Since a rather long time I’m contemplating why I want a Leica M11, and I think I have found a couple of new, and valid reasons:What where the reasons why you got a Leica rangefinder?P.S. I am not a dentist.

I visualize as I walk without being glued to a viewfinderI bought a Q2 because the EVF allows me to clearly see what's going on.It's lighter than the M11 and FFIt has 47MP which is "adequate" as Rolls Royce used to say. My peers don't care about megapixels just well composed and well exposed images.I suspect autofocus is faster than a rangefinder, unless you zone focus all the time.I doubt I will be swayed by an M-anything.

Yes, the Q2 is also a great package, and available in the Reporter edition, which the M11 unfortunately isn’t.But I guess next year there will be some new special editions?

I wanted a M because I grew up using a rangefinder. I have always preferred them to SLRs.I find is is a more deliberate process than using a modern autofocus camera. Granted the M10-R is a digital camera but it delivers a very different experience than my CL even when I have theM mount lenses attached to the CAL.I like the compactness and solid feel to the camera.

My reason was the simplest possible: I wanted to try rangefinder as my everyday and travel camera because of their size and weight. Leica M11 was the best option on the market. That's all.I thought about Q2 and even two Q2's: color and monochrome for even lower budget I have M11 + 35mm f/1.4 now, but 28mm is not my favourite focal length such as no ability to change it reduces flexibility. It was a bit scary to stay with manual focus only but 35mm appeared to be really awesome and fast.After almost half a year and 3-weeks-long vacation I have a proof of that concept and totally glad I made that decisionThe only problem I met I cannot solve with manual focusing lenses and rangefinder camera: you can't give it to somebody to make photo of you - it will mostly possible cause more problems. But iPhone in the pocket helps here so everything is fine

Shooters on My Squad wrote:Since a rather long time I’m contemplating why I want a Leica M11, and I think I have found a couple of new, and valid reasons:What where the reasons why you got a Leica rangefinder?P.S. I am not a dentist.Good valid reasons!For me, I wanted a top notch full frame range finder manual experience. I waited 2 years ( with Xpro 3) to make sure it was not just GAS. Made the jump finally and am extremely satisfied!https://www.flickr.com/photos/183079213@N06/

I want a small and light system, preferably with OVF instead of EVF, with simple use and great ergonomics. I also love Leica’s Perspective Control.P.S.: I am the only non-dentist in my family 😂.

nonicks wrote:For me, I wanted a top notch full frame range finder manual experience. I waited 2 years ( with Xpro 3) to make sure it was not just GAS. Made the jump finally and am extremely satisfied!https://www.flickr.com/photos/183079213@N06/This is similar to my path. I use the X-Pro3 for about a year now. It’s a great camera, don’t get me wrong, but it is a rangefinder “like” camera and this won’t give you the full experience of a rangefinder. While it has a digital prism, and similar tools, I rather tend to use it with focus peaking, basically as any other modern ILC camera, and not like a real rangefinder.To state the obvious: The X-Pro3 is great, but it will never be a M11

Shooters on My Squad wrote:Since a rather long time I’m contemplating why I want a Leica M11, and I think I have found a couple of new, and valid reasons:I added a few comments, not to criticize your points, but maybe some things to think about.How do you think the small OVF, which doesnt show the image from the lens, will help you with better visualization?The Sigma fp-L is smaller and also 61MP.There are other cameras with lots of MP. To be honest, in general, nobody cares about it (outside of gear forums)Did you use a M-camera before?If not, maybe (financially) safer to start with e.g. an M240 to see if you can get around with the process.If you do, then why do you need to find all kinds of excuses to purchase a new cameraIf you want one, it's totally cool.What where the reasons why you got a Leica rangefinder?I wanted oneSpecifically I wanted the Monochrom, to go completely bare-bones: no autofocus, no colours, no reliable auto-exposure, no fast burst rate, etc. In addition, I planned to use it mostly with old lenses (1950ies and later went into 1930ies glass) So if a pic is screwed up, I'm to blame, but if a pic is great, I can take credit for it, no tech to fall back to. I found it very rewarding, and for 4 years it was my main camera (now it's the M246 and Ricoh GR3x)In order to reduce the financial risk, I started with an M8, which were still cheap at the time, to see if I'd like the process with a digital rangefinder. I did and soon afterwards I traded it in on the Mono at no loss.P.S. I am not a dentist.I have an appointment with the dentist soon, does that count?

