nonicks wrote: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?All of this is pure speculation, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think there are mainly two reasons: price & availability. Maybe Pixii as such a small company can’t source enough sensors, or at that quantity they are just too expensive to run a viable business. This isn’t only about sensor size, though. If you take Canon’s product line then you’ll see that they have FF bodies with a worse IQ than some of their APS-C bodies. So maybe they could source a cheaper FF sensor, but this would eventually mean that they would need to sacrifice IQ. When they use higher-end FF sensors they probably need to be similarly priced to a Leica, and I guess there is no room in this market segment for two players. It’s a shame, because they have a pretty interesting idea. I would still consider it very conceptual, although they sell it as a regular, finished camera body.2. No mechanical feedback for shutter .. all electronic.3. Lower quality (dimmer and shorter) range finder patchThis is something I wasn’t aware of, but it is good to know.4. AWB seems way off sometimes… only because I care about SOOC JPEG. It may not apply to people who shoot DNG only.I get it as a JPEG+RAW shooter who wants to have everything perfect just after pressing the shutter button.5. Small / tiny community if any … for exchanging opinions, sharing experiences and feedback, problem shooting, local support etc.Yes, it feels like there would be literally a dozen Pixii users out there.6. Have to use phone to check images… continuous connection drains both batteries ( phone and camera), right?Exactly. And this also implies that you have your smartphone always with you. But what if you want to go out without a phone, just with a smartwatch & camera?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.It is interesting that Pixii had so much courage to enter a market that Leica basically declared as unprofitable, with FF being the (Leica) future. I wonder if there is enough of a market for one company to survive, but Pixii somehow seems to manage it, and they are not here since yesterday. The more choices, the better, but I have to agree with you.

PeeterC wrote:5) Wanted to put an end to my GAS. Mission accomplishedThis is dangerous, as I think it could easily run in the other directionYeah, that monochrome sensor. OK, a couple more lenses would be nice, too. Ha, ha.

Hmmm......Pears never had anything to do with my decision to buy a Leica....but to each their own 😉

Shooters on My Squad wrote:nonicks wrote: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?All of this is pure speculation, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think there are mainly two reasons: price & availability. Maybe Pixii as such a small company can’t source enough sensors, or at that quantity they are just too expensive to run a viable business. This isn’t only about sensor size, though. If you take Canon’s product line then you’ll see that they have FF bodies with a worse IQ than some of their APS-C bodies. So maybe they could source a cheaper FF sensor, but this would eventually mean that they would need to sacrifice IQ. When they use higher-end FF sensors they probably need to be similarly priced to a Leica, and I guess there is no room in this market segment for two players. It’s a shame, because they have a pretty interesting idea. I would still consider it very conceptual, although they sell it as a regular, finished camera body.Thank you for pointing it out. You are right. Although some said it's from SONY, it is not confirmed officially. So it has to be taken with a grain of salt. And Yes you are right about the sensor quality. And that 26MP BSI sensor is rated very high indeed.2. No mechanical feedback for shutter .. all electronic.3. Lower quality (dimmer and shorter) range finder patchThis is something I wasn’t aware of, but it is good to know.4. AWB seems way off sometimes… only because I care about SOOC JPEG. It may not apply to people who shoot DNG only.I get it as a JPEG+RAW shooter who wants to have everything perfect just after pressing the shutter button.5. Small / tiny community if any … for exchanging opinions, sharing experiences and feedback, problem shooting, local support etc.Yes, it feels like there would be literally a dozen Pixii users out there.6. Have to use phone to check images… continuous connection drains both batteries ( phone and camera), right?Exactly. And this also implies that you have your smartphone always with you. But what if you want to go out without a phone, just with a smartwatch & camera?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.It is interesting that Pixii had so much courage to enter a market that Leica basically declared as unprofitable, with FF being the (Leica) future. I wonder if there is enough of a market for one company to survive, but Pixii somehow seems to manage it, and they are not here since yesterday. The more choices, the better, but I have to agree with you.Yup, the more choices the better. I hope they will succeed.

Travellingfrank wrote:Hmmm......Pears never had anything to do with my decision to buy a Leica....but to each their own 😉Some people started to shoot pears just to realize that something is off with the colors. Their long research showed them that they’re only satisfied with photos of pears that show nice Leica colors, have an astounding micro-contrast, and pop out of the photo like you would want to eat them immediately. So juicyP. S. I do not base my decision on pears, but it is nice to have a fruitful discussion.

