The Leica M11-P was often overshadowed by the Leica Q3 last year (and now, since the Q3 43 was released, even more so). That’s why it’s time to point out the (often underestimated) spectrum of possibilities offered by a rangefinder camera. It’s much greater than most people who have never used an M assume. You have to do more to get it compared to other cameras. This, in turn, gives outsiders the impression that we rangefinder enthusiasts are the Amish people of the photography community.
Q vs M, or Q+M?
Hardly any comparison is as popular as comparing apples and oranges. This can now be seen with the current “bestseller of the season”, the Leica Q3 43. It is often argued that this camera replaces an M (whichever one) with a 50mm Apo-Summicron, not to mention the price-performance ratio.
But what does “replace” mean? Of course, the “overlap” of the possible uses of both cameras (and that includes the normal Q3) is considerable. This means that I can handle various shooting situations equally well with both cameras (M or Q). In addition, the Qs shine with (relatively) fast autofocus, image stabilisation, flash synchronisation up to 1/2000s, tilting display, no sensor dust problem, and so forth.
But, let’s face it, the full isolation potential at open aperture is available only at the nominal focal lengths, the effect of “real” fast 50, 75 or 90 mm lenses cannot be achieved. And routinely lugging two cameras around during a trip (or reportage) instead of one body with two lenses: which is certainly less tedious?
The combination of both Q3 models can theoretically cover everything that a normal person needs for travel, reportage, or event photography. Both focal lengths cover the range between 28 and (let’s say moderately) 100mm, since the sensor resolution allows one “to crop the crap out of the images”, as Hugh Brownstone says.
If I were to travel, I would either stick with the Q3 with 28mm Summilux (one camera) or take the Leica M11-P with two or even three lenses. The Q3 43mm as a “solo camera” would be too “narrow” for me in most cases.
But I know that many people find the 43mm focal length very attractive and that it is now even the dealbreaker for the Q3 because the 28mm was previously far too wide for them. You pays your money and you takes your choice…
However, could you cover a wedding with the Q3 combo, for example, and produce excellent output? Absolutely. However, the Q3 (28mm) combination with the Leica M11-P plus 50mm Summilux is even better. This is how I photographed a good friend’s wedding this summer — the Q3 for more “context” or, if it had to be rapid, the Leica M11-P with Summilux wide open for the “moments”. I also switched to the 35mm Apo-Summicron, but 28 + 50mm was actually enough for the purpose, as I zoomed with my legs.
The DNGs (in Adobe Standard) from the M11-P tend to be too cold in Lightroom (especially when it’s actually sunny) and tend towards cyan, while the Q3 DNGs (Adobe Standard v.2, also too cold) tend towards green. If you balance this out to a healthy average, the photos from the two cameras match each other wonderfully in terms of colour impression. I would rather not show any pictures from this private event, but there is an article about a wedding photographed with a Leica M10 and “Classic” Q and the output is similar.
Where an M with its rangefinder can do more
Normally, however, I wouldn’t lug two cameras around, as I’d find it difficult to pack a second lens. Furthermore, as good as the Q3 is for reporting, travel or in a family setting, sometimes I simply prefer the feel of a rangefinder, despite the identical purposes. In addition, there are occasions when I know in advance that the Q3 is at best as suboptimal for this as a consumptive asthmatic is for the role of the heroic tenor in a Wagner opera.
A Q3 doesn’t come anywhere close to achieving the result of an M10-M with 50mm Summilux in the image above, of the play about the Canailles-Bagage in June. In spring, it was the night views in Bielefeld, in the Alpilles and in summer. In Italy, the M11-P was often with me because I didn’t feel like using the Q3 exclusively.
At the late summer show jumping tournament, the M11-P and M10-M were in demand, challenge accepted. A few days on Sylt at the end of September culminated in a stormy end to the week and the start of the Windsurfing World Cup. On this occasion, I had left the Q3 at home, and photographing the windsurfers in front of the main beach in Westerland was almost beyond the normal rangefinder possibilities.
