Why I will not be getting a M11...

[padam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Just as it was with the M10-R, if you act casually when shooting at lower shutter speed, you risk blurring from camera shake, not shutter shock. As the above proves, it's perfectly possible to shoot with the M11 and get razor sharp results at low shutter speed, which means the shutter is well damped and any failures are on the photographer, not the camera. Throw it on a tripod and see. 

The RedDotForum video about the M11 suggested using the electronic shutter for best sharpness. I am assuming they know how to use a Leica.
This basically kills off any theory about the mechanical shutter not causing any vibrations. And I am seeing it on real-world examples taken at supposedly safe shutter speeds. I am sure there is room to improve on this in the M11-P, that's why I don't see this camera as a finished product as-is.

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

53 minutes ago, padam said:

The RedDotForum video about the M11 suggested using the electronic shutter for best sharpness. I am assuming they know how to use a Leica.
This basically kills off any theory about the mechanical shutter not causing any vibrations. And I am seeing it on real-world examples taken at supposedly safe shutter speeds. I am sure there is room to improve on this in the M11-P, that's why I don't see this camera as a finished product as-is.

Yes, with M11's electronic shutter, you will get sharper images than any digital M can create. However, the difference is not noticeable in practice, except on a tripod and long lenses (e.g., 180mm).
To quote Chico Marx: Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

[Tailwagger]

15 minutes ago, padam said:

The RedDotForum video about the M11 suggested using the electronic shutter for best sharpness. I am assuming they know how to use a Leica.
This basically kills off any theory about the mechanical shutter not causing any vibrations. And I am seeing it on real-world examples taken at supposedly safe shutter speeds. I am sure there is room to improve on this in the M11-P, that's why I don't see this camera as a finished product as-is.

And yet I just showed you a tack sharp shot, hand held, with all the data on display, shot at 60Mpx taken with a 50mm lens at 1/25" second at 100% magnification. How, pray tell do you explain that if shutter shock is such a problem?  Shall I throw the M11 on a tripod this evening and show you exactly what the hell their talking about? You know what, that's exactly what I'll do, despite how utterly idiotic this is. 

 

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!

[Tailwagger]

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!

The above covers all four modes, LV/RF Mech/E Shutter. If anyone's worried about this level of variance at 1/6", those individuals should run as a candidate for president of pixel peepers international. And more to the point, you need an M11 as 40Mpx just wont do. 

 

[IkarusJohn]

Am I imagining it, or does the RF Mech image (#2 above) look slightly sharper?  Not going to make a difference in practise, just wondering.

[Tailwagger]

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Am I imagining it, or does the RF Mech image (#2 above) look slightly sharper?  Not going to make a difference in practise, just wondering.

I intentionally didn't label things and the ordering isn't as I had it in my comment. What I will say is that isn't RF Mech. I would agree that there is a slight difference across the board, but nothing that a bit of sharpening couldn't completely disguise if one felt strongly about it.  The whole notion of M shutter shock being a serious issue is Shakespearean comedy as in Much Ado About Nothing. 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I agree.  Not a huge fan of electronic shutters, and not convinced by the need for 60MP in an M camera, but shutter shock would be the least of my worries.

[Tailwagger]

3 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Yes, I agree.  Not a huge fan of electronic shutters, and not convinced by the need for 60MP in an M camera, but shutter shock would be the least of my worries.

On one hand I totally agree. I was perfectly happy with 40 Mpx and while I see many benefits over the M10-R, the added pixels isn't really one of them. Unfortunately I haven't quite gotten over the psychology involved in shooting in the 38Mpx, despite having seen spectacular results for the 18Mpx mode when I went out seriously shooting having accidentally forgot to reset to full res after the previous evening's testing. 

But on the other hand, I think that 60Mpx was, at least at this juncture, a necessity. If, as we all believe, this is a Sony sensor, that's what was on the shelf a year or two ago, so thats what we got. I would have preferred a 40Mpx or so BSI sensor, but I think the market reality was, at the time of design, that this was the best option. Perhaps in future, other parts will be available that will emphasize lower noise over more photo sites, but I suspect that this is largely outside of Leica's control.

[Jipster]

3 hours ago, lct said:

Dunno for you but i'm used to shoot at moderate shutter speeds when i need some DoF sans digital noise. I can do it at 42MP with IBIS but sans IBIS my pics tend to blur too much. What would i do with a 60MP camera sans IBIS nor tripod? I would shoot at 33MP or 18MP i guess but i would have the feeling to use a Ferrari to go to the baker so to speak...

