Why I will not be getting a M11...

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, SrMi said:

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

No doubt, but it also, in the case of the M11, depends a bit on RF/LV and shutter mode. And of course, it also depends on just how critical of the results you are. Let's simply accept, right or wrong, that yeah, 60Mpx when viewed at 100%... not equivalenced back down to 24 or 40 MPX is more prone to hand and shutter effects than its lesser brethren. Fair enough, but fact or not, it's irrelevant. What is relevant is how much greater the effect is.  Is it 20% worse or .02% worse? 

There really are too many variables when hand holding to make a direct comparison viable, but as I had nothing better to do I thought I see what the result would be if I took a shot in the sub tenth of a second range using the e-shutter.  Something that I regularly got away with back in my M10 days. Here's the result.  ISO 800, LV/E-Shutter 60Mpx, F2.8 (not 4.0 as estimated) 1/8", focus on the speaker edge, distance ~1.5M. Only processing was pressing auto in LR. 

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!

Is the result perfect? No. Would it be improved by using a higher shutter speed? Sure. Is the result any worse than with a lower res M camera?  Perhaps. When scaled back down to 40 or 24 MPx? Doubtful, likely its better given the e-shutter.  Do I think the results are usable? I do, but others might not. And for the record, it didn't take 20 attempts to achieve this. This was the second of two shots; the first I rejected as I had a smaller aperture/higher ISO set and wanted to lower the noise floor given the subject.  

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

5 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

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. 

According to this very thread's topic, the trolls you're referring to are trying to explain peacefully why they « will not be getting a M11 », not that they like shooting at low iso with the M11 or any other camera, which is certainly exciting but somewhat OT with respect.

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, lct said:

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.

Valid points. Anyway, I have already shared everything I know about the topic ... getting down from my soap box :).

[cboy]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

No doubt, but it also, in the case of the M11, depends a bit on RF/LV and shutter mode. And of course, it also depends on just how critical of the results you are. Let's simply accept, right or wrong, that yeah, 60Mpx when viewed at 100%... not equivalenced back down to 24 or 40 MPX is more prone to hand and shutter effects than its lesser brethren. Fair enough, but fact or not, it's irrelevant. What is relevant is how much greater the effect is.  Is it 20% worse or .02% worse? 

There really are too many variables when hand holding to make a direct comparison viable, but as I had nothing better to do I thought I see what the result would be if I took a shot in the sub tenth of a second range using the e-shutter.  Something that I regularly got away with back in my M10 days. Here's the result.  ISO 800, LV/E-Shutter 60Mpx, F2.8 (not 4.0 as estimated) 1/8", focus on the speaker edge, distance ~1.5M. Only processing was pressing auto in LR. 

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!

Is the result perfect? No. Would it be improved by using a higher shutter speed? Sure. Is the result any worse than with a lower res M camera?  Perhaps. When scaled back down to 40 or 24 MPx? Doubtful, likely its better given the e-shutter.  Do I think the results are usable? I do, but others might not. And for the record, it didn't take 20 attempts to achieve this. This was the second of two shots; the first I rejected as I had a smaller aperture/higher ISO set and wanted to lower the noise floor given the subject.  

How can it not be relevant when the perceived performance of a high MP camera is improving image quality, yet hand holding, which is how most people use a Leica M results in poorer IQ in certain circumstances such as low light or shooting at 1/FL? It seems one step forward one step back. No amount of firmware/PP can change a blurry image. And Leica customers are paying through the nose for that perceived performance. I'd expect Leica gives its consumer some credit...

I'm not suggesting the M11 is a bad camera, not at all. Actually in terms of landscape or studio photography were a tripod would preferably used then the high MP of the M11 would be used at maximum potential and the most likely the best M for that application. Given the upgrade of the evf and electronic shutter (non global) it seems Leica is intended to facilitate more those genres of photography.

One only needs to look how the M11 was marketed with the photographers shooting what? Static subjects/still life, urban landscape.

To those suited for faster photography like street work and photojournalism, which the M is noted for its no bueno....

Edited February 11, 2022 by cboy

[pgk]

9 hours ago, aristotle said:

 It's not the subject matter we are talking about, it's the resolving capability of the medium.

