hdmesa

–>

If used judiciously in high contrast light, a diffusion filter can get pretty close or sometime look even better. In other light, these filters can look a bit artificial because the softness is too uniform across the frame. It might be worth noting that the glow with the SPII decreases the closer the subject is. Once you get close to MFD, it’s mostly gone. So using a diffusion filter with the SPII can be helpful if you want to keep the look for say a headshot portrait.

I didn’t keep the Rigid long enough to shoot samples worth posting. Glow was similar, but it was much less sharp, which make it difficult to focus using the EVF compared to the original SPII. But it could be I just got a soft copy, I don’t know.

Due to its size, I don't think the Nokton is a good replacement to the Elmarit but rather a compliment to it. Check out the review thread on Fred Miranda Forums for more samples and comparisons.

I've never used the 50 Lux Pre-ASPH v2, but the samples I've seen don't look like the Steel Rim at f/1.4 at mid to long distance. I think the SPII does look like the SR at longer distances when wide open at f/2. Where the SPII will differ from the SR is at infinity at f/2, the SPII is sharp across the frame with glow. The SR at f/1.4 and infinity will be sharp in the center with glow and very, very soft at the edges, almost hazy. Also worth noting the SPII is obviously an f/2 lens, so there are many situations where you won't get f/1.4 separation. Here is the SPII on the M11M at f/2 and mid distance. Buildings and mountain out the window vary from across the street to a few blocks away to a few miles away. I think I used a light red filter. Crop of the previous image to show the glow: SPII on the M11 at f/2 and infinity focus with light red filter: Crop of previous image to show the glow:

The framelines in the rangefinder window are set mechanically by the lens that is attached. They can also be toggled between different focal length options by flipping the frameline selector lever on the front of the camera. But it couldn't be done electronically in firmware, unfortunately.

^ Or maybe they have no interest in participating in what seems like a beta test group for what should be a mature product?

Is that what those reporting real issues in this thread are? Complainers? Some who reported freezes in this thread have likely sold the camera and moved on.

I assumed someone had done an SL2 teardown but maybe not. Perhaps that's why no one has definitively written about the SL2 sensor type. I wonder if you can see the difference between FSI and BSI by looking at the exposed front of the sensor under high power magnification.

The color and character of the RAW files out of the M11/Q3 are incredible, so expectations should be high for the output of the SL3. The SL3 should be better able to regulate heat versus the M bodies, leading to less noise at higher ISOs. It also lets the processor run faster, which seems in general to be a boost to the image processing. I say that because the files I got from the SL2 were so much nicer for me than those from the Q2, which shares the same sensor. Perhaps with the EVF they have improved the optics some. At least we're not stuck at 3.XM dot EVFs like Nikon is. Tilt screen. I hope it's not the recycled two-way tilt from the Q3. Sony finally learned that lesson and has started using 3-way tilt screens. Does Leica think we only take photos in horizontal orientation and don't need a tilt screen when shooting vertically? I'd rather have no tilt screen than the one on the Q3.

That seems very odd. The 100S was the one RAW file I couldn't break in C1, and my edits for IG tend to be a bit over the top. I would check your 100S RAWs in RawDigger to make sure they're not being underexposed. Fujifilm's metering and in-camera histograms might be too conservative. SL2 does extremely well at base ISO, where I prefer its output over a lot of other cameras with newer sensor tech.

Yes, those sound like the improvements made to the last of the Sony FSI sensors, which helped FSI stay competitive with BSI in some ways. Just my opinion that the FSI sensors will one day be regarded the same way we look at CCD sensors like the one in the M9. Compared to the M11 BSI sensor, the M10-R sensor produces a more filmic look to my eye. I wish Leica would produce a budget M11-E using the sensor from the M10-R.

"You will not see this sensor technology in any other camera." – Sounds like cryptic marketing speak. Fujifilm recently called the new GFX 100 II sensor "all new" but turns out it's the same sensor as the 100/100S with some tweaks. If Toni was referring to BSI in that quote, then it would have been a false statement since BSI sensors had been around for a few years and were in use at the time. Then you have the curious case of the pixel pitch being identical to the IMX211. That would be crazy odds to randomly share a pixel pitch of 4.6 μm with a Sony sensor in production at the time. My guess would be either that Leica had Sony manufacture some sort of unique modification to the underlying IMX211 silicon – or Toni was excluding the Phase One cameras when making that statement, as Phase One cameras were largely irrelevant to the broad consumer photographic market and the only other camera system to use the IMX211 I believe.