But the great thing is you can shoot at 36MP without loss of quality. Note that in quite a few circumstances IBIS affects pixel acuity. No free lunch, I guess,

[Guest]

To be honest, this could be 2 topics - 1/ why the M11 is not better (in a meaningful way) than M10 etc.; 2/ why the M11 is worse (in some real or imagined ways, e.g. claims about shutter shock without evidence).

I find it encouraging and enjoy watching field reports like the one from "SnapChick" which seem to indicate that the 2nd one (M11 worse) doesn't seem to bear out in a significant way in the real world.

My attitude is that opportunities for pictures do not reoccur. Every moment is unique. The M11 gives me more leeway e.g. to crop when I didn't bring the right lens, and to capture the decisive moment or whatever. You may have a completely different perspective. I am a visual person, to me preserving my visual memories in the best possible (technical) way is something of great value.

[lct]

10 minutes ago, Jipster said:

But the great thing is you can shoot at 36MP without loss of quality. Note that in quite a few circumstances IBIS affects pixel acuity. No free lunch, I guess,

IBIS is simply indispensable for me, at least at the resolution of my A7r2 mod (42MP). Would 36MP (i thought it was 33 sorry) make a significant difference?  I would like to believe it but i can't sorry. I'm an old guy with steady hands fortunately but the juge is 100% crops and IBIS is always the winner then, at least for me. YMMV.

[aristotle]

55 minutes ago, lct said:

 but the juge is 100% crops 

Out of curiosity, why would a 100% crop be the judge?  Magnification is magnification, whether it's optical or digital.  If you choose to display your image at a magnification that is too large for the shutter speed that the image was captured at, it's an issue regardless of sensor resolution.  Take an image from an M10 and an M11, using the same lens, and display them at the same size, and camera shake will be just as evident in one as the other.  Sure, the larger sensor resolution means that you are fundamentally less limited in terms of enlargement capability, but why would that lack of limitation be perceived as a down-side?  Me personally, I'd argue that I don't print big enough for the difference between 40MP and 60MP to matter to me, and even if I did, it would be displayed in a setting where the viewer is likely far enough back that camera shake is not an issue.  If two sensors are equal in all other ways, but one has higher resolution, there is no reason not to choose the one that has less limitations.  In this case, the prices is essentially the same, and I don't see anybody arguing that other (non resolution) image quality metrics aren't at least as good with the M11 as with the M10R.

If you have a 28mm lens mounted on your camera, and when you look through the finder, you think that you will want to crop the photo to the 90mm frame lines, you'd better adjust your shutter speed accordingly regardless of the sensor resolution.  The fact that it will be easier for you to crop that far into the photo with a 60MP sensor than with, say, a 24 MP sensor is beside the point.

Having said all of that, I'm not planning on upgrading.  That's because the improvements won't impact my style personally, and no other reason.   

Edited February 10, 2022 by aristotle

[lct]

32 minutes ago, aristotle said:

Out of curiosity, why would a 100% crop be the judge?  Magnification is magnification, whether it's optical or digital.  If you choose to display your image at a magnification that is too large for the shutter speed that the image was captured at, it's an issue regardless of sensor resolution.  Take an image from an M10 and an M11, using the same lens, and display them at the same size, and camera shake will be just as evident in one as the other.  Sure, the larger sensor resolution means that you are fundamentally less limited in terms of enlargement capability, but why would that lack of limitation be perceived as a down-side?  Me personally, I'd argue that I don't print big enough for the difference between 40MP and 60MP to matter to me, and even if I did, it would be displayed in a setting where the viewer is likely far enough back that camera shake is not an issue.  If two sensors are equal in all other ways, but one has higher resolution, there is no reason not to choose the one that has less limitations.  In this case, the prices is essentially the same, and I don't see anybody arguing that other (non resolution) image quality metrics aren't at least as good with the M11 as with the M10R.

If you have a 28mm lens mounted on your camera, and when you look through the finder, you think that you will want to crop the photo to the 90mm frame lines, you'd better adjust your shutter speed accordingly regardless of the sensor resolution.  The fact that it will be easier for you to crop that far into the photo with a 60MP sensor than with, say, a 24 MP sensor is beside the point.

Having said all of that, I'm not planning on upgrading.  That's because the improvements won't impact my style personally, and no other reason.   

What's cropping?  I crop as little as i can but i always tweak my pic files at 100% in PP. Not sure how i would do otherwise. What would be the point of limiting myself at 50% or 25% if the pic is supposed to be watched at 100 % by the viewers? When i was shooting for my job, my clients wanted high res pic files and i did check them at 100% you can trust me. Now i am semi retired but when i shoot flowers in my garden i don't use a 42MP camera to take 24MP pictures. I have 24MP cameras for that .