My reasons are the same as 40 years ago with my first M, the M4. Boring reasons admittedly but the same way as the M4 then, the M11 is simply the best modern camera for M lenses. We could not use our M lenses in TTL mode in the seventies. We had to use different cameras or a Visoflex housing for that and the latter could not use M lenses as is but only the optical part of some of them. As a result, we had at least two camera systems then, M and R bodies and lenses for Leica users, let alone other camera brands which were mostly TTL. The novelty did not come with digital per se but with live view allowing to use M lenses in both RF and TTL mode with M240, M10 and M11 cameras. The LV mode was more or less sluggish on M240 and M10 but the M11 and its electronic Visoflex allow to use M lenses the same way as on mirrorless cameras with the added benefits of RF mode and a BSI sensor dedicated to M lenses. M11 users can now use modern and legacy M lenses with no significant limitation, except the absence of built-in EVF and autofocus adapter but this is another story. Best, LCT

LCT wrote:M11 users can now use modern and legacy M lenses with no significant limitation, except the absence of built-in EVF and autofocus adapter but this is another story.Leica is apparently considering some kind of built-in / hybrid VF for upcoming M bodies similar to the Fujifilm X-Pro3, but at the same time they were somehow dissatisfied with the X-Pro3 solution (which I can understand).The hybrid VF is nice, but it starts to get a little bit too hectic when you have to constantly switch your eyes between the OVF in the center and the small screen in the bottom right corner to get your focus right. It is a constant fight between focus & composition. I’ve also found that focus peaking is my preferred way on the Fuji, as all of the other digital RF simulations are mostly gimmicks, and basically only work when you use the EVF instead of the OVF.I wonder what Leica could invent to make the experience more pleasurable as focussing seems to be an issue with hybrid VFs in general.

Shooters on My Squad wrote:LCT wrote:M11 users can now use modern and legacy M lenses with no significant limitation, except the absence of built-in EVF and autofocus adapter but this is another story.Leica is apparently considering some kind of built-in / hybrid VF for upcoming M bodies similar to the Fujifilm X-Pro3, but at the same time they were somehow dissatisfied with the X-Pro3 solution (which I can understand).The hybrid VF is nice, but it starts to get a little bit too hectic when you have to constantly switch your eyes between the OVF in the center and the small screen in the bottom right corner to get your focus right. It is a constant fight between focus & composition. I’ve also found that focus peaking is my preferred way on the Fuji, as all of the other digital RF simulations are mostly gimmicks, and basically only work when you use the EVF instead of the OVF.I wonder what Leica could invent to make the experience more pleasurable as focussing seems to be an issue with hybrid VFs in general.Several years ago, Leica evaluated a hybrid OVF/EVF and rejected it. Leica would only half-heartedly consider implementing an M-mount camera with a built-in EVF (no hybrid). The interest in an EVF-only M camera is being estimated.

SrMi wrote:Several years ago, Leica evaluated a hybrid OVF/EVF and rejected it. Leica would only half-heartedly consider implementing an M-mount camera with a built-in EVF (no hybrid). The interest in an EVF-only M camera is being estimated.So basically two models, one with an OVF, the other one with a built-in EVF, and you buy what serves you best?

Shooters on My Squad wrote:SrMi wrote:Several years ago, Leica evaluated a hybrid OVF/EVF and rejected it. Leica would only half-heartedly consider implementing an M-mount camera with a built-in EVF (no hybrid). The interest in an EVF-only M camera is being estimated.So basically two models, one with an OVF, the other one with a built-in EVF, and you buy what serves you best?I think that as soon as you postulate two models of the  same camera with minor differences to suit subsets of users, you’re in trouble - especially as a small company (yes - I know about the XH2/2S…).

Shooters on My Squad wrote:SrMi wrote:Several years ago, Leica evaluated a hybrid OVF/EVF and rejected it. Leica would only half-heartedly consider implementing an M-mount camera with a built-in EVF (no hybrid). The interest in an EVF-only M camera is being estimated.So basically two models, one with an OVF, the other one with a built-in EVF, and you buy what serves you best?Only if Leica concludes that there is enough demand, and the project survives internal discussions. An EVF only M feels kind of wrong, though I would buy one, but not as a replacement.

