Now the 6,350€ question : M11-S 24MP BSI in 2023 ? [Merged]

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

I would expect a 24x36 inch print from the M11's 60mp files would look even better than what my 240 can produce. 

In my ignorance, not having made such a comparison, I would expect to see little difference, but I’m willing to be convinced. I admit I value photos by what they show rather than their bleeding edge image quality though. 

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Herr Barnack said:

…

My 24mp M-P 240 is capable of making exhibit quality prints at 24x36 inches.  I would expect a 24x36 inch print from the M11's 60mp files would look even better than what my 240 can produce. 

From normal viewing distance?  I’d be amazed.  That wouldn’t detract from the fabulous subject matter, composition, exposure and printing, of course! 👍

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Herr Barnack]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

From normal viewing distance?  I’d be amazed.  That wouldn’t detract from the fabulous subject matter, composition, exposure and printing, of course! 👍

Now that I'm looking at my prints, some of the 16x24 inch prints have significantly more sharpness than the 24x36 inch prints.  Some of the 16x24 inch size are closer to the look of the 24x36 inch size, though.

Now I'm thinking that the IQ difference may be attributable to processing (and perhaps to a lesser degree, ISO) than to print size.  16x24 inch prints are 2.25 times smaller in square inches than 24x36 inch prints; I would think that would have to be a factor in IQ.

My thought was that since the M11 has an increase in pixels over the M-P 240 by a factor of 2.5, that would translate into a higher IQ at a given print size if all other variables are equal. 

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

19 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Now that I'm looking at my prints, some of the 16x24 inch prints have significantly more sharpness than the 24x36 inch prints.  Some of the 16x24 inch size are closer to the look of the 24x36 inch size, though.

Now I'm thinking that the IQ difference may be attributable to processing (and perhaps to a lesser degree, ISO) than to print size.  16x24 inch prints are 2.25 times smaller in square inches than 24x36 inch prints; I would think that would have to be a factor in IQ.

My thought was that since the M11 has an increase in pixels over the M-P 240 by a factor of 2.5, that would translate into a higher IQ at a given print size if all other variables are equal. 

Printing is a tricky business.  I don't do any printing myself anymore.  These days, on the rare occasions a print is warranted, usually in black and white, I process the image and email it to Whitewall.

I may have mentioned before, Whitewall printed an image taken with my 18MP Monochrom using a 75 Summilux viewing up the Matukituki Valley into the Southern Alps from Pub Corner.  The print was 1 metre across the long side, and even peering up close, the detail was fantastic.  At normal viewing distances, it was a dramatic image.  Sadly, the print came off the backing and stuck to the inside of the glass, and I've lost the DNG.  Such is life.

My point - at 18MP on a Monochrom, I didn't need any more resolution.  Even the 40MP of the M10M would have been wasted.  I see increased MP as a side effect of improved sensor design, not a goal in itself.

[Tailwagger]

7 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Now I'm thinking that the IQ difference may be attributable to processing (and perhaps to a lesser degree, ISO) than to print size. 

And the more obvious issue of content. Even in a similar scenario, typically the demand for detail is radically different for a portrait of a beautiful young women vs. a crusty bearded old man. There's variations in paper selection as well. 

At the risk of repeating myself, I think while for years many folks have over rotated on the need for ever more pixels, now that they're here, there seems to be quite a few doing the same thing in the opposite direction. In practice, from a quantity of pixels standpoint the differences between 10-R, SL2 and M11 are essentially unnoticeable, certainly when printing at reasonable sizes.  There are plenty of reasons to stand pat or move to this latest generations, but buying an M11 solely for the added 20 Mpx, IMO, seems rather foolish. Rejecting it on that basis, equally so. 

[Herr Barnack]

3 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

And the more obvious issue of content. Even in a similar scenario, typically the demand for detail is radically different for a portrait of a beautiful young women vs. a crusty bearded old man. There's variations in paper selection as well. 

At the risk of repeating myself, I think while for years many folks have over rotated on the need for ever more pixels, now that they're here, there seems to be quite a few doing the same thing in the opposite direction. In practice, from a quantity of pixels standpoint the differences between 10-R, SL2 and M11 are essentially unnoticeable, certainly when printing at reasonable sizes.  There are plenty of reasons to stand pat or move to this latest generations, but buying an M11 solely for the added 20 Mpx, IMO, seems rather foolish. Rejecting it on that basis, equally so. 

