Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant success to focus on.

@AndreasOberg... Your comment is refreshingly open minded! Thanks for the breath of fresh air in a stale environment.

Viewing thru an optical finder like that on an M series camera offers advantages which make it a preferred choice by some photographers for their type of shooting. It's a choice and it's good to have options.

Recent digital Leica M models give you two choices: optical rangefinder or live video viewing for viewing and focusing. Other mirrorless cameras offer only the latter.

Leica M cameras are also designed to be compact and lightweight which is another reason photographers choose to use them. Just because someone makes a different choice in equipment than another photographer doesn't mean they do not have sound reasons for doing so.

Thanks for your insights. Individual needs and preferences vary, so I like having as broad a range of choices as possible from which to select equipment. The more differences in design and concept we get from manufacturers, the happier I am.

My Leica cameras have all been film models. First a new M6 and later an old battered but unbowed M3 which I purchased used for a bargain price. For live view on an M11, I was thinking of the Visoflex 2. The resolution is higher, but I don't know what the refresh rate is with the Visoflex 2. I have not had an opportunity to try that combination yet, but with other mirrorless cameras I've preferred using the EVF for composing and focusing over using the LCD screen.

It's true that every option provides both advantages and disadvantages and individual photographers have widely disparate needs and preferences. Unfortunately that reality is often drowned out by the fury and frenzy of online comment sections.

I believe that if you hand a Leica M11 and a Canon R8 in the hands of the same photographer, the photos will come out the same and the R8 will be much more accurate with focus. Not to mention the price difference to get the same result. The Leica M11 is a blonde, hot woman; However, she is a mercenary. And the Canon R8 is an ugly, fat woman with a beautiful heart.

I believe that if you hand a Leica M11 and a Canon R8 in the hands of the same photographer, the photos will come out the same and the R8 will be much more accurate with focus. Not to mention the price difference to get the same result. The Leica M11 is a blonde, hot woman; However, she is a mercenary. And the Canon R8 is an ugly, fat woman with a beautiful heart.

@AndersSJ, there is a Summarit 50mm F1.5.
https://www.leicalensesfornormalpeople.com/2020/04/24/leica-summarit-50mm-f1-5-review/

Interesting!

At the other end of the "character" scale with its "pig vomit bokeh" - it seems (although not that bad - it seems).

Personally I am more into the character of the APO line. The recent 50 mm Summilux lenses are APO, although not branded as such (Peter Karbe, Leica).

I mean, someone skilled at focusing with RFs probably doesn't need a review no? If they've got the money they might splurge on the Leica and if they don't they'll check out PhillipReeve's reviews for other cheaper alternatives (whose results vs the Leica might surprise you tbh...).

For someone that doesn't already have the rangefinder experience, a gallery like this might serve as a bucket of cold water even if it isn't that interesting or useful for comparison purposes. Just playing devil's advocate... If I ever bought a Leica I know it wouldn't be an M, it'd be a Q3 heh.

Just gonna leave this here:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-leica-50mm-1-4-summilux-m-asph/
(yes it's a review of the previous version, still somewhat relevant IMO, Bastian seems plenty skilled to me!)

Kaqpa easy because as a massive collector and lifelong camera buff i feel i SHOULD enjoy leica rangefinders and so kept trying. But these really rough set of gallery pictures mirror exactly my own efforts with the camera its just too difficult to manage in these days of high mp stabilised EVF eye focus cameras

Actually, a simple way of looking at rangefinder accuracy would be K/FL with K being the mechanical accuracy of the rangefinder mechanism and FL being focal length. Rangefinders work pretty well in the 28-35mm range, but very poorly at long focal lengths and that was the point I was trying to make. The advantage of on-sensor focus for long focal lengths is indisputable and even with on sensor focus, anyone who has used long (think 600-800mm) MF lenses on a mirrorless camera will tell you that AF is a huge advantage in both speed and accuracy. Leica fills a niche, but when they step outside of it (and 50mm is on the edge), they risk user dissatisfaction, and, yes, ego is a big piece of the niche.

Effective Base Length is a convention for potential accuracy in a rangefinder. The formula is simply rangefinder base length x viewfinder magnification. Potential accuracy increases with longer base length or higher magnification.

The degree of precision in the design, production, and calibration determine how much of that potential is realized. Leica does pretty well in those areas.

Yes, long focal length and macro photography is best accomplished with thru the lens viewing and focusing. It's why Leica has offered optical or electronic Visoflex accessories for their rangefinder cameras for decades.

You underestimate Leica M users' understanding of their equipment and its use by writing they "simply have lots of ego and money to burn." Your understanding of rangefinder accuracy may also be limited. A place to start learning more:

https://www.panomicron.com/viewfinders-rangefinders/2019/8/14/the-basics-of-rangefinder-design

https://www.panomicron.com/viewfinders-rangefinders

@TechTalk2. The chart is interesting, but it is purely theoretical and doesn't take into account either mechanical errors or smoothness of adjustment (i.e. mechanical advantage), which is a tradeoff for speed of adjustment. I agree that Leica is very good at mechanical precision, but not perfect and when they can sell a relabeled Panasonic camera to their clientele for twice the price it is hard to say that there is no ego involved 🤣.

From the preface to the gallery: "Also, a note about F-stop readings in the metadata: there is no communication between the lens and the Leica body so information within the EXIF file is not always the exact F-stop used for an image but rather the camera's best guess based on the M11's sensor readings."

The 'shoot first, ask questions later' method of criticism has limited appeal in most cases.

@sjaakbok: Which is why I said "at similar apertures", geddit?