I haven't had a freeze or DNG issue since resetting the camera, but there were several other settings I changed, too. I'm going to try changing those settings back to what I originally had one by one and using it that way for a while with each to see if I can provoke a freeze: Turning dust protection back on (currently off) Using manual M profile (currently lens detection is off) Auto minimum shutter speed set to formula (currently set to a fixed value) Storage set to DNG+JPEG to IN=SD (currently set to DNG only to IN=SD) Saving a few user profiles (currently have none)

M10-R should be FSI since I don't think Sony had a BSI sensor with the pixel pitch shared by the S3 and M10-R. Both the S3 and M10-R were likely cropped versions of the Sony IMX211, which is FSI.

SL2 is FSI. If the SL2 was BSI, it would be evident from any teardown because the wiring normally on the frontside of the sensor would be moved to the backside of the sensor. Regarding Stefan's comments, making the microlenses smaller to provide BSI-like benefits to an FSI sensor doesn't make it a BSI sensor, it just makes it a better FSI sensor than it would be otherwise. Regardless, it largely irrelevant. We know how the SL2 performs, and it performs extremely well – on par with other last-of-their-kind FSI sensors like the one in the Canon R5.

For me, I was indeed using an uncoded lens with dust protection on when I had both a corrupted DNG and a few hours later, a freeze requiring removal of the battery; however, I was using a manual M lens profile and not Auto.

SD Formatter is the bell you ring constantly to all who need and don't need alike. Why would you ask me?

Overwriting to reorganize the file structure might make a bigger difference on a 256gb card over the smaller older cards. In any case, saying "I never have done X because I never needed to do X and have been fine" sounds just like the people that tell you they don't need to use SD formatter at all 🫣

I do the same with the minimum shutter speed and have to set it manually. Regarding magnifying to focus – even with a 28mm lens, it's noticeably more difficult to focus without the digital stabilization. I use maximum zoom when magnifying, so perhaps that exaggerates the motion.

I'm not saying there's no benefit to using SD Formatter to do a quick format, I just want to be sure people know that there could be additional benefits to doing the overwrite format at least every so often. And if they're going to take the time to use SD Formatter, they might as well do the overwrite format at least the first time. It only takes two or three minutes depending on the size of the SD card.

I think they meant that if you want to give people the advice to use SD Formatter application to help resolve SD card issues on the M11/M11M, the quick format is only a half measure regardless of your experience. If someone has an SD card with one or more bad sectors, only the overwrite format will map those out.

That's not the main reason I was wanting to select a profile. A profile is required in order for the M11 to know what focal length is attached. That is necessary for the functioning of the digital stabilization feature when in magnified live view. It's also necessary for the automatic minimum shutter speed feature to work when using Auto ISO. I can get around the above issue by selecting any manual profile of the same focal length as the lens I have attached, but that comes with unnecessary baggage such as incorrect EXIF lens name, vignetting correction applied to JPEGs and visible in live view that may not match the lens being used, etc. It also is not a viable workaround if the there is not an available profile of matching focal length (40mm, etc.).

Yes, thank you all. I was under the incorrect assumption that all 6-bit coded lenses were in the list. I also incorrectly assumed that Leica was drawing from that list when any 6-bit coded lens was attached. But instead those codes are stored in the firmware separately from the list.

If it matters, I don’t want or need to use a Leica lens profile with a third party lens. But I do need to be able to tell the camera what focal length is attached to get the following to work on the M11: — Digital stabilization in live view while magnified to focus — To enable auto minimum shutter speed feature of Auto ISO If we were given the same focal length entry menu of the SL2 that it uses to enable IBIS, that would work perfectly. It’s not just for third party lenses that this is needed. One example would be the Leica 40mm f/2 Summicron, which does not have a manual M lens profile available in camera. Selecting a 50mm lens profile for the 40mm lens degrades the features listed above since they are calculated for the wrong focal length.