Opinions on electronic frameline illumination on M10 and M11

[justins7]

I finally got a chance to see an M10 and M11 at the local Leica store in NYC. I'm a long-time M3, M6 and M9 user and was curious about the newer electronic frameline illumination.

To me it seems like the change is so unnecessary. What was wrong with the 70-year-old mechanical window, which added to the mechanical beauty of the design? Now you have to turn it on to see the framelines. I never had trouble seeing the lines in darkness before.

The salesman claimed the framelines were "more accurate" now. I asked how they could be more accurate just because they are brighter but he didn't respond. He also claimed that it was now one less space for dust to enter, without that window (a dubious claim).

It seems to me that Leica could've used it as an opportunity to improve the framelines, such as by using more elegant and simpler lines (the 50 is currently chopped off on the bottom) and separate framelines instead of grouped.

Opinions?

 

[santino]

It is probably cheaper.

 

[boojum]

I have not seen or handled an M10 or M11. And there will always be opinions about how Leica could be doing a better job. That said I would suggest that frame lines are not as important as what they are describing. Leica could possibly improve their color science. There are cameras with better color. So rather than shuffling the chrome on the new car lets see them make the new car with a better engine.

 

[EarlJam]

M6 TTL and M10 owner here. The M10 framelines are fine as is, nice and bright under all ambient lighting conditions. The one negative to the LED backlight is that you can't casually preview compositions with the camera "off". Not a deal breaker, just something that can be casually annoying if one is shooting with both film and digital bodies at the same time.

Re imager color characteristics, to my eye the M10 sensor behaves a lot like Ektachrome, albeit with a lot more dynamic range in the RAW files. Just slightly on the cold/blue side of the spectrum, but easily corrected with a RAW editor.

 

[Evergreen States]

It's admittedly small potatoes, but as a longtime Fuji X-Pro user, the electronic frame lines bug me, as I have to turn the camera on to preview a composition in the viewfinder. Leica doing it when they've had almost a century of precedent using projected frame lines makes little sense to me. I'm far from a purist (I celebrated the M11 FINALLY ditching the baseplate you have to remove) but what was actually gained here?

 

[Freakscene]

I hugely prefer the electronic framelines; I use the cameras in places where I often couldn’t see the externally illuminated ones at all.



The idea of ‘mechanical beauty’ when it’s on the front of a digital camera, which is essentially a computer, might be in your thinking and Leica’s marketing, but the notion that Leicas are objects of mechanical excellence ended a long time ago with the M4-2. They’re just mass produced cameras, nice cameras, but like every engineered object they have advantages and disadvantages.

I agree that being able to select the framelines better would be a huge advantage; particularly uncoupling the 50 and 75 framelines would be great. But I also think that an M mount mirrorless digital with an evf and proper responsiveness like a film M is the way to go to make it a better tool for photography; the problem is I really use my Ms, whereas many Leica M buyers (and I’m not saying this is you) seem to purchase them as fetish objects and get offended at the notion of disrupting the heritage or, indeed, the ‘mechanical excellence’.

Marty

 

[JohnWolf]

I don’t see much functional difference on the M10. Although I sometimes forget that I have to turn the camera on to see how something might frame.

Maybe they intended to move a small step closer to a fully electronic rangefinder mechanism. Doesn’t that seem inevitable?

John

 

[AveryWagg]

I have a 50-year old M4 that I bought new 50 years ago. The frame lines in are just fine. I just bought an M11 a few months ago and it took me a few weeks to figure out that the frame lines were electronic. Don't know why they'd do it. I mean, they didn't even ask me!

..Avery

 

[boojum]

Sometimes I think that Leica is trapped in a Zeno's Paradox. Approaching the wall by halves is one interpretation of the paradox. Each move is half the previous one in its approach to the wall (perfection or close to it). The arrival is in infinite time or impossible. Unless the rate of travel is static in which case the diminishing distances mean nothing. OK, a tangent. But Barnack built a good camera with little room for improvement. The III f and M-3 were great cameras. I like the M-8/M-9's a lot for their color. OK, the shutters could be quieter, and the M-9 sensor cover corroded and some wish for bigger sensors but as they are these two cameras have stood the test of time. And while their successors have changes there are no major differences I can see.

So Leica seems bound to the M series as what will pay the rent and keep the lights on. It is a good camera and has been refined and is reliable. Is that enough?

 

[jbielikowski]

At least the preview lever is back, that was a real PITA on the M240.

 

[Richard G]

I really dislike my CCD Leica 50 frame lines. I have to very carefully frame and think about the lower frame edge which to me is almost not there. Not so with M2 to M6. Sounds like the clutter and distraction is no better with M10-11. I guess I need to return to using the 50 more. I toyed with putting my SBOOI finder on last week. For a day shooting 50 for something fast and important I reckon I would.

 

[Freakscene]

I really dislike my CCD Leica 50 frame lines. I have to very carefully frame and think about the lower frame edge which to me is almost not there. Not so with M2 to M6. Sounds like the clutter and distraction is no better with M10-11. I guess I need to return to using the 50 more. I toyed with putting my SBOOI finder on last week. For a day shooting 50 for something fast and important I reckon I would.

This, sadly, is caused by a combination of decisions about the distance and framing/coverage for the projected frames, and the space needed at the bottom of the viewfinder, combined with Leica’s decision to retain the same rangefinder/viewfinder architecture. Whether it is natural light or leds illuminating the framelines, the problem would remain.

The framelines are too vague for me to use as anything other than an guide to framing, but all my lenses have got enough out of spec in the last almost 4 years that I’m not using the rangefinder or the viewfinder much because it isn’t very good for focus. I need to decide about what to do about that.

 

[maddoc]

I have just briefly used a friend's M10 Monochrome and M10R, the electronic frame lines don't bother me but the combined EVF/OVF system of my Fujifilm Xpro-3 is way better, IMO. All necessary information available in the VF, frame lines that change size according to the focal length (and distance?), an optional small EVF for focusing, easy AF-override by just turning the focus ring. Electronic transmission of the distance setting of the lens to the camera. I use mechanical film M cameras since 2006 but had enough problems with RF calibration (Noctilux ...) and now much prefer the system implemented by Fujifilm.