Naturally, the hour of long focal lengths struck, and with my 90mm surrounded by 600mm massive lenses, I felt like I was in the Sesame Street game, “One of the things is wrong here again”. I regretted not having brought a 135 after all, but something came out of it nonetheless. To quote the children’s program (the mouse) again: “It sounds strange, but it’s true…”
One year Leica M11-P
Swapping a Leica M11-P for a “normal” M11, as I did a year ago, is rationally nonsense. The reasons for this are therefore beyond the cerebral cortex. The “P” models are simply design classics; even after five years of owning an M10, I still ended up with an M10-P.
The Leica M11-P has a hardware upgrade in the form of larger internal memory (256GB instead of 64GB for the M11), sapphire glass over the display, and it was the first camera with the option of creating images with “content credentials”.
Since I’m not a photojournalist, the latter is less important, but with the upgrade in internal storage space, I stopped inserting an SD card into the camera most of the time. With RAW file sizes averaging 55-75MB (at full resolution), it can hold well over 4,000 images, more than enough for me for every event and every holiday.
The Leica M10-Monochrom also had several outings last year. The character of the black and white DNGs is so close to analogue silver halide film (if you don’t get too “slider-happy” in Lightroom) that my motivation to put in a TMax or something similar again is very dampened. But if I get the urge… the freezer is well stocked.
Is a rangefinder “contemporary”?
The crucial question is always there. In a comment on one of my last travel reports, a reader said that all the pictures were sharp from start to finish (which he didn’t like, but wasn’t true either), but the first one was completely out of focus. From this, he concluded that all this was due to the “outdated” focusing mechanism.
Apart from the fact that the accusation of out-of-focus photos is a reason for any photographer to organise a meeting with Seconds at dawn in the Weser meadows, the supposedly “out-of-focus” photo was also from the Q3 (probably over-blown due to the low web resolution).
So, of course, the point of manual focusing can be controversial. Yet, a rangefinder in particular has advantages that clearly outweigh the technical limitations of this mechanism, at least for me.
Furthermore, there are many people who delight in things that are no longer the last word in modernity. They play vinyl records, drive classic cars, take analogue photographs, twiddle rotary dial telephones or tune in to valve radios. And, in the worst cases, they even own cuckoo clocks.
Photographers who have never worked with a rangefinder tend to assume that it can be used only to capture fairly static subjects. But that is a common prejudice. As I have written several times, many people cannot imagine how to play a Bach sonata on a flute, and yet it works. The “skills” of the rangefinder user are in demand.
With a little practice and suitable methodology, quite a lot of “action” can be captured. Perhaps an M shooter also needs this challenge. It is certainly part of the attraction that the camera does not think for you.
Apart from functions such as “emphasising bright areas”, but that is still harmless compared to devices that are increasingly loaded with AI.
Working with a digital M still has a rudimentary analogue character. For mobile phone photography, the manufacturers apparently assume that the operator possesses merely the IQ of a toaster. I remember, for example, that the portrait function in automatic editing on some smartphones was so ‘over the top’ that the people portrayed hardly differed from an anime figure.
EVF with autofocus vs rangefinder
I would estimate that in more than 90% of cases, most people use a Q like a “point and shoot” (including me, although I always preselect the aperture). That is definitely one of the appeals of the camera; you only have to concern yourself with the composition of the image. You might even look at the display instead of through the viewfinder.
Using a rangefinder is fundamentally different. Sean Reid always calls “seeing the subject”. The image impression of the subject is more direct, but I have no preview of the expected depth of field and no information on whether the subject is dynamically demanding. You therefore have to think about the aperture and, if necessary, exposure correction beforehand.
The frame lines of the respective lens must be observed; outside this (unlike with the Q, if you have selected frame lines), nothing will reach the sensor. You also have to deal with the exposure field of the exposure meter, of course, and hand-eye coordination must be practised to focus successfully. You need to have at least one functioning eye; otherwise you can forget about rangefinder photography. The Qs have a diopter adjustment on the viewfinder, which is sadly missing from the M cameras, so you have to buy expensive add-on lenses instead.