Shooters on My Squad wrote:Since a rather long time I’m contemplating why I want a Leica M11, and I think I have found a couple of new, and valid reasons:What where the reasons why you got a Leica rangefinder?P.S. I am not a dentist.Sounds like you should get an M11!My reasons, not in any particular order (I have an M10 and an M4-P):If I could sum it up in just two ideas, I'd say that the M system combines incredible minimalism and simplicity with expansive opportunities for aesthetic variety. You can produce many kinds of pictures with a film M, a digital M, and various M lenses—and yet the experience of using the cameras is consistent and uncomplicated. It's a great combination.

Shooters on My Squad wrote:Since a rather long time I’m contemplating why I want a Leica M11, and I think I have found a couple of new, and valid reasons:What where the reasons why you got a Leica rangefinder?P.S. I am not a dentist.Sounds like you are looking for convincing motivation?If you can afford it do it, otherwise no sweat, there're so many photo cameras out there.

This is similar to my path. I use the X-Pro3 for about a year now. It’s a great camera, don’t get me wrong, but it is a rangefinder “like” camera and this won’t give you the full experience of a rangefinder.You may also want to check out the Pixii camera if you would like a modern camera with an optical range finder:https://pixii.fr/rangefinder

Why? Simply because I enjoy them.Modern cameras have far too much guff in them. Leica pares it back to the simple essentials.

Sjak wrote:Shooters on My Squad wrote:Since a rather long time I’m contemplating why I want a Leica M11, and I think I have found a couple of new, and valid reasons:I added a few comments, not to criticize your points, but maybe some things to think about.Thanks, this is something I was looking for. A little challenge for my mind just to get back to sanity.How do you think the small OVF, which doesnt show the image from the lens, will help you with better visualization?Huh, same as any other OVF (which in fact is the way I’m used to take photos, from my subjective perspective EVFs are an invention of modern times)?The Sigma fp-L is smaller and also 61MP.Sigma on the L mount? Naaah, thanks. Too niche, too strange, too freaky.There are other cameras with lots of MP. To be honest, in general, nobody cares about it (outside of gear forums)I would challenge this. For fine art, and when you have a crop workflow you certainly care about MP. I don’t crop more than ~5% on MFT, the photo has to be great from the beginning. But on FF? I don’t hesitate to crop to make a rather mediocre photo a keeper.If not, maybe (financially) safer to start with e.g. an M240 to see if you can get around with the process.Yes, the price compared to other bodies is rather on the expensive side (excluding Hassy & Phasy of course), but the general advice seems to be that if you can afford two Leicas then you’re good to go. Personally I usually do so much research upfront that I tend to be happy with my purchases, but this is definitely a good general advice for people who don’t behave like me.If you do, then why do you need to find all kinds of excuses to purchase a new cameraIf you want one, it's totally cool.I don’t want to find any excuses. I will solve this slightly too subtle riddle at the end of my postWhat where the reasons why you got a Leica rangefinder?I wanted oneSpecifically I wanted the Monochrom, to go completely bare-bones: no autofocus, no colours, no reliable auto-exposure, no fast burst rate, etc. In addition, I planned to use it mostly with old lenses (1950ies and later went into 1930ies glass) So if a pic is screwed up, I'm to blame, but if a pic is great, I can take credit for it, no tech to fall back to. I found it very rewarding, and for 4 years it was my main camera (now it's the M246 and Ricoh GR3x)Thanks for the insights! There are many similarities to my train of thought.In order to reduce the financial risk, I started with an M8, which were still cheap at the time, to see if I'd like the process with a digital rangefinder. I did and soon afterwards I traded it in on the Mono at no loss.P.S. I am not a dentist.I have an appointment with the dentist soon, does that count?Haha, sure. My postscript was (in hindsight a slightly too subtle) reference to the official Leica M320 D (dentist microscope) website. For the bullet points I basically copy & pasted their marketing copy, and added some references to the M11 to make it more believable. This shows me that Leica marketing is indeed pretty good, haha. But the main point is that I did neither need a justification why I should buy the M11 (or any other material thing, that is), nor I’m in search for arguments. It is interesting to hear the motivation of other Leica users to see if there is at least some alignment, and the thread so far shows me that I’m not completely bonkers (but maybe a little bit, which is pretty normal I think).I love photography. Life is too short, I don’t know what will happen tomorrow. I love it so much that I want to experience it by its fullest, and Leica is just a part of photography, there is no denial in that. There is no rational reason, and there doesn’t need to be one. It is as simple as that for me.Now the big question is grip, or leather case? See, they already have me