[harmen]

3 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

On one hand I totally agree. I was perfectly happy with 40 Mpx and while I see many benefits over the M10-R, the added pixels isn't really one of them. Unfortunately I haven't quite gotten over the psychology involved in shooting in the 38Mpx, despite having seen spectacular results for the 18Mpx mode when I went out seriously shooting having accidentally forgot to reset to full res after the previous evening's testing. 

But on the other hand, I think that 60Mpx was, at least at this juncture, a necessity. If, as we all believe, this is a Sony sensor, that's what was on the shelf a year or two ago, so thats what we got. I would have preferred a 40Mpx or so BSI sensor, but I think the market reality was, at the time of design, that this was the best option. Perhaps in future, other parts will be available that will emphasize lower noise over more photo sites, but I suspect that this is largely outside of Leica's control.

What is the drawback of extra pixels?  I honestly struggle to understand this.  Is it a perception of wasted money for something that offers no additional value for some users?  Otherwise there do not seem to be drawbacks.  Even a 400 Mpx sensor might do quite nicely.  On a full image it would not introduce a lack of sharpness or high ISO noise (though it may make such things visible at the tiny area that one needs to zoom into to be at 100% where a lower Mpx sensor’s much bigger area at 100% would make it less noticeable). Storage is no issue thanks to the variable size settings.

[aristotle]

7 hours ago, lct said:

What's cropping?  I crop as little as i can but i always tweak my pic files at 100% in PP. Not sure how i would do otherwise. What would be the point of limiting myself at 50% or 25% if the pic is supposed to be watched at 100 % by the viewers? When i was shooting for my job, my clients wanted high res pic files and i did check them at 100% you can trust me. Now i am semi retired but when i shoot flowers in my garden i don't use a 42MP camera to take 24MP pictures. I have 24MP cameras for that .

So the complaint is only when you are performing initial adjustments and not with the final output?  I get that want to look close when you are doing an initial unsharp mask prior to down-sampling for subsequent adjustment, but surely your final image isn't at 60MP when it's intended for screen view or an 8x10 print?  And why limit yourself to 100% while editing if that's the case?  Why not 200 or 400?  What magnification you choose to view while editing is dependent on a variety of things, including your monitor pixel pitch.

And by that argument, film would present the same problem for you (the inherent resolution is north of 24MP).

Edited February 10, 2022 by aristotle

[lct]

1 hour ago, aristotle said:

And why limit yourself to 100% while editing if that's the case?  Why not 200 or 400?

200 or 400% can only add artefacts from the PC or screen but the final output is involved as far as motion blur is concerned at least. Motion blur sans IBIS can be hard to see at 24MP but may become obvious at 42MP for instance. I say 42MP because it is my own experience but i don't see how 60MP could escape from the same issue. 

[Jipster]

13 hours ago, lct said:

IBIS is simply indispensable for me, at least at the resolution of my A7r2 mod (42MP). Would 36MP (i thought it was 33 sorry) make a significant difference?  I would like to believe it but i can't sorry. I'm an old guy with steady hands fortunately but the juge is 100% crops and IBIS is always the winner then, at least for me. YMMV.

Then, the M is not for you. Fortunately, there are lots of great cameras out there. For whatever it is worth, I have a Nikon D610 and own several prime lenses have no IBIS (most or all 1.8G lenses). Never seen a problem with sharpness at 100% and I am 61 years old. But to each its own.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Jipster said:

Then, the M is not for you. Fortunately, there are lots of great cameras out there. For whatever it is worth, I have a Nikon D610 and own several prime lenses have no IBIS (most or all 1.8G lenses). Never seen a problem with sharpness at 100% and I am 61 years old. But to each its own.

M cameras have been for me since the seventies (M3, M4, M4-2, M6J, M8.2, M240) and i'm a Nikon user since i don't remember when. I am too shy to admit my age but I still see the difference between pictures with and sans IBIS, fortunately or unfortunately for me depending upon the viewpoint. YMMV .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

On 2/9/2022 at 2:09 PM, lct said:

Seen from the outside, the M11 looks like a smart bridge between RF-M and EVF-M cameras.

Really? From my perspective it looks like a compromised, manual focus EVF camera with a rangefinder and OVF. My question is: a bridge to what?

[IkarusJohn]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Really? From my perspective it looks like a compromised, manual focus EVF camera with a rangefinder and OVF. My question is: a bridge to what?

Too far?