Nine photos from the same ride focused in quick succession. Leica M10-M with 90mm Macro-Elmar at f/4, orange filter
In return, you get full resolution at every focal length (that is, with crop options beyond the potential of any Q3), unlimited freedom of focus with the fast lenses and a massive selection in general. Leica wins every competition for backwards compatibility hands down.
Rangefinder adjustment
Manual focusing excludes faulty autofocus, provided you have the necessary skills and that the exposure meter is correctly adjusted. The keyword here is “adjusted”.
With the many M cameras (digital and analogue) that I have had or still own, I have never encountered the rangefinder getting out of adjustment (even with heavy-duty use of the camera).
But I have seen the claim on the Internet several times: the rangefinder is a super-sensitive instrument and has to be adjusted at the factory every year or so.
It may get out of adjustment, but to this extent the claim is utter nonsense. I can quickly list what happened to me in this regard over the years. On one occasion, the 75mm Apo-Summicron I had just bought (in 2011) didn’t fit the rangefinder of the M9, but that was because of the lens. It was readjusted at the time (still in Solms), and has worked well on every M for 13 years.
Then I had a “height error” with the M6 TTL. Annoying, but in an emergency you can still focus. And then — ironically — when I got the Leica M11-P a year ago, I immediately noticed that it had a back focus problem. Something had gone horribly wrong during the final inspection. The Leica store I trust promptly exchanged the camera for my current M11-P, end of story.
Two photos directly one after the other, 1st jump. Leica M10-M with 90mm Macro-Elmar. Second pass, a bit close for the 90s
The rangefinder – an analogue interface
The digital M cameras are computers packed with electronics. Of course, with the M9, you had the feeling that one or two cathode ray tubes were still built in. And yet, this camera was a proverbial milestone. It was a long way to the Apple-compatible Leica M11-P.
The Ms have also been equipped with increasingly complex electronics and software, which recently led to problems with freezes in the M11 family. This reached such apocalyptic proportions in some devices that their owners ended their friendship with Leica.
Freeze-frame
Meanwhile, I suspected that the firmware was perhaps developed by Captain Igloo. But “freezing” is actually a feature of the history of all digital Ms. Of course, it was annoying, but it was always enough to disconnect the camera from the power supply (remove the battery) and everything was normal. With my M11 and M11-P, this happened in this form (with the relatively simple solution described) and quite sporadically.
Probably (and because I was familiar with it already) I didn’t get too worked up about it. Last June, when I was on holiday, I experienced a few freezes. Since then, there have been at least two firmware updates and the problem appears to have been resolved. In any case, I have taken several hundred photos since then without any incidents of this kind.
In addition to all the electronics and the imaging sensor, the rangefinder is the interface for connecting the optics to the rest of the camera meaningfully. Even on the latest digital Leica M11-P, the rangefinder is a purely optical-mechanical instrument, physically coupled to the lens worm.
There are no electronics messing around with it, and that is why ancient vintage lenses (even from screw-on Leicas) can be focused with it. Just like the old treasures, the latest optics for Leica M also have the chance to prove their optical excellence on a suitable platform for many years to come. Because they are stopped down and focused manually, there are no servo motors for them, which are subject to “digital rot” and cause lenses with high aperture to swell up considerably.
The difference in size between the 35mm Apo-Summicron SL system and the corresponding M lens says it all. I’m sorry if I’m offending anyone, but the SL system has always been too bulky for me, optical excellence notwithstanding.
Focusing manual lenses: Rangefinder vs EVF
There have already been rumours that an M12 could come in two versions — with a traditional rangefinder or with an EVF instead. The demand for an EVF camera seems to be there because there are enthusiasts who prefer an M camera but cannot use the optical rangefinder for certain reasons (for example, eye problems). Of course, there is the Visoflex, but it does make the camera much more bulky.
I would not be one of those who would be outraged if such a model came onto the market. The advantage of an EVF is certainly the precise representation of what ends up on the sensor depending on the focal length, especially with super-wide or, on the contrary, very long focal lengths over 135mm. Some hope that such a camera could be cheaper, but let’s not kid ourselves. If the new model costs around €10,000, saving a few hundreds hardly makes a difference.