LCT wrote:[...] the M11 and its electronic Visoflex allow to use M lenses the same way as on mirrorless cameras with the added benefits of RF mode and a BSI sensor dedicated to M lenses. M11 users can now use modern and legacy M lenses with no significant limitation [...]I forgot the lack of IBIS which drives me to use 1/(2f)s shutter speeds to avoid camera shake at 60mp on the M11. Not a big deal but slow shutter speeds should be usable the same way on digital and film M's IMHO. Best, LCT

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.I have owned cameras since 1998 ish. Sony, Fuji, Cannon, Rioch, Q2 etc.The Leica M is the only camera body that is a different experience. An experience that I prefer and enjoy.The Leica Q2 or a Sony A7r* are both the same camera with a different lens and menus. The Leica M however is a unique and liberating experience IMO.That reason alone is why I am with Leica M series cameras. I still own other brands but the M is what I reach for unless I 100% need video or AF.Cheers

Thanks. One of my worries was that a M11 will be an expensive “good weather camera” (like a drop top as your third car that you only drive when the sun is shining), but as I see it doesn’t have to be like that

Shooters on My Squad wrote:Travellingfrank wrote:Hmmm......Pears never had anything to do with my decision to buy a Leica....but to each their own 😉Some people started to shoot pears just to realize that something is off with the colors. Their long research showed them that they’re only satisfied with photos of pears that show nice Leica colors, have an astounding micro-contrast, and pop out of the photo like you would want to eat them immediately. So juicyP. S. I do not base my decision on pears, but it is nice to have a fruitful discussion.Nicely put 👍

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.Very clever to hide a little - what are those hidden items in movies called now - Easter Egg in your original text.I had a look at your gear and found no hint of any Leica gear, so not a little "upgrade" you are after, but right into the dentist territory (price-wise that is!).Over the years I have also on occasion dabbled with the idea of a rangefinder. Have discussed this with others before, but apart from the high-end prices of lenses I felt like for what I could afford, he minimum focusing distance is what put me off getting one of them.And, just reading your post, if you want to "increase your photography efficiency" and "get faster to a photo, instead of fiddling around", you should maybe consider a SONY A7C. Seriously: set it to continuous auto-focus, activate eye AF, if you like and concentrate on your framing. Naturally the experience is not even remotely the same, but since you are used to GRIIIs, MFT etc you should feel right at home. Small package and fabulous auto-focus. Even the colours are not bad ...Just saying ...Some of the lenses for that system aren't too shabby either ...Note: I am all for Leica Rangefinder, but efficient and fast without some considerable training would seem like a bit of an oddity. I know people who shoot Leica who claim that a Summilux F1.4 isn't that easy to focus on a moving subject, even with training. I used to shoot dancers and have an idea what he was talking about.Devil's Advocate isn't for everybody though, I understand that!Deed

deednets 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:What where the reasons why you got a Leica rangefinder?P.S. I am not a dentist.Very clever to hide a little - what are those hidden items in movies called now - Easter Egg in your original text.I had a look at your gear and found no hint of any Leica gear, so not a little "upgrade" you are after, but right into the dentist territory (price-wise that is!).Over the years I have also on occasion dabbled with the idea of a rangefinder. Have discussed this with others before, but apart from the high-end prices of lenses I felt like for what I could afford, he minimum focusing distance is what put me off getting one of them.And, just reading your post, if you want to "increase your photography efficiency" and "get faster to a photo, instead of fiddling around", you should maybe consider a SONY A7C. Seriously: set it to continuous auto-focus, activate eye AF, if you like and concentrate on your framing. Naturally the experience is not even remotely the same, but since you are used to GRIIIs, MFT etc you should feel right at home. Small package and fabulous auto-focus. Even the colours are not bad ...Just saying ...Some of the lenses for that system aren't too shabby either ...Note: I am all for Leica Rangefinder, but efficient and fast without some considerable training would seem like a bit of an oddity. I know people who shoot Leica who claim that a Summilux F1.4 isn't that easy to focus on a moving subject, even with training. I used to shoot dancers and have an idea what he was talking about.Devil's Advocate isn't for everybody though, I understand that!DeedI own Sony cameras, and the photographic experience is not comparable to Leica Ms.The "inconvenience" of MF and rangefinder is not for everyone, but if it fits you, nothing will be able to replace it.