The resolving capability (information capacity) is intrinsically related to subject matter. Scanning to show grain will not increase the information. I have used both film and digital systems in scientific applications (my background) and once ~12MPixels is exceeded, digital systems can start to show more subject detail. Its very simple. As MPixels increase there are other factors which start to limit the available detail recorded. But all are down to subject matter finally.

[pgk]

On the subject of camera motion let me give an anecdote. Many years ago I was taking macro photographs underwater and to do so I was using an underwater flash. The camera was a Nikon F801, lens the 60mm Micro-Nikkor and the flash a Nikonos SB103 (it was a long time ago). Well matched and very capable. And I shot on Velvia 50. There was swell and whilst he results were ok, they didn't have the 'bite' I usually associated with the set-up. The obvious cause was the swell which was moving me around, but how colud this affect flash photography? I finally noticed some small, marginally out of focus spots which should have showed up not as circular (aperture shaped) 'bokeh' but were actually marginally teardrop shaped. The cause was the motion and the flash which gave a ~1/1000s duration intense burst of light which then decayed  - in effect a very steep initial burst of light with a reduced and slower (relative) 'tail-off'. My images (highlight edges especially) were being contaminated by this 'tail off' which gave a slight 'after image' - still effectively a fast burst of light, but enough to impact on the images. Trying again and being more careful with camera grip and timing the shot, and things improved.

My point? Well just that motion is an odd thing and even when shutter durations (or illuminant durations) are short, it is possible to have problems. The converse is also possible.

I also shoot quite a lot from boats. Tripods don't work on boats, but it is still possible to get very sharp photographs by using a combination of high shutter speed, optimal hold of the camera, and of course, timing. High MPixels or fine grain film don't preclude sharp photographs handheld, but the do require us to have a little more thought in how we approach taking them if we want the images to be 'sharp'.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, SrMi said:

Valid points. Anyway, I have already shared everything I know about the topic ... getting down from my soap box :).

Haha keep your box please your carefully reasoned analyzes are always appreciated .

[Tailwagger]

4 hours ago, cboy said:

How can it not be relevant when the perceived performance of a high MP camera is improving image quality, yet hand holding, which is how most people use a Leica M results in poorer IQ in certain circumstances such as low light or shooting at 1/FL? It seems one step forward one step back.

It's not relevant, AFAIC, because the difference in visible levels of camera shake between an M10/R and and M11 is not going to be discernible in use when in the same hands. At such speeds, the largest factor is always going to come down to how well one executed the shot. From what some have written in terms of how low they can go and from my result, one of two things is true. Either my capability, in my seventh decade, mind you, is an outlier or my standards of acceptable sharpness are a fair bit lower than those leveling the criticism. Either way, what my limited testing tells me is that there is no perceivable difference between the two. Your breathing patterns have a far greater impact than the pixel count.  In fact, with the e-shutter, when in my hands the argument can be made that M11 is actually better than the 10-R, but again the difference are slight. AFAIC, if you need any more sharpness at these sort of shutter speeds, pull a tripod.

Again, same hand held 1/8" shot, full frame this time converted to B&W for examination purposes and downsized to the forum recommended 2480px. Bearing in mind to click though, I see nothing in this result to suggest that the pixel increase presents any more of a challenge than it did previously.  It certainly should be obvious that at some point I need to find some replacement woofers for my Genelecs. And one can always simply shoot in 38 Mpx mode if 60 Mpx proves to be too difficult to pull off. 

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!

[pgk]

11 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Your breathing patterns have a far greater impact than the pixel count.

FWIW, and without wanting to discuss the moral side of it, there is a lot of similarity between precision target shooting with a rifle and handholding a camera steady. Hold should always minimise any motion (and hence all angular deflection) other than that in which the lens is pointing, which is far less relevant. The left hand should act as a support and not be used to grip the camera but only to stabilise it. The right hand should only grip the camera at front and back and the gripping forces should idealy cancel each other out. Shutter release should be deliberate and smooth so that you know when it will release but there will be no sufdden motion.The shot should be taken whilst the lungs are not moving (short breath holding. And if you are fortunate genetically, you might just release the shutter between heartbeats (as apparently the best target shooters do) although this is not something that one can easily control I believe).