@Tailwagger   In thinking about all this, we're singing off the same sheet of music in regard to the above points.  Content will always carry more weight than sharpness or any other tech issue with regard to the print. 

When we start talking about printing, the sand starts to shift under foot.  Most people don't print these days; for those that do, they print at reasonable sizes, perhaps 15 or 20 inches wide or smaller.  I must be in the minority, but I like having the ability to print at unreasonable sizes with impeccable image quality.

My concern with print size vs. sensor size and megapixel count comes from two exhibits that I visited in the same gallery.  One photographer shot using and iPhone - this was several years back before the current generation of mega phones came about.  He had a couple of huge prints - 60x60 inches.  The images had been pushed so far that they fell apart and looked like abstracts.  Perhaps producing abstracts was his intention with these 60x60 inch prints.  To be plain about it, they looked like crap.

Another exhibit from another photographer was from images made with a medium format Hasselblad camera.  I cannot recall the exact model, but it was under 100mp.  These prints were around 32x48 inches - some smaller, some larger.  All sizes of prints exhibited spectacular image quality.  Yes, the fact that the camera used was medium format is an issue - but so is the megapixel count of the sensor.

What I'm saying is that based on what I have seen exhibited in galleries, sensor size and megapixel count are both factors in printing at very large sizes and getting impeccable image quality in the print.  When I see a print that is 32x48 inches or larger that has spectacular image quality paired with visually arresting content and excellence in composition, it takes my breath away - and that is what I am in pursuit of with my own prints whether they will hang on the walls of my home or in a gallery exhibit.

Quote

... I see increased MP as a side effect of improved sensor design, not a goal in itself.

@IkarusJohn  We are on the same page in that regard. 

It seems that with the M11 and even the M10 M and M10R (perhaps to a lesser degree), we have adequate megapixel count these days, even for a guy like me that wants the ability to print at unreasonable sizes with impeccable image quality. 

Some will still insist on shooting with only a camera like the FUJIFILM GFX 100.  I am not one of those who obsess over 102mp being a must have feature/spec.  In my view the M10M, M10R and/or M11 when paired with Leica's insanely excellent M lenses is enough camera for my purposes.  I want to have the ability to print unreasonably large with impeccable image quality.  Making prints with that level of IQ that are the size of my house is not something I have just got to have.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

… There are plenty of reasons to stand pat or move to this latest generations, but buying an M11 solely for the added 20 Mpx, IMO, seems rather foolish. Rejecting it on that basis, equally so. 

Perhaps the word “solely” is missing?

Being one who is questions the need for more pixels, the point is - I’m indifferent.  Do I gain anything from more MP?  No, unless there’s an improvement in IQ.  Sounds like there is - more than an improved 40MP sensor?  Probably not.  Is there a downside to more MP?  That’s what I’m trying to understand.

[IkarusJohn]

@Herr Barnack, for unreasonable sized impeccable prints, full frame format will always be a compromise.  Try the X1Dii - what you lose in pixels, you more than gain in image quality.  It’s a fabulous system, and not badly priced.  The 21, 80 and 135 lenses are fabulous.

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I must be in the minority, but I like having the ability to print at unreasonable sizes with impeccable image quality.

Unfortunately, at this point, I'm limited to 17" due to space considerations... but someday...   As much as I'd love to roll in a 24 or 36" printer, until I attain my dream of a barn studio out in the countryside (and convince my wife to share in this vision), its out of the question.  So at present, 17x22 is a large as I get (why the hell doesn't any one sell 17x25 or A2 in this country?!?).  But if somehow one day I do have the ability,  it's nice to know that that whatever I'm doing today will still have more than enough dots to make sure that the dream, if realized, will be a pleasant one.

29 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Perhaps the word “solely” is missing?

Being one who is questions the need for more pixels, the point is - I’m indifferent.  Do I gain anything from more MP?  No, unless there’s an improvement in IQ.  Sounds like there is - more than an improved 40MP sensor?  Probably not.  Is there a downside to more MP?  That’s what I’m trying to understand.