However, if the camera does not have a different focusing system than the one in the Visoflex (that is, focus peaking), then this device would really be crippled, and the critics would be right that you can only record static scenes with it.
EVF and focus peaking
I’ll recap the correct procedure for focusing with EVF. Open the aperture for minimal depth of field, capture the subject using focus peaking if necessary. Often you can find the sharpest point using the focus ring by turning it back and forth several times. Especially when the focus is critical, you zoom into the image again. Then stop down to the working aperture, select the desired image composition and take the picture.
All of this takes time, focus peaking can be difficult to recognize with low-contrast subjects, and no one can tell me that you can repeatedly capture moving subjects sharply with it. More likely by chance. Or it doesn’t move faster than a shifting dune. Photographing the gravestones in the municipal cemetery would be about the extent of the “action” that you can successfully capture with it. Assuming there is no earthquake.
In the above slideshow, you can find some impressions from the Windsurf World Cup on Sylt.
The optical rangefinder is completely independent of the aperture setting, so that doesn’t matter. I look at the focus field, turn the focus ring (the direction “further” or “closer” is muscle memory) and the subject is in focus, and the shutter is released in a fraction of a second.
Subjects that aren’t moving too quickly can actually be reliably tracked or even “run into” the focus and the shutter is released in time. In the time it takes to take a single picture using the EVF and focus peaking, a dozen can already be taken with the rangefinder.
A fictional EVF, an alternative to the rangefinder?
If Leica really wants to bring out an M with EVF, it should have a focusing method that is fast. Why not phase detection, where a green cross or something similar lights up in the viewfinder where the image is in focus?
The cross should be in a fixed place in the viewfinder that you can choose freely (I would probably set it in the middle as standard, like the exposure field). You aim at the desired sharpest point, instead of a servo motor, you simply turn the focus ring manually until the cross lights up. Alternatively, there could be a setting where the cross (without being fixed) always lights up at the point that is currently in focus.
That would be progress, but personally, I would probably stick with the optical viewfinder. If it’s electronic, then I wouldn’t mind if you could also display a histogram, for example. That would be helpful. For the wide or long focal lengths, I would still prefer to use a Visoflex.
Finally, AI has the floor
In a factual discussion about a photography magazine’s article about a Leica camera, the question arose again as to why this brand is so polarizing. One of the participants asked ChatGPT for fun, and I thought the result was so well put that I would like to reproduce it here:
1. Leica often stands for a kind of luxury and exclusivity. For some people, this is positive, but there are also many who find this exclusivity arrogant. The feeling that Leica is a brand for “rich hobbyists” often leads to rejection.
2. Leica cameras have specific technical peculiarities that not everyone likes. Some photographers who are used to more modern cameras do not understand why you would choose a Leica that may forego certain modern features, such as autofocus or image stabilisation.
3. Many Leica owners appreciate the tradition, craftsmanship and classic design. This type of photography is considered romanticised by some, while others see it as unnecessarily complicated or outdated. This often leads to misunderstandings between fans of traditional and modern photography techniques.
4. In photography, there is a strong loyalty to certain brands. Leica fans are often very proud of their cameras and share their enthusiasm, which is sometimes perceived as arrogant. This rivalry between the “camps” leads to tensions.
Conclusion and Disclaimer
The point of this article is to show that the limits of the rangefinder system are not as clearly defined as is often assumed. But before some people rightly remark that many of the situations shown would probably be easier to handle with other cameras, I should say this.
Anyone who has decided to use a rangefinder does so because they appreciate the manual way of working with it, the compact system and the endless choice of great lenses (which often cannot reach their full potential on other platforms).
They certainly do not choose a rangefinder for ultimate ease of use. The inconveniences, as well as the undeniable limits of what is possible, are accepted in return for the advantages. Many rangefinder photographers either come from other systems or use them in parallel, depending on their photographic requirements.