aknyc wrote:Sounds like you are looking for convincing motivation?Neither, I was just trying to get a feeling what others motivated to get a Leica, and if there’s some alignment in the thought process. Something along the lines: I want to get a M11 to shoot BIF with a 600 mm. What, are you completely bonkers? There is no such reaction so far, so it looks like I did my research, which is somehow a small affirmation, but no motivational push at all.If you can afford it do it, otherwise no sweat, there're so many photo cameras out there.Exactly. But the saying goes: If you can afford two, do it! Right?

allineedislight wrote:This is similar to my path. I use the X-Pro3 for about a year now. It’s a great camera, don’t get me wrong, but it is a rangefinder “like” camera and this won’t give you the full experience of a rangefinder.You may also want to check out the Pixii camera if you would like a modern camera with an optical range finder:https://pixii.fr/rangefinderThanks! I already took a look at these cameras a couple of times, but they just don’t look attractive to me for what they offer. I would rather add one or two grand, and get a used Leica instead.

JoshuaR wrote:My reasons, not in any particular order (I have an M10 and an M4-P):Yes, I also think that the images produced by the Leica M bodies & lenses have a special character & rendering to them. I don’t know if this is something subjective that I just believe, because no camera body or lens review touches these very subjective topics, or if no review mentions it, because it is very hard to measure scientifically, but it is indeed present. In the end it doesn’t really matter. The most important thing is that I like the output, and the process of getting there.Before I started to get interested in the Leica M system, I wasn’t really aware of the amount of lenses (modern & historical) that are available. I’m not a huge fan of post-processing, and I rather prefer a lens to have some “character”, so this is indeed a huge treasure I’ve discovered.Yes! While EVFs are great as you’ll immediately know how your output will look like, they also somehow disconnect you from the world by putting a computer screen in front of your face. I wouldn’t want to change my Canon R5 & Canon L lenses for commercial work where I need to deliver, and don’t want to get in trouble with paying customers. At the same time I realize that a Leica M isn’t the first body for many photographers (though many reduce their photography journey to the minimum the more they use the rangefinder, but this is not my intention).If I could sum it up in just two ideas, I'd say that the M system combines incredible minimalism and simplicity with expansive opportunities for aesthetic variety. You can produce many kinds of pictures with a film M, a digital M, and various M lenses—and yet the experience of using the cameras is consistent and uncomplicated. It's a great combination.😍