The above apply to all photography shooting, not just at slower shutter durations. Practice may not make perfect but it certainly can help. You may not always get as sharp an image as you would like but often the photograph can be surprisngly sharp and in any case, in many situations, sharpness may not the the absolute prime requirement that many appear to think that it is.

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

FWIW, and without wanting to discuss the moral side of it, there is a lot of similarity between precision target shooting with a rifle and handholding a camera steady. Hold should always minimise any motion (and hence all angular deflection) other than that in which the lens is pointing, which is far less relevant. The left hand should act as a support and not be used to grip the camera but only to stabilise it. The right hand should only grip the camera at front and back and the gripping forces should idealy cancel each other out. Shutter release should be deliberate and smooth so that you know when it will release but there will be no sufdden motion.The shot should be taken whilst the lungs are not moving (short breath holding. And if you are fortunate genetically, you might just release the shutter between heartbeats (as apparently the best target shooters do) although this is not something that one can easily control I believe).

The above apply to all photography shooting, not just at slower shutter durations. Practice may not make perfect but it certainly can help. You may not always get as sharp an image as you would like but often the photograph can be surprisngly sharp and in any case, in many situations, sharpness may not the the absolute prime requirement that many appear to think that it is.

I'd add to your description to try to take an athletic stance, ie. knees slightly flexed, not locked. And one's elbows should not be splayed out, but held near or against the rib cage to form a stable triangle to the camera. 

One thing that I haven't really tried as I confess I largely forgot the observation until your referencing target shooting here, is whether or not there might be any further advantage to having one's body perpendicular to the target rather than parallel to it. I recall my wife developed an interest in biathlon last winter and forced me watch any numbers of hours of it over a few weeks. What was immediately obvious in their technique was that they shoot over the shoulder and kick the hips slightly rearward to ensure balance. 

[aristotle]

17 hours ago, pgk said:

The resolving capability (information capacity) is intrinsically related to subject matter. Scanning to show grain will not increase the information. I have used both film and digital systems in scientific applications (my background) and once ~12MPixels is exceeded, digital systems can start to show more subject detail. Its very simple. As MPixels increase there are other factors which start to limit the available detail recorded. But all are down to subject matter finally.

160 line pair / mm is the actual number.  If by "related to subject matter" you mean that if the subject doesn't have fine detail, then capturing at a finer resolution doesn't show anything, well, sure.  But the medium (Velvia in this case) absolutely can capture the detail if it's there.  90+ MP captures are commonplace for a variety of applications, and the detail is definitely there.  I've had to design the scanners capable of doing it.  The point though is that the poster earlier said that he never cropped his photos but was still concerned that "100%" views on his screen showed camera motion.  He would notice the same thing with film if he either enlarged the film to the equivalent angle of view, or scanned it and enlarged the equivalent amount.  If you are zooming in to a certain angle of view, you need to take that into account when you capture the image by adjusting the exposure time.  It's not a limitation of a sensor that happens to have good resolution.

[NigelG]

As a target rifle shot (HPS cross* medals at 600-1000yds) I would say that I would never advocate releasing a shot while holding your breath. One always exhales and then releases the shot before inhaling. Holding your breath causes muscle tensions which relax at the point you release the shot. This is independent of heartbeat (yes it’s a factor but more so in short range indoor shooting)

If you really want to be the steadiest you can be (and I’m not entirely sure photography is ever as critical as target rifle shooting tbh) brace your elbows against your body, close your eyes and inhale/exhale then open your eyes and see where your camera is pointed....then adjust your body (not your arms)

*Highest Possible Score

[Jeff S]

23 hours ago, cboy said:

No amount of firmware/PP can change a blurry image. 

Topaz and various other software can do exactly that. 
 

Jeff

[pgk]

5 hours ago, NigelG said:

.....I would say that I would never advocate releasing a shot while holding your breath.

Sorry, I was thinking in terms of my underwater photography where bubbles and turbulence also come into play. Btreath holding for short durations is an inevitable (and frowned down upon) result.

[pgk]

8 hours ago, aristotle said:

If by "related to subject matter" you mean that if the subject doesn't have fine detail, then capturing at a finer resolution doesn't show anything, well, sure.  But the medium (Velvia in this case) absolutely can capture the detail if it's there.

