Why I will not be getting a M11...

[Jipster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lct said:

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 .

Fair enough. At high speeds, though, I find IBIS (at least on my Nikon D610) could be distracting. That said, I must confess I care about every extra bit of sharpness quite a bit less than many on the internet these days, so maybe I just don't know what sharpness is BECAUSE I don't use IBIS often enough :). 

[Advertisement]

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

[aristotle]

8 hours ago, lct said:

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. 

Your M6 with a slow film has the equivalent of roughly 90 MP (ways to calculate it vary, but it's on that order anyway.)  Why then did you not have this issue with film? Because you chose never to enlarge your photos to the degree that camera shake matters to you based on your choice of focal length and shutter speed.  You easily could have, and if you scan your film at the equivalent resolution to what an M11 provides, it's the same thing in your digital workflow. 

  And whether viewing on your PC screen at 200% produces visual artifacts depends on the screen pixel pitch, how far you are sitting from it and your particular visual acuity.  For a high-end desktop display, many won't in fact see a degradation at 200% at a typical viewing distance.  The fact that you choose to view your files at 1 display pixel per 1 image pixel is an arbitrary choice in any case, and for most, the only time that you'd ever view it that way is very early on in the edit process.

Now if you are arguing that there is no reason to purchase a camera with more resolution than you need, sure.  I get that but if it's offered at the same price, why not?

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours 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?

The sort of bridge formed by a person standing with one leg on the dock and the other on the departing ship. It works just fine.

For the moment.

[pgk]

42 minutes ago, aristotle said:

Your M6 with a slow film has the equivalent of roughly 90 MP.

No it is not. Viable information capacity equates to between 10 and 20 MPixels. Depends on subject matter and so on but slow film most certainly has nowhwere near the equivalent information capacity of 90MPixels.

Edited February 10, 2022 by pgk

[Pixeleater]

3 hours 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?

Over troubled waters?

[charlesphoto99]

17 hours ago, harmen said:

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.

If you shoot a lot, and you use Lightroom and haven't upgraded your computer to deal with 60mp files over 24, it's time to play beach ball! 

[cboy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours 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.

I wouldnt bother to convince others of the issues of high MP and the effect of micro vibrations. One only needs to see other manufacturers have ibis on their high MP cameras. Low light improvement is negated by high MP with no ibis with the M11

The only benifit i see with the m11 is the improved colour science which a similiar affect can be achieved in PS since the previous models have a wider colour gamut

 

 

 

[SrMi]

Just now, cboy said:

I wouldnt bother to convince others of the issues of high MP and the effect of micro vibrations. One only needs to see other manufacturers have ibis on their high MP cameras. Low light improvement is negated by high MP with no ibis with the M11

The only benifit i see with the m11 is the improved colour science which a similiar affect can be achieved in PS since the previous models have a wider colour gamut

Every manufacturer with IBIS in their high-resolution model also offers IBIS in their low-resolution model. No manufacturer adds IBIS just because of high resolution.
The need for IBIS is independent of the resolution, assuming the same sized output. 
If you look at 100% (pixel peeping), then in theory, your minimum shutter speed limit is x1.6 more with M11 than with M10-P (e.g., 1/80sec instead of 1/50sec).

[aristotle]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

No it is not. Viable information capacity equates to between 10 and 20 MPixels. Depends on subject matter and so on but slow film most certainly has nowhwere near the equivalent information capacity of 90MPixels.

Velvia 50 is 160lp/mm (and you need 2 pixels per line in order to capture it).  Do the math.  It's not the subject matter we are talking about, it's the resolving capability of the medium.  

Most pro labs scan at 32MP at the top end, for the same reasons that we are talking about here.  Scanning more than that typically just generates a bigger file because the end use doesn't require more than that, and because the typical capture was performed in such a way that technique is limiting resolution, not the "sensor" (film in this case.)  35mm Velvia is scanned at 180MP for scientific applications regularly.

[harmen]

Sure IBIS would help and be welcome, but the absence of it is not a reason to keep pixel count low.  There always is some amount of shake and the sensor or film captured image will degrade because of it.  It just becomes easier to spot when you can zoom in further.  But there is no specific number of pixels below which a given amount of shake is suddenly invisible and above it it is visible.  It is always there.  More pixels allow you to capture more with no downside (except storage).  The same is at play with APO vs old lenses.  Old lenses also benefit from more pixels, even if you can now zoom in to see the flaws more easily.  Similarly APO has a real benefit on film, even if film has limits.  Pixels, lens quality, (lack of) shake, they all multiply.  It's not a question of limiting factors where the limitation of one means the others plays no role anymore.