Image #25 is a good example of what I mean by difficult to focus. "Focus and recompose" (a rather deplorable technique in itself; some very good lenses do have field curvature) is not applicable here.

And sharpening +100? Is that the default setting in ACR? I never go over +50 (admittedly in LrC), while the default usually is +25.

Sorry; is +100 the default sharpening setting in Capture One?

@Panther Fan: very helpful to lecture us about DoF, but that really doesn't address the misfocusing issue, now does it? At 12Mp or less on full frame that might some (only some) relevance, but certainly not on higher resolution cameras, where missing your focus point is very visible, regardless of DoF. Once seen, you can't unsee it.

Did you understand what i wrote?

@Panther Fan: Yes. It's irrelevant here, but you presented yourself as one of the cognoscenti. Kudos for that.

The issue was focus accuracy

I presented two calculations which show that accurate focus is impossible. Once based on DoF and once based on the mechanical properties of the rangefinder window and the mechanical linkage in relation to the resolution of the human eye

How is that not exactly what was discussed (I posted a response to JacquesBalthazar claiming that accurate focus is possible)

Or the digital rangefinder aficionado should get an M10. Peter Turnley seems to be doing allright, including fcusing where he wants focus to be.

@TechTalk2

I own a Sony A7RIV and yes certain lenses are not able to resolve the full 61mp in comparison to others. For example Sony’s own 85mm f1.4 GM is perhaps the most well known for this. Also the main reason why I sold mine because while it has beautiful rendering it is noticeably soft on 61mp.

I have seen videos where owners of the M11 have claimed similar issues with some M mount lenses.

Fuji themselves released a list of lenses that are best suited to be used with their 40mp bodies.

This doesn’t mean that older glass can’t and shouldn’t be used but if someone has a high megapixel body and wants to get the most out of the sensor in terms of resolution then only certain lenses are capable of
producing that.

Lenses do not become softer depending on the sensor used. The sensor does not change any characteristics of a lens, including its sharpness and resolution. A higher resolution sensor does not degrade lens performance nor does a lower resolution sensor improve it.

A lens with better sharpness and resolution will improve image quality with good quality sensors. Improvement is also seen when using a higher resolution sensor with good quality lenses. System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF. The system MTF (image resolution and contrast) is always less than the individual MTF of the camera's sensor or lens because neither lens or sensor resolves object detail at a 1:1 ratio (100%) of input to output.

The statement — "If you have a reasonably good lens and/or a reasonably good camera, upgrading either one upgrades your images." — from the linked article is true. Upgrading both will improve image resolution even further.

You're all over the map and hard to follow.

First you say: "Lenses do not become softer" at a given image size, using "3x2m" as an example (which would be about 81 pixels per inch or 32 pixels per cm from Leica's 60mp sensor), "when shot on a 60mp vs a 24mp sensor - on the contrary".

That's true. A sensor with better resolution would produce better detail at a given image scale using a reasonably good lens.

Then you make this vague assertion: "But a lower-resolution lens [lower than what?] actually does become softer on high-resolution sensors [how high and why?] when you look at the image on 1:1 pixel level [a pixel has no inherent size, so what is the image size or pixel density (PPI) at which you're viewing the image?], or if you perform significant crops [cropped and viewed at what scale?]."

All you seem to indicate is image scale affects apparent sharpness and images appear softer viewed at higher magnification. That's true of any lens or imaging system of any resolution.

@TechTalk2 This is getting a little ridiculous, and I wonder whether I am talking to someone who has ever practiced paid photography.

To give you a concrete example: For a campaign shoot, full body portraits were taken of 30 people. The agency used both the full-body shots and cropped headshots for printed flyers and websites. A high-megapixel camera was sufficient for the job. To make the heavy crops look decent, the images needed to have good resolution/no blur when viewed at 1:1 pixel magnification.

For such scenarios, you need a lens with an appropriate resolution for the sensor. Camera makers routinely list lenses that are adequate for their highest resolution cameras.

To illustrate the point with a drastic example: You can adapt a Russian 1950s Helios lens to a 60 MP camera. The camera will end up giving you a high-resolution rendering the lens' artefacts (such as bokeh balls), but in the end you're effectively wasting your 60 MP because of an inadequate lens.

@mcantsin: "It's a question of the perspective - did I buy a 60MP camera to make the best possible use of the sensor resolution; then the Summilux is not adequate, and other lenses (such as a Zeiss Otus) perform better."

"Or did buy a Leica M11 to squeeze out the best possible image from the Summilux, then indeed the 60 MP sensor has advantages over a 24 MP sensor."

The "perspective" presented sounds vaguely like a competition going on between lens and sensor resolution to determine which is going to dictate image resolution. It isn't a competition. It's always a combination of the two and the resulting image resolution is always less than either the lens or sensor resolution. Improving either generally improves image resolution.

What's "adequate" or produces the "best possible image" individuals can decide for themselves based on their own creative needs and preferences regardless of online chatter. The best evidence is your images and whether they please yourself or your clients.

There are no electric contacts between the lens and camera, and the M cameras (SL alike I believe) compare reading from internal light meter and an external one to best guess what the lens aperture setting is based on the differences in light measured. Usually it's quite accurate to within 1/2 stop if exposure compensation isn't needed, however, in extreme lighting conditions where exposure compensation is needed, or filters are used, the readings can be skewed.

You mean the preamble to the gallery? I must admit to having skipped the words in favour of the pictures; that’s why we’re all here, right?!

And I have mixed feelings on the posting of OOF shots. On the one hand, why post OOF samples when they illustrate nothing of the capabilities of the lens in question? On the other, if someone who does this for a living is unable to focus adequately I guess there’s an inference to be drawn about the power of the boring, AF-equipped alternative.