Why Camera Upgrades Feel Incremental and Why Leica Still Feels Different

Decades ago, when a new iteration of your favorite camera model was released, you looked forward to seeing the meaningful improvements the new model offered. Today, the Mk II version of a camera is likely to be almost indistinguishable from its predecessor. The only time the new offering is unique is when that camera was made by Leica.

Around 2002, I acquired my first digital camera, the Nikon D1. Despite the camera having significant flaws, including poor low-light performance and terrible battery life, the D1 was a better camera than I gave it credit for at the time. Years later, Nikon released the Nikon D3s, which was about as perfect as I ever dreamed a camera could be.

Battery life was so good that I could shoot for over a week without recharging. At times, I’d arrive on set with a depleted battery because I had become accustomed to charging it so rarely. The high ISO performance of the D3s allowed shooting in any low-light situation where your subject was visible. At the time, I was fond of referring to the D3s as the last camera anyone would ever need.

Over time, the technological improvements in subsequent Nikon cameras in this line were incremental rather than groundbreaking. By 2020, there was little room left for improvement in a DSLR, and Nikon’s D6 was essentially the D5 of 2016 with improved firmware. Today, we have reached a similar point of technological standstill with mirrorless cameras. The Sony a1 II is essentially a Sony a1 with better firmware.

Cameras today are so good that there aren’t any shooting-related problems manufacturers need to solve to help us take better photographs. As a result, there isn’t much to distinguish one model from another. Even the most basic camera model today is more than capable of handling the tasks we assign it.

Let’s imagine you were photographing a milestone event in your family, such as a cruise trip with your significant other, a nephew’s birthday party, or casual portraits of your niece before her prom. If you owned the Nikon Z5, Nikon Z6, Nikon Z7, Nikon Z8, and Nikon Z9, how much would it matter which camera you selected? Sure, one camera has better battery life than another, and one model weighs less than another, but would these differences have any noticeable impact on either your shooting process or the final photographs? While a Z9 is better than the Z5 for photographing the Super Bowl, most of us don’t have the Super Bowl on our schedule. Camera makers create elaborate marketing campaigns to distinguish one model from another, but in everyday use, there isn’t much difference between models.

Leica is one of the few camera makers that creates models that are genuinely distinct from its other offerings. Let’s consider the same scenario I described above, but this time selecting only from the variants of Leica’s flagship rangefinder, the Leica M11. Note that we are looking at variants of a single model, not different camera models with dramatically different price points, as we did in the Nikon scenario.

The M11 series includes:

• The standard model M11, which incorporates the highest level of technological improvements possible while still retaining the character and essence of a classic Leica M camera.
• The Leica M11 Monochrom variant, which shoots only black and white.
• The Leica M11-D, which lacks a rear LCD screen and functions more like a film camera than a digital camera.
• The Leica M EV1, which incorporates an EVF in place of the rangefinder framing and focusing system, making it easier to focus 50mm and higher focal lengths.

In terms of appearance, these cameras are virtually identical, with only minor differences in logos, body texture, and color. If you closed your eyes and used only your sense of touch, it would be impossible to tell some of the variants apart. Contrast this with the aforementioned Nikon bodies, which vary noticeably in size and button placement. In practice, however, despite the Leica cameras looking very much alike, each variant offers a unique shooting experience.

Let’s imagine you were photographing your niece outside before she leaves for her prom. If you had selected the M11 Monochrom, you would create beautifully toned black-and-white images, but your niece might be disappointed that her vibrant green dress doesn’t stand out in your photographs. If you had chosen the standard M11 or even the screenless M11-D and wanted shallow depth-of-field portraits taken around 85mm at f/1.4, you’d probably miss focus on many images since the rangefinder does not excel at focal lengths longer than 50mm. Had you instead chosen the M EV1 variant, which features an EVF in place of the rangefinder, you would nail focus accurately, even if you had shot wide open using Leica’s Noctilux-M 75 f/1.25 ASPH. (Leica’s version of an 85mm lens). But when you switched to a 35mm lens, the standard M11 would be a better choice since it would focus faster than the M EV1 at that focal length.

Last year, I wrote about my experience using the screen-less M11-D. I loved using the camera. However, when I photograph my wife on our dinner dates, she loves reviewing the images and instructing me on how to retake them to her satisfaction. The M11-D, which does not allow for image review, is not a good choice for this simple assignment. But if you want a shooting experience more akin to a film camera than a digital camera, the M11-D is unmatched.

It bears repeating that there are more differences between M11 variants than there are between different camera models offered by companies like Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Leica is one of the few camera manufacturers with the willingness to make purposefully niche cameras. That said, Leica is not alone in offering black-and-white-only digital options: the Pentax K-3 Mark III Monochrome is a current example, and specialized systems such as the Phase One IQ4 Achromatic also exist. Even so, it’s disappointing that more mainstream brands don’t offer monochrome-only bodies, given how popular black-and-white photography remains in 2026.

I own the Leica M10 and Leica M10 Monochrom (and also the Leica M9). Many days, I bring one of these cameras with me for casual shooting. Often, I regret bringing the black-and-white camera because the color variant would have served me better. The opposite situation occurs just as often. In the spirit of civil rights activist John Lewis, who encouraged people to get into "good trouble," I consider it to be a good problem when I have brought the wrong Leica camera. I embrace the challenge of using a less-than-ideal tool to create an interesting photograph.

Leica creates cameras that lack basic features such as the ability to review images or capture scenes in color because the brand understands that good art often results from limitations. A poet writing a haiku doesn’t have unlimited lines to communicate an idea, but if they struggle long enough, they will find a way to convey their message in the limited space allowed.

I use the Nikon Z9 for most of my professional work. I bring an M10 or M10 Monochrom and a 35mm Summilux lens with me whenever possible. These cameras look very similar on my shelf, but even a casual glance at the day’s contact sheet will reveal which camera I selected. By contrast, if I am shooting a headshot and mistakenly brought my Z7 instead of the Z9, the shooting process and the photographs would be the same.

There is a risk in taking the bold step of creating a camera model unlike any other on the market, and Leica deserves praise for going all in on these offerings. Leica could have designed the M11-D so that the rear screen was hidden but accessible when necessary. Instead, Leica made it so that if you brought the M11-D on a shoot where it turned out you needed a rear screen, you were out of luck. Contrast this approach with how Nikon designed the Nikon Zf. Despite being marketed as a throwback to simpler camera designs, the Zf has as many buttons, dials, and features as any other Nikon offering.

The Zf shares some design elements with the Nikon FM2, first introduced in 1982. In the early ’90s, I often packed an FM2 alongside my beloved Nikon F4. The FM2 didn’t just look stripped down; it was intentionally missing many standard features of the time, such as automated film advance, autofocus, and Program mode. Today, I own the Z9 and Zf (in addition to the Z7 and D6). Visually, this combination looks a lot like an Nikon F5 and FM2, but the Zf is not stripped down like an FM2. The Zf offers most of the features of the Z9. I like the Zf, but I feel it would be a better camera if it offered as few features as its look-alike ancestor, the FM2.

It’s no secret that the dedicated-camera market is more competitive than it used to be, and that performance has been uneven across major manufacturers in recent years. Perhaps a bolder approach of producing fewer models, each offering unique features, would work better than the current approach of flooding the market with multiple bodies that have little to distinguish themselves from other cameras in the lineup. Until then, I’ll continue to look to Leica when I want a camera that is different from what I already own.