[lct]

8 minutes ago, harmen said:

Sure IBIS would help and be welcome, but the absence of it is not a reason to keep pixel count low.  There always is some amount of shake and the sensor or film captured image will degrade because of it.  It just becomes easier to spot when you can zoom in further.

Sure in theory but in practice what's the point of using a huge sensor if it is to get blurry results at high pixel counts? Don't reply that i should be younger or use a tripod please i have heard that a hundred times already . The only good answer i know of is to use faster shutter speeds but better multiply them by two or three handheld then, the 1.6x factor is another nice theory.

[SrMi]

30 minutes ago, lct said:

Sure in theory but in practice what's the point of using a huge sensor if it is to get blurry results at high pixel counts? Don't reply that i should be younger or use a tripod please i have heard that a hundred times already . The only good answer i know of is to use faster shutter speeds but better multiply them by two or three handheld then, the 1.6x factor is another nice theory.

Where do you get the "two or three times" rule? It does not match my experience when switching between M10-P and M11. 

[Pixeleater]

45 minutes ago, lct said:

Sure in theory but in practice what's the point of using a huge sensor if it is to get blurry results at high pixel counts? Don't reply that i should be younger or use a tripod please i have heard that a hundred times already . The only good answer i know of is to use faster shutter speeds but better multiply them by two or three handheld then, the 1.6x factor is another nice theory.

With the M10-R and 28 lux or 50 lux/50 APO I have to keep the shutter above 250 to minimize shake.

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, Pixeleater said:

With the M10-R and 28 lux or 50 lux/50 APO I have to keep the shutter above 250 to minimize shake.

The slowest shutter speed to avoid shake depends on the photographer.

[Pixeleater]

19 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The slowest shutter speed to avoid shake depends on the photographer.

Exactly right.

[lct]

46 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Where do you get the "two or three times" rule?

Just practice and others' experience.

 

[SrMi]

Leica Q (24MP) and Leica Q2 (47MP) have an Auto-OIS option that turns OIS on or off at a fixed shutter speed. The goal is to turn the stabilization on only when a camera shake can occur while handholding.
The switch occurs at a fixed 1/60 sec for both cameras, which is approximately 1/(2f)sec. Note that the shutter speed limit is the same for both cameras, even though they have different resolutions.

[shirubadanieru]

the thread that keeps on threading. 

Out with my M11 now, which makes it really enjoyable to carry the heavier (than cron/lux) nocti f1.2 & also allows me to shoot it wide open outdoors at ISO 64. 

That's all that matters to me, that I can go out with my camera & enjoy it. So maybe go do that instead of spending time complaining about why you won't buy something you don't want in a forum about that same item. Such troll like behavior. 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, lct said:

Just practice and others' experience.

 

I agree with @jonoslack, 2x is safe for M10-R and M11.

It may be the case, but Jono does not say that he shoots 2x to 3x faster than with 24MP camera. 

I shoot my M10-P (and soon the M240) at 1/(2f)s.

Jim Kasson wrote a detailed article about this topic and came to the conclusion that 1/(2f)s makes sense for a 24MP camera (a7II).

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/rules-of-thumb-for-handheld-shutter-speed/

As I wrote in #613, Leica also thinks 1/(2f)s is the proper limit for 24MP and 47MP cameras.

 

[lct]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

I agree with @jonoslack, 2x is safe for M10-R and M11.

It may be the case, but Jono does not say that he shoots 2x to 3x faster than with 24MP camera. 

I shoot my M10-P (and soon the M240) at 1/(2f)s.

Jim Kasson wrote a detailed article about this topic and came to the conclusion that 1/(2f)s makes sense for a 24MP camera (a7II).

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/rules-of-thumb-for-handheld-shutter-speed/

As I wrote in #613, Leica also thinks 1/(2f)s is the proper limit for 24MP and 47MP cameras.

I'm not good at theories sorry. For me it is at least 2x or 3x with my 42MP camera or preferably 1x with IBIS. YMMV.