Shooters on My Squad wrote:Sjak wrote:Shooters on My Squad wrote:Since a rather long time I’m contemplating why I want a Leica M11, and I think I have found a couple of new, and valid reasons:I added a few comments, not to criticize your points, but maybe some things to think about.Thanks, this is something I was looking for. A little challenge for my mind just to get back to sanity.How do you think the small OVF, which doesnt show the image from the lens, will help you with better visualization?Huh, same as any other OVF (which in fact is the way I’m used to take photos, from my subjective perspective EVFs are an invention of modern times)?Sorry, my comment wasn't clearly wordedI was not referring to EVF, but specifically to the OVF on the M. The OVF of a DSLR shows you what the lens sees. The OVF of a rangefinder shows you some approximation, with framing lines that are not very accurate and only help to estimate the framing.Sigma on the L mount? Naaah, thanks. Too niche, too strange, too freaky.Yeah, it's a nice but niche cameraThere are other cameras with lots of MP. To be honest, in general, nobody cares about it (outside of gear forums)I would challenge this. For fine art, and when you have a crop workflow you certainly care about MP. I don’t crop more than ~5% on MFT, the photo has to be great from the beginning. But on FF? I don’t hesitate to crop to make a rather mediocre photo a keeper.Sorry, I thought you were referring to friends & family, who in my experience don't care about the technicalities & specs. If you like to have a lot of MP for your workflow, then of course it's a good reason to check cameras with lots of MPs.Thanks for the insights! There are many similarities to my train of thought.I think you will enjoy it, and if you can easily absorb the cost, then why not?the thread so far shows me that I’m not completely bonkers (but maybe a little bit, which is pretty normal I think)....or it may show you're as bonkers as we areI love photography. Life is too short, I don’t know what will happen tomorrow. I love it so much that I want to experience it by its fullest, and Leica is just a part of photography, there is no denial in that. There is no rational reason, and there doesn’t need to be one. It is as simple as that for me.For me the most important for a camera is that I enjoy using it; a few MPs more or less, or all kinds of featurs don't matter; if I don't enjoy the experience of a camera, it tends to stay home.Now the big question is grip, or leather case? See, they already have meA leather half-case from Luigi

Shooters on My Squad wrote:allineedislight wrote:This is similar to my path. I use the X-Pro3 for about a year now. It’s a great camera, don’t get me wrong, but it is a rangefinder “like” camera and this won’t give you the full experience of a rangefinder.You may also want to check out the Pixii camera if you would like a modern camera with an optical range finder:https://pixii.fr/rangefinderThanks! I already took a look at these cameras a couple of times, but they just don’t look attractive to me for what they offer. I would rather add one or two grand, and get a used Leica instead.Yup. Agree. Pixii is a very interesting concept and I respect their approach. However a few things turn me off ( learned from what I read…) on top of its look.1. Sony APSC sensor… why not put a FF sensor in there?2. No mechanical feedback for shutter .. all electronic.3. Lower quality (dimmer and shorter) range finder patch4. AWB seems way off sometimes… only because I care about SOOC JPEG. It may not apply to people who shoot DNG only.5. Small / tiny community if any … for exchanging opinions, sharing experiences and feedback, problem shooting, local support etc.6. Have to use phone to check images… continuous connection drains both batteries ( phone and camera), right?Back to the look… the front reminds me the M5 and Minilux… which is not what I like either.So I reached the same conclusion as yours. I rather pay a thousand or two more to get a used m10, m10p or m10R.

1) Love rangefinders - Leica the pinnacle in this genre2) I am primarily a street/travel photographer - form factor is perfect.3) Gave up carrying larger DLSR bodies years ago and went Fuji - enjoyed a lot but was unhappy with the range of lenses and the manual focus by wire feel on many of them. Leica is an incredible manual focusing experience - especially with the focus tab.4) Had not invested in the previous Ms for a number of reasons. The updates (USB-C, better battery life, lighter weight, better menu system/rear screen, amazing sensor) pushed me over the edge. In particular, the 60MP sensor allows me to crop to a third of my image and still get excellent results - effectively a 100mm lens in that sense (yes I know not the same exactly)5) Wanted to put an end to my GAS. Mission accomplished