It's there in the first clause... assume it carries through to the second. There are IMO downsides either way you go, but I think when were talking about in comparison to the 10-R, I have yet to encounter any I can think of related to pixel count. And as I've said previously, I continue to have the impression that the M11 renders more smoothly with more subtle dimensionality and winds up producing more convincing images when downsized than those from the 10-R.  None of which is provable. But these impressions lead me to the question that I feel should be under scrutiny. 

What I find annoying about the general obsession around pixel count is that IMO it buries the lead on the M11 story.  With the M9 to 240 transition, the key concern was obvious, the transition from CCD to CMOS, not the move from 18 to 24 Mpx. Fast forward to last January and likewise I see the core issue when considering the 10-R and M11 revolves around the move from FSI to BSI. It's well documented that many of us who have the M11 were immediately struck by a change in rendering. Whether or not this is all imaginary or not is the real question skeptics should be asking themselves. Admittedly this topic is not so easily explored, but I think it, not pixel count, is the central question.

[IkarusJohn]

The gains from the BSI sensor is very interesting.

[Tailwagger]

5 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The gains from the BSI sensor is very interesting.

...and potential losses as well. I continue to wonder if the excess purple fringing is related to it. I continue to prefer the M11, but I'd be the first to admit that it's not without its issues. Whether these are inherent or addressable remains an open question.

[Stuart Richardson]

As a printer, I would say resolution is to printers as butter is to chefs. Generally, the more the better. But you can certainly make a lot of satisfying dishes without it. All else being equal, more megapixels means better tonality, less moire, more crop-ability and less visible noise (people way too often fall into the trap of comparing at 100% in a computer versus comparing at the actual print size...lower resolution cameras often look better at 100% when it comes to noise, but similar or worse when compared at equal print sizes). The downside to resolution is generally more about file size and difficulty in storing and editing than it is about anything else. Compared to 24mp, 60mp will look better in a print over about 16x20 inches without cropping. That is assuming that the only difference is resolution. Resolution can also effect tonality, and as I said above, the more resolution the better the tonality. This stems from have more pixels with which to convey color information. More pixels = more samples. More samples = more accurate color and finer gradations. In general, 24mp with Leica lenses is more than adequate for most photographer's use cases. The extra resolution is helpful for those who make prints larger than 16x20 or those who like flexibility in cropping. Adding sensor size into the mix complicates things, but basically it behaves the same way. More sensor real estate means more light gathering and a higher signal to noise ratio, so when comparing a 50mp 35mm sensor to a 50mp Medium format sensor, the medium format will typically look better. It gets complicated when comparing a 37mp medium format camera to a 50mp 35mm camera and so on.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Jared]

With the very minor exception of read noise (and it is a minor exception in the case of the IMX 455 sensor), there is no benefit in image quality to having a lower resolution sensor. You can get the same improvements in signal-to-noise by binning or down-sampling as you would from having a lower resolution sensor to begin with. Really. Truly. The only difference is in read noise, and the sensor in the M11 is right around 1.5 electrons (depending on gain/ISO) which is already quite low. In fact, if your normalize for area per pixel and take into account that read noise adds in quadrature, a 60 megapixel M11 image down-sampled to 24 megapixels should have almost the same read noise as an SL2S image at the same ISO (using ISO1600 as a benchmark, though you could choose other values). The quantum efficiency on the IMX 455 is approaching 90% at peak which is better than the chip in the SL2S. So, the M11 down sampled should actually very slightly outperform an SL2S at most ISO's under similar lighting. 

In other words, there really is no need for an SL2S chipped version of the M11. There is no benefit. You can just shoot the M11 at 18mp or 36 (depending on how you intend to use the image) and get either slightly better or very similar low light performance. 

I know the IMX455 well. I have been using it in my cooled astronomy camera for several years. I have been using its larger brother in my GFX100S for a couple years as well. It's an absolute beast in terms of low light performance once you are used to it. There is, quite literally, no sensor made for less than 20,000USD per chip that can outperform it once you account for quantum efficiency, full well capacity, read noise, and dynamic range. Here is a sample of what this chip can do as well as a link to the full 60 megapixel file.. I, for one, would not want a different sensor in the M11. There isn't anything out there I would prefer. It's an excellent match for any full frame camera whose raison d'être isn't sports or high-speed AF. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jared]

Whoops... Forgot the link. 

https://www.astrobin.com/aqwdyc/D/

[Jon Warwick]

7 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

 

Some will still insist on shooting with only a camera like the FUJIFILM GFX 100.  I am not one of those who obsess over 102mp being a must have feature/spec.  In my view the M10M, M10R and/or M11 when paired with Leica's insanely excellent M lenses is enough camera for my purposes.  I want to have the ability to print unreasonably large with impeccable image quality.

