. It’s not only excellent for longer lenses, it provides focusing accuracy for those high aperture lenses that strain the rangefinder’s accuracy. But, once again, it has to be pointed out that the two bright-line Fujis can also provide through the lens viewing and both manual and auto focusing.
The M11 provides 60mg files with the option of shooting at smaller sizes. In general this has been touted as an advantage if you want to make giant prints. I find a lot of cameras with less megapixels make good large prints if you don’t feel that you have to press your nose against them. The real advantage that I find is the ability to crop. A good lens, accurate focus, no camera motion along with a high megapixel sensor can allow for considerable cropping. Consider the Leica Q2 with a fixed 28mm lens and viewfinder frames and jpg cropping for 35mm, 50mm and 75mm frames. That said, the M11 is not the only camera with a lot of megapixels.
Leitz can’t make all the components for their digital cameras as they did for their film cameras. There were some problems with earlier cameras, but those seem to be gone. I never had a film Leica wear out in spite of heavy usage sometimes under rough conditions. I think you can probably say the same for the M11. I suspect your grandchildren will be able to use that old M11 you pass down to them. Will there be shiny new cameras with features the M11 doesn’t have? Of course, there are already. But there is something to be said for a single, simple camera, even limited, that becomes so familiar that you use it without thinking about it. Instead, you think about what is in front of it whether it’s your family and friends, your travels, your job or your hobby.
That’s right, I don’t think that M11 user has to always be interested in photography, just interested in what they photograph. It’s the kind of simple, long lasting camera that has limitations but is really good at simply documenting something, good for a certain kind of photographer but also good for the person whose primary interest is in the subject. And has a lot of money… Most photographers can get cameras with more features for less money. I think the days are passed where I could afford 9 Leica bodies. And there is the rub. At a time where digital cameras are still evolving and improving, albeit not as rapidly as they were, do you want to pay a high price for for a camera, one of whose major virtues is its long life? Your thoughts?