Having undetaken photography for scientific purposes I can quite categorically tell you that Velvia cannot, and does not, capture fine detal as well as a say 20MPixel sensor because this is exactly what the desired outcome we were trying to achieve - to examine fine details to identify the subject. The real difference between film and digital is that whilst digital finally is made up of discrete pixels, film can be enlared considerably further to resolve the grain. This does not equate to its information capacity. Film and digital are very different and trying to equate the two is not as simple as many would like it to be. In the real world though, digital sensors produce images which contain far more detail even at surprisingly low MPixels.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 2/12/2022 at 1:34 PM, aristotle said:

160 line pair / mm is the actual number.  If by "related to subject matter" you mean that if the subject doesn't have fine detail, then capturing at a finer resolution doesn't show anything, well, sure.  But the medium (Velvia in this case) absolutely can capture the detail if it's there.  90+ MP captures are commonplace for a variety of applications, and the detail is definitely there.  I've had to design the scanners capable of doing it.  The point though is that the poster earlier said that he never cropped his photos but was still concerned that "100%" views on his screen showed camera motion.  He would notice the same thing with film if he either enlarged the film to the equivalent angle of view, or scanned it and enlarged the equivalent amount.  If you are zooming in to a certain angle of view, you need to take that into account when you capture the image by adjusting the exposure time.  It's not a limitation of a sensor that happens to have good resolution.

I scanned film commercially as well as printing Ilfochromes and for 135 format Velvia we were looking at film grain at a 16 pass 4000x6000 ppi scan.  We acheived peak resolution after 4 passes and minor gains in DR after that. We scanned bigger but that didn't produce more real detail capture. It was just interpolation. That's 24MP. Actual deatail was lower but I never tried to measure it as even the develop bath temperature affected grain clumping significantly so we used 4000 x 6000 as we knew perfectly processed Velvia would not exceed this. Depending on the bath it received PanF was usually the finest grained and most highly detailed at around 30MP before grain clumps hid detail. There were a few specialised films not used by photographers that had more detail but most of these weren't full spectrum.

Film is an organic/chemical medium. I don't know how you'd even measure it in line pairs. Where are you getting you data from? What scanners did you design? It doesn't seem to match up with what even the best oil based drum scanners produced at the peak of film.

Gordon

Edited February 13, 2022 by FlashGordonPhotography
spelling

[aristotle]

27 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I scanned film commercially as well as printing Ilfochromes and for 135 format Velvia we were looking at film grain at a 16 pass 4000x6000 ppi scan.  We acheived peak resolution after 4 passes and minor gains in DR after that. We scanned bigger but that didn't produce more real detail capture. It was just interpolation. That's 24MP. Actual deatail was lower but I never tried to measure it as even the develop bath temperature affected grain clumping significantly so we used 4000 x 6000 as we knew perfectly processed Velvia would not exceed this. Depending on the bath it received PanF was usually the finest grained and most highly detailed at around 30MP before grain clumps hid detail. There were a few specialised films not used by photographers that had more detail but most of these weren't full spectrum.

Film is an organic/chemical medium. I don't know how you'd even measure it in line pairs. Where are you getting you data from? What scanners did you design? It doesn't seem to match up with what even the best oil based drum scanners produced at the peak of film.

Gordon

Hi Gordon...  It was at the peak of film for applications involving government agencies.  8000ppi + was the norm.  Measurements were made using test targets, but the point wasn't to equate "megapixels" of scanned film to megapixels from a digital sensor.    It was to push the achievable an angle of view (magnification) from which information could be obtained from a given capture platform.  I'm happy to have you guys have the last word on the subject though, and the intent wasn't to debate film resolution   The original point was related to the poster who was attributing camera motion blur to the fact that his sensor had a high resolution.  He was choosing to view his image at a magnification where motion blur is inevitable using traditional hand held 1/f or 1/2f rules of thumb.  He stated that he didn't crop his images, and though he didn't state his output format, it sounded like it was either screen or small print.  In that case, while one could argue that he doesn't need a 60MP sensor, it's certainly not a limitation of the sensor itself.

[pgk]

4 hours ago, aristotle said:

In that case, while one could argue that he doesn't need a 60MP sensor, it's certainly not a limitation of the sensor itself.