deednets wrote:I had a look at your gear and found no hint of any Leica gear, so not a little "upgrade" you are after, but right into the dentist territory (price-wise that is!).Yes, I don’t consider the Leica an upgrade, more of an alternative. I understand the price reference, because the M11 isn’t your regular P&S that is stocked in every regular electronics department. It is rather in the higher end of the (photography) spectrum. I don’t want to elaborate further on that as everybody has different living conditions and needs to budget differently.Over the years I have also on occasion dabbled with the idea of a rangefinder. Have discussed this with others before, but apart from the high-end prices of lenses I felt like for what I could afford, he minimum focusing distance is what put me off getting one of them.Sure, I can understand that. I think I already have more than enough gear for the situations where I need to focus closer, and this isn’t really my focus these days.And, just reading your post, if you want to "increase your photography efficiency" and "get faster to a photo, instead of fiddling around", you should maybe consider a SONY A7C.The marketing is still working.Seriously: set it to continuous auto-focus, activate eye AF, if you like and concentrate on your framing. Naturally the experience is not even remotely the same, but since you are used to GRIIIs, MFT etc you should feel right at home. Small package and fabulous auto-focus. Even the colours are not bad ...I’m thankful for some new perspectives, but at the same time I find the Sony recommendation perplexing, especially if it relates to the gear list. Canon, Nikon, and Sony FF are almost interchangeable in my opinion. There are maybe some differences in the lens lineup, but usually every of these companies will eventually have a competing lens at some point in the future. Otherwise the differences are usually less than 5%. My main system is the Canon RF, I was a Canon exclusive shooter for two decades (almost). The oldest Canon camera I played with is the EOS 630 which is still lying around in an old camera bag, but no longer in use because of film. I am used to them. I earned much money on Canon gear. I see no reason for exchanging apples for apples.If Canon would cease to exist, I would most probably buy into Nikon. If Nikon would go bankrupt, then I would go the Sony route. I do respect their technical achievements, but my big fingers aren’t compatible with all the Sony bodies I’ve tried so far, and their ergonomics feel just awful.And yes, I like smaller cameras like the GR, or the MFT system. That’s why I’m interested in the M11. A relatively small, but sturdy body, and this fits right into the philosophy.Just saying ...Some of the lenses for that system aren't too shabby either ...Definitely, I would say they are great and within a small margin of error almost equivalent on all three mirrorless systems.I like the photo, the composition, the leading lines, despite having a heavy candid feeling to it. Plus that focal length 👍👍👍Note: I am all for Leica Rangefinder, but efficient and fast without some considerable training would seem like a bit of an oddity. I know people who shoot Leica who claim that a Summilux F1.4 isn't that easy to focus on a moving subject, even with training. I used to shoot dancers and have an idea what he was talking about.It’s not fast on a purely technical foundation, but efficient it is if you know how to operate the camera (isn’t this true for all cameras?). I am used to MF with the Voigtländer on the X-Pro3, and don’t really have any issues, although there are more OOF photos than with an AF lens. Plus there is always zone focus. No AF in the world will beat that.In the end I don’t consider a utilitarian MILC to be a substitution for a rangefinder.