While, for example, the pictures from the show jumping tournament are well within the capabilities of the M-System, provided the photographer is motivated, this less clear with the photos of the Windsurf Cup. If someone were to give me the task of documenting such sports, I would, of course, choose a device with fast autofocus and a long focal length. After all, the ‘M’ in the system does not stand for ‘Masochist’.
This article was first published in German on Messsucherwelt.com. Translated into English by Mike Evans
More from Claus Sassenberg
Hands on with the Leica M11
Leica Q3: The man who came back to the fold
Signing up for the Macfilos newsletter
The SUBSCRIBE button (below) is now working again. If you have recently been unable to register for the Macfilos newsletter, please try again now. We apologise for the error which crept in during the recent site redesign. If you have any other queries or wish to contact us, use the CONTACT button.
I primarily have shot Nikon for decades. One if my participants brought her Q2 with her on my Costa Rica workshop a few years ago and I fell in love with the lens, user interface, controls and deep technology included. I now own the Q3 28 and reviewed the 43, but the 28 is my choice and I use it nothing like a point and shoot.
I shot old film rangefinders, view cameras, SLRs and DSLRs for decades. Today’s EVF’s are truely an incredible advwncement. I can see the milky way and horizon in my Z9 and Zf EVFs on moonless nights, zoom in and focus on bright stars in the diopter adjusted EVF.
I shoot a lot with my nikon ZF and the newer MF Voigtländer 50 1.0 for Z. I personally detest peaking with manual focus. I prefer a clean view. Nikon has added subject detection manual focus assist in it’s latest bodies (ZF, Z6iii, and Z50ii). It draws a box on the closest detected eye. You can cycle through eyes, then focus the box to green, but here’s the kicker… You tap a programmed button and the diopter adjusted, bright EVF zooms to 100% while tracking that eye to let you absolutely perfect focus. Hitting the shutter fires and takes you back to full frame view. Nailing manual focus at f1.0 is now child’s play. In fact, I’ve taight my 8 year old to do it.
If Lieca would bring that tech to an M body… I’d be in. I’d sell everything but my Q3, Z9 105 1.4 & 400 2.8 TC.
Many thanks for the input!
This is exactly the technology I had in mind for an M with EVF! Kodos to Nikon for inventing it already (I didn’t know that).
Best, Claus
I am always amazed when I hear people say they have to give up on rangefinders as their eyesight deteriorates with age.
For me it’s quite the opposite, I mean really what could be easier than lining up two images?
I’m 65 and my sight is nothing like it was and for me my M240 is the easiest manual focus camera I own.
Ditto: even at 75 y/o, I find my M240 much more accurate than cameras with an EVF. In particular, focus peaking often is spread over a wide area; with a rangefinder, I can isolate exactly the center of the region where I want to focus.
Not to say EVF’s don’t have uses; as Claus noted, you do get a good sense of depth of field.
I am 61 and also hope that my eyesight will remain good for many years to come, just like yours.
But there are sad cases where this is not the case for various reasons.
So stay healthy and enjoy your M,
best, Claus
With -15 dioptres, I have very poor eyesight and have to use glasses or contact lenses, but I am never perfectly corrected. With a rangefinder, I can focus more easily and accurately than with an SLR or a camera with an EVF (in manual mode). Even if I can’t see the image in the viewfinder 100% in focus, I can get the image in focus with a rangefinder. What I can actually see are the ‘differences in patterns’ compared to the area outside the viewfinder frame. If the viewfinder frame is not aligned correctly, there are no ‘wrong patterns’; this also works with poor eyesight.
A “messsucher” camera without a rangefinder is a contradiction.
Hopefully Leica doesn’t try to rewrite definitions.
Just a few years ago, Stefan Daniel assured us that there would be no such device.
I’m not so sure what his answer would be today. If there is sufficient demand, they will give the child a name…
Yes, I remember Stefan Daniel talking about this. I hope Leica stays true to the optomechanical rangefinder heritage.
I have no interest in digital cameras, but it seems to me that Leica has the EVF pretty well covered with the SL and Q series. And the M-Adapter L for M-lenses on the SL cameras.