In my experience, controlling conditions including subject contrast and lighting, and using a lens optimised for the subject distance, and using an optimal aperture, can, sometimes give results beyond thos which exist in most 'real world' photography which almost always involves some compromises. I remember talking to a scientist shooting underwater images of Bryozoa using a smaller than full-frame Nikon. He was attempting to maximise depth of field at 1:1 which ensuring maximum definition. After trying opening up the lens as I suggested, he soon realised that highest depth of field and maximium definition of the small structures of these minute animals was not possible together so whatever he did involved a compromise. In the end he opted for best definition as this gave him more useful information. His camera was, I think, something ver 30MPixels, So using 60MPixels means deiifraction limitation is going to kick in well before minimum aperture. Photography can all too often be about finding the sweet spot in which the compromises balance to provide the most effective image for the use to which it is o be put. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[padam]

On 2/11/2022 at 12:57 PM, Tailwagger said:

It's not relevant, AFAIC, because the difference in visible levels of camera shake between an M10/R and and M11 is not going to be discernible in use when in the same hands. At such speeds, the largest factor is always going to come down to how well one executed the shot. From what some have written in terms of how low they can go and from my result, one of two things is true. Either my capability, in my seventh decade, mind you, is an outlier or my standards of acceptable sharpness are a fair bit lower than those leveling the criticism. Either way, what my limited testing tells me is that there is no perceivable difference between the two. Your breathing patterns have a far greater impact than the pixel count.  In fact, with the e-shutter, when in my hands the argument can be made that M11 is actually better than the 10-R, but again the difference are slight. AFAIC, if you need any more sharpness at these sort of shutter speeds, pull a tripod.

The tests that you are posting simply does not demonstrate how a lot of people intend to use a Leica M in the real world.
For the most part, I am not going to concentrate on getting the lowest possible shake, rather than getting the shot at the right time (yes even the slightest delay is a disadvantage against the M10). Constantly monitoring shutter speed, at some point it is more fiddling than actual photography. (Some people don't mind that at all, and it's fine.)
The M6 TTL was fair superior at doing that, forcing the user to do some actual photography, maybe because flaws on film aren't nearly as unappealing as on digital. That was my first Leica body purchase, maybe it should have been the last as well, as I simply think that they don't make digital cameras as well as they could, they take some odd decisions.

I don't buy this Leica BS saying: "it's a Leica, we are not going to offer a more complicated shutter supporting EFCS, because it can causes image issues at very high shutter speeds, so it makes things simpler not to have it".
They already did the same with the level gauge in the M10, which they reinstated on the M10-P M10-R, etc. and I feel like they are "waiting for the right time" to bring back video as well, it's just inevitable with these new sensors and the re-design of the menu, which really wasn't necessary on an M, but it is pointing towards that direction.

I like that they offered the lighter body on the black version. Now it's lighter than an original A7S + an M adapter, that's quite brilliant.
But it is jam-packed with other features (new metering system, menu, custom buttons, lots of megapixels) that I don't need or don't want if they carry some drawbacks well (at least at this current preliminary stage).
They simply don't want to offer a somewhat light hybrid camera that is easier to use hand-held with M lenses, that's my gripe with Leica at the moment, so I can continue getting frustrated by the SL2 instead. Cost me 2.5x less than an M11, I guess the EVF is better than the optional Visoflex 2, and the resolution is more usable hand-held, so I guess I can live with it. But if I had the option to get the SL2-S for even less, I would have chosen that one for sure, if it has some moiré, so be it.

[Tailwagger]

23 minutes ago, padam said:

The tests that you are posting simply does not demonstrate how a lot of people intend to use a Leica M in the real world.
For the most part, I am not going to concentrate on getting the lowest possible shake, rather than getting the shot at the right time (yes even the slightest delay is a disadvantage against the M10). 

Not a test, a simple demonstration in my living room in response to an incorrect assumption by people who've never held an M11 as to what it's capable of. The M11 can be shot to low speeds just as effectively as the M10-R.  As for getting the shot at the correct moment, that is completely orthogonal to my post.  If you're so worried about a level of precision where a few millis shutter lag difference is, as you see it, a disadvantage, you would never be shooting at 1/10" in the first place.  And equally you'd avoid EVFs, SL2 or otherwise, altogether.