I too like large prints. I either own or have used all the cameras you discuss. For me my GFX100S is the best color digital camera I’ve owned, even if I believe the M11 punches above its megapixel weight, helped by the selection of incredible (and varied renderings available of) M mount lenses out there. The M11 does really well versus a larger medium format camera, especially at its lowest ISO, IMHO. But the M10 Monochrom is still at the top of my list for image quality at the largest prints …..intuitively, one imagines there might be a difference of not having a color filter array (ie, allowing light to fall straight through the lens and straight onto the Monochrom sensor ….without the interpolation / algorithms needed to create color standing as another “digital process” in between), and to my eyes I do clearly see a difference. Personally what I see is a cleaner (no moire), more filmic, more natural and less processed look from the Monochrom cameras, and those combine to mean it enlarges to huge print sizes really well (to my eyes and IMHO). It reminds me of film in that sense ….whilst film has the issue of getting grainier the bigger you go with prints, it also never really looks unnatural and never loses its grace at very large print sizes.

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, Jared said:

With the very minor exception of read noise (and it is a minor exception in the case of the IMX 455 sensor), there is no benefit in image quality to having a lower resolution sensor. You can get the same improvements in signal-to-noise by binning or down-sampling as you would from having a lower resolution sensor to begin with. Really. Truly. The only difference is in read noise, and the sensor in the M11 is right around 1.5 electrons (depending on gain/ISO) which is already quite low. In fact, if your normalize for area per pixel and take into account that read noise adds in quadrature, a 60 megapixel M11 image down-sampled to 24 megapixels should have almost the same read noise as an SL2S image at the same ISO (using ISO1600 as a benchmark, though you could choose other values). The quantum efficiency on the IMX 455 is approaching 90% at peak which is better than the chip in the SL2S. So, the M11 down sampled should actually very slightly outperform an SL2S at most ISO's under similar lighting. 

In other words, there really is no need for an SL2S chipped version of the M11. There is no benefit. You can just shoot the M11 at 18mp or 36 (depending on how you intend to use the image) and get either slightly better or very similar low light performance. 

I know the IMX455 well. I have been using it in my cooled astronomy camera for several years. I have been using its larger brother in my GFX100S for a couple years as well. It's an absolute beast in terms of low light performance once you are used to it. There is, quite literally, no sensor made for less than 20,000USD per chip that can outperform it once you account for quantum efficiency, full well capacity, read noise, and dynamic range. Here is a sample of what this chip can do as well as a link to the full 60 megapixel file.. I, for one, would not want a different sensor in the M11. There isn't anything out there I would prefer. It's an excellent match for any full frame camera whose raison d'être isn't sports or high-speed AF. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Thank you Jared.  I take it the IMX455 sensor is the 60MP sensor in the M11 - stupid question, perhaps, but I’ve never heard of it.

[Herr Barnack]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

The gains from the BSI sensor is very interesting.

Things will get even more interesting when the M11 Monochrom is born a couple of years from now.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[nicci78]

After reading lots of review about M11. Binning seems totally useless. 
60MP is overkill. 
We will need a 24MP BSI variant of M11 in the near future. 
A cheaper M11-S in 18 months will be awesome. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by nicci78

[Photoworks]

8 hours ago, nicci78 said:

After reading lots of review about M11. Binning seems totally useless. 
60MP is overkill. 
We will need a 24MP BSI variant of M11 in the near future. 
A cheaper M11-S in 18 months will be awesome. 

So you want them to develop a new sensor of 24MP and cost less and all then in record time...

not realistic, but there is always room to dream...

development of a new camera takes 4-5 years at Leica , I would imaging that a new sensor will take some time.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[insomnia]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Photoworks:

So you want them to develop a new sensor of 24MP and cost less and all then in record time...

not realistic, but there is always room to dream...

development of a new camera takes 4-5 years at Leica , I would imaging that a new sensor will take some time.

SL2-S sensor will suffice. Also they went ahead and did a sensor development purely for the M10-R which will feature the least production number of all (from what we can imagine right now).