I love the conclusion and the fictional EVF section. Here’s my conclusion for what it’s worth and based on my experience. If you are reading this and looking to buy a Leica ( They are almost all great ) just decide on your priority. If you want the classic design, feel and rangefinder experience (and let’s be honest the little M lenses are almost works of art) go for a Leica M. If buying new from the current line-up I would suggest maybe the M11-D so you don’t have the distraction of the screen and get a better battery life. ( rangefinder and no screen ) But be aware that having no screen limits the possibilities of close focus. So, in that case, if you think you need close up ability, an M11 is the one with an appropriate lens.
If you want a one camera, one lens does it all solution, choose a Q, go out and take photos and stop worrying about the expense and distraction of different lenses. The Q can do most of what you need with a bit of cropping and is a great go everywhere solution.. If, on the other hand, you want maximum versatility, the biggest viewfinder and ability for the camera to accept a wide variety of lenses (including M series lenses) go for an SL series body and stop being frightened by all the stories of the size and weight. You can just put a compact lens on it. I still hike up mountains with mine and I’m over 60.
I wouldn’t get a D-Lux because I think not having a manual zoom setting that doesn’t drain the battery and allow the user to make quick and precise setting of focal lengths, is a serious drawback unless Leica fixes this with some firmware trickery. Shame, really, except for that it would be a good buy.
One more thing,, the M viewfinder can and does sometimes go out of alignment. You’ll know when it happens. It did to me, In my case I had easy access to a Leica store in Tokyo and they even fixed it (for a very reasonable charge) while I was out shopping. I picked it up the same day, later in the afternoon!!! You might not be so lucky so bear in mind that you might need to get this done once in a while.
Very nicely summarised, I completely agree with you!
Best, Claus
Thank you for this article Claus.
I’m a sometime borrower of M cameras and quite enjoy using them. But it requires muscle memory, as does playing a musical instrument to maintain proficiency. The longer you don’t use an M or don’t play an instrument, the longer it takes to recover that muscle memory. From that perspective, picking up a CL or Q3 is easier to go out and get the shots you want almost straightaway.
Maybe I need to find an older (cheaper) M and a single lens and practice until the muscle memory stays constantly present?
Hi Jon,
indeed, practice makes perfect. But after a while, it’s like riding a bike. You’ll never forget.
Best, Claus
Hi Claus, thanks for a fantastic article! I really enjoyed reading your analysis of why photographers would choose to use a rangefinder, as opposed to a camera equipped with an EVF and autofocus lenses. Your images taken at the show-jumping event have inspired me to try out my M240 and 75mm Summarit in a setting where there is some movement of the subject. As you suggest, I will try both pre-focusing, while waiting for the subject to enter the frame, and tracking the subject while adjusting focus – which seems a little trickier. Once again, thanks for a great read and terrific photos. All the best, Keith
Hi Keith,
enjoy the challenge. It is really not as difficult as it seems, you’ll get the hang of it quickly!
Best, Claus
I love my Leica’s, have done for over 70 years, but for me it also has to be about ‘Horses For Courses’ and also about how much I could physically carry. My point here being I could use the widest or longest lenses made on virtually any SLR or now my SL2 or Panasonic S5, whereas the same could never be said of ant Leica M system, hence the latter got used less and less. Indeed although I do still own numerous ‘M’ Leica’s I now much prefer taking and using my Q2 when travelling light.
Thanks for pointing out how much superior the Sl is compared to an M. I think I mentioned the limitations of the system several times. At least you should read the “conclusion and disclaimer” again.
Somewhat overlooked in this article but I would point out not all show jumping fences or whatever are within reach of a 50m or even a ‘M 135mm lens, and even if one is it maybe the worst or least interesting to photograph. At this point – Bring on the much longer lenses or zooms. Big plus point for even the SL, let alone the SL2 or SL3 etc.
Good point, Don. But few have as much experience of rangefinders as you. I well remember you telling me about using a Leica IIIf for capturing motorcycles in races at Oulton Park in the 1950s. You wedged a bit of silver cigarette paper in a crack on the track, focused on that bauble, and then waited for a bike to cross the target!