Shooters on My Squad wrote:deednets wrote:I had a look at your gear and found no hint of any Leica gear, so not a little "upgrade" you are after, but right into the dentist territory (price-wise that is!).Yes, I don’t consider the Leica an upgrade, more of an alternative. I understand the price reference, because the M11 isn’t your regular P&S that is stocked in every regular electronics department. It is rather in the higher end of the (photography) spectrum. I don’t want to elaborate further on that as everybody has different living conditions and needs to budget differently.Over the years I have also on occasion dabbled with the idea of a rangefinder. Have discussed this with others before, but apart from the high-end prices of lenses I felt like for what I could afford, he minimum focusing distance is what put me off getting one of them.Sure, I can understand that. I think I already have more than enough gear for the situations where I need to focus closer, and this isn’t really my focus these days.And, just reading your post, if you want to "increase your photography efficiency" and "get faster to a photo, instead of fiddling around", you should maybe consider a SONY A7C.The marketing is still working.Seriously: set it to continuous auto-focus, activate eye AF, if you like and concentrate on your framing. Naturally the experience is not even remotely the same, but since you are used to GRIIIs, MFT etc you should feel right at home. Small package and fabulous auto-focus. Even the colours are not bad ...I’m thankful for some new perspectives, but at the same time I find the Sony recommendation perplexing, especially if it relates to the gear list. Canon, Nikon, and Sony FF are almost interchangeable in my opinion. There are maybe some differences in the lens lineup, but usually every of these companies will eventually have a competing lens at some point in the future. Otherwise the differences are usually less than 5%. My main system is the Canon RF, I was a Canon exclusive shooter for two decades (almost). The oldest Canon camera I played with is the EOS 630 which is still lying around in an old camera bag, but no longer in use because of film. I am used to them. I earned much money on Canon gear. I see no reason for exchanging apples for apples.If Canon would cease to exist, I would most probably buy into Nikon. If Nikon would go bankrupt, then I would go the Sony route. I do respect their technical achievements, but my big fingers aren’t compatible with all the Sony bodies I’ve tried so far, and their ergonomics feel just awful.And yes, I like smaller cameras like the GR, or the MFT system. That’s why I’m interested in the M11. A relatively small, but sturdy body, and this fits right into the philosophy.Just saying ...Some of the lenses for that system aren't too shabby either ...Definitely, I would say they are great and within a small margin of error almost equivalent on all three mirrorless systems.I like the photo, the composition, the leading lines, despite having a heavy candid feeling to it. Plus that focal length 👍👍👍Note: I am all for Leica Rangefinder, but efficient and fast without some considerable training would seem like a bit of an oddity. I know people who shoot Leica who claim that a Summilux F1.4 isn't that easy to focus on a moving subject, even with training. I used to shoot dancers and have an idea what he was talking about.It’s not fast on a purely technical foundation, but efficient it is if you know how to operate the camera (isn’t this true for all cameras?). I am used to MF with the Voigtländer on the X-Pro3, and don’t really have any issues, although there are more OOF photos than with an AF lens. Plus there is always zone focus. No AF in the world will beat that.In the end I don’t consider a utilitarian MILC to be a substitution for a rangefinder.I agree it's often a matter of personal taste and how it feels like an extension of one's eye ...I have a few ... no, not friends as such, but acquaintances, who have bought into the latest Canon or Nikon hemisphere. My argument, coming from somebody too stubborn to change, but happy to accommodate the odd exception, I would not want to buy into an ecosystem that doesn't support aperture rings. The exception in my little arsenal is the Batis 40/2 CF. She gets away with it because she's just such an exceptional piece of glass ...Ah well, but although I used to shoot Nikon for a few decades, the F3 one of my all-time favourites, I would not touch those these days. I just like the aperture ring, a baked in auto-muscle-memory affair, reaching for the lens to adjust the light and DOF. The Q/Q2 as well as the RX1 series therefore suits me just fine. Also Fuji. But also Sony, there are now around 130 or so lenses available for the E-Mount and although one wouldn't want a large quantity of them, there are some spectacular lenses amongst them, like the Sony 20/1.8 or the Viltrox 85/1.8 (a notch above most 85mmss available for that mount imho).But this is about Leica. If I won Lotto (seriously!!) I would possibly go for a 35/1.4 I think there's one with 50cm MFD? Then add a 21mm and a 50mm F1. yeah, right .. possibly 1.4 to keep the price and size down.Would miss this play with third party discoveries though (don't mean Voigtländer, those aren't really third-anything!).Not a total subscriber to razor thin you know what, but was just trying eye AF. Viltrox 85/1.8 Maybe for me one day, an M10P or something?Dunno.Interesting thread though!Deed

deednets wrote:I have a few ... no, not friends as such, but acquaintances, who have bought into the latest Canon or Nikon hemisphere. My argument, coming from somebody too stubborn to change, but happy to accommodate the odd exception, I would not want to buy into an ecosystem that doesn't support aperture rings.I understand where you’re coming from as aperture rings give you a more direct control mechanism. At least it feels like that to me, because I’m changing an opening in the lens, and not in the body.I’m not sure which system you’re referring to (MFT?), because Canon and Nikon lenses have customizable “Control Rings” that you can configure to change the aperture.In the M system the lenses also have aperture rings so I guess it’s a good thing if you like to use them. Personally I don’t have a particular preference, although it’s always welcome when a lens has a (customizable control or aperture) ring.Also Fuji.I’ve the XF 27mm mounted on my X-Pro3, and guess what? The older version I own has no aperture ring. There are always exceptions to the normBut also Sony, there are now around 130 or so lenses available for the E-MountI don’t want to disappoint you, but there are currently over 500 (!) lenses available for the Sony E mount. Most probably only the M mount has more, as there are many vintage lenses out there. But if you take new lenses only the Sony is a clear winner quantity-wise.and although one wouldn't want a large quantity of them, there are some spectacular lenses amongst them, like the Sony 20/1.8 or the Viltrox 85/1.8 (a notch above most 85mmss available for that mount imho).I’ve just two third-party lenses. It looks like I’m not in the target audience for a system that supports lenses from other manufacturers. The Sigma I bought was just because there is no equivalent lens on the Canon M mount, and the Voigtländer is my first purchase into the Leica M mount (which is currently adapted on the Fujifilm X mount). But then I think I would go with Leica, Voigtländer, and Zeiss lenses if I would own an M11.But this is about Leica. If I won Lotto (seriously!!) I would possibly go for a 35/1.435mm? I’m running away!I think there's one with 50cm MFD? Then add a 21mm and a 50mm F1. yeah, right .. possibly 1.4 to keep the price and size down.As I already have the Voigtländer 50mm, I think I would either get a Leica 75mm, or a 28mm. I also lean more towards a compact size than a fast aperture, basically the same thing as with Fuji (I really think the Fujifilm X shines with their slower lenses, as it is such a perfectly balanced fit).