Time to face the sensor problem

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A someone who shoots Hasselblad CFV (50 MP) and Phase One IQ4 (151 MP) medium format handheld with no image stabilization whatsoever, this is not a major issue for most situations until you reach longer telephoto focal lengths.

[tom0511]

I remember when I shot film with My M6, usually ISO50 or 64, and 400 if light was low.

While I would welcome IBIS on one side, I almost never miss it on the other side. I assume that the body of the M doesn't have enough space.

I use the M in the wide-angle to normal range, I have fast lenses, ISO today works well up to 6400 ISO, so far I did not run in to any problems.

On the SL2 I use it, just because its there. I think it is much more important for longer focal lengths to have stabilized. But I don't use longer focal lengths on the M. 

I also shot the x1d and the Leica S handheld often. Works.

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

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

[FrozenInTime]

5 hours ago, adan said:

For Sailronin: True, but a 500-series Hasselblad firing is like a collision between two semis.

I never use anything but 1/500th hand-held, even on gritty Tri-X. And even with the Distagon 40 wide-angle (which I swapped for an SWC - no mirror slap).

I've never found handholding a Hasselblad an issue ; the thunderclap is mainly the auxiliary shutter over the film magazine which is a balanced action and can be pre-released along with the mirror if there is any doubt.

[SrMi]

9 hours ago, michali said:

Surely using the M11 electronic shutter as & when required, would to a large extent negate blur, be it the result of shutter slap or some other reason. 

An electronic shutter cannot mitigate camera shake; only the shutter shock can be eliminated.

[SrMi]

13 hours ago, dkmoore said:

Wrong. There is blur with M10R below 1/90 if you aren’t super mindful. 
 

my M11 arrives tomorrow but ive heard from numerous sources the same issue doesn’t exist. 

The shutter speed at which blur occurs depends on the photographer and the focal length used. Also, the blur does not happen suddenly, but the probability for blur starts increasing. Another possibility to mitigate motion blur is to shoot a sequence. If the chance of a sharp image drops to 30%, shoot three photos in a series. One of them should have no motion blur. 

Edited January 15, 2022 by SrMi

[Alberti]

17 hours ago, M Journey said:

The photos shown in reviews from Jono, Elmar, and Dave at reddotforum are fantastic and I doubt many, if any were taken using a tripod.  With practice, and great technique, I’m sure most/all m11 shooters can get picture that are just as sharp and free of blur.  Composition and photographic vision?  That’s up to the shooter and no amount of IBIS will make a difference there…

The capabilities you choose will help a lot: choose the electronic shutter/black curtain and most of the shake is gone (I can’t ask Steven 🤐 ) but we exchanged a post on it. He really advocated the latter. He understands. 🤐

On my S5 I have blur if I choose Mech. Not just the shutter shock, also the movement of the hand.  Electr. solves the issue totally. I expect the same with the M11.

On my M8 I had a lot of blur - wobbling due to camera movement to the shutter. Depressing. It was. Really. 🤐

On my M-Monochrome I have no motion blur - the discrete option is great. On my M240 all goes fine too (but I forgot how I installed that).

My impression is that IBIS does not solve all problems.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Alberti

[Jipster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Stevejack said:

I'm guilty of the shutter criticism. But I also don't think the colour digital M cameras offer anything in terms of image quality that outperforms any other modern full frame digital. I currently have three M cameras and another on the way, I obviously love them, but I'm not kidding myself here. It's not about the end result. 

So I'm not in it for the image quality, I'm in it for the experience of taking the photograph with a rangefinder camera and using the manual lenses. I enjoy the process of taking a photograph with the M.      Anything that takes away from how pleasant that experience is, is a step backwards IMO. 

Don't get me wrong I want the best image quality I can get out of the M system, hence why I'm trying out the M11... but I don't want any of the extra image quality to come at the expense of a pleasing user experience. How the camera 'feels' is completely subjective I know, so time will tell whether I keep it or not. The M10 is a perfectly good camera if the M11 feels wrong. 

Good point. The shooting experience is also partly why I bought a used Leica M10 last fall. I went this route after rediscovering the joys of black and white film shooting over the summer. Having shot for a long time Nikon DSLR full frame (and I have kept the Nikon for telephoto work), the combination of The Leica M10 and the 50 Summilux Aspherical is markedly better when it comes to color and micro-contrast (or whatever what one wants to call it). Not that the Nikon was bad at all, it was excellent, but the M10+Summilux is better (and my family immediately saw the difference, so it's not just buyer's bias). But the shooting experience for me is less in the sound (although I like the sound of The M10 so much more than the Nikon DSLR sound) than in the fixed, manual focus aspect of the experience. But the shutter is important too. That said, it seems the shutter sound on the M11 is not any worse than the M10 which I love. So, if I had any money left I would consider the M11 although for me, the 60 megapixels is a drawback. I would rather have a 24 or 33 MB that is a low light beast, as I shoot at dawn or dusk quite a bit.

One I have a hard time getting worked up by is startup time, as I leave my M10 on (with its so-so battery) all the time one I start a shoot. Waking up is a little slow but I am typically not often on sleep mode. I still get 400 to 500 shots on a single battery (I don't chimp much and don't have the EVF). So, a single spare battery and I can call it a day.

[Herr Barnack]

10 hours ago, frame-it said:

http://phaseoneiq4.com/yes-you-can-hand-hold-150-megapixels/

If we can hand hold a 150mp camera and get sharp, clear images we should be able to do the same with the 60mp M 11 if we use focal length X2 for our minimum hand held shutter speed - or focal length X3. 

Or we could try using a monopod.  Just a suggestion...

[ynp]

2 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

If we can hand hold a 150mp camera and get sharp, clear images we should be able to do the same with the 60mp M 11 if we use focal length X2 for our minimum hand held shutter speed - or focal length X3. 

Or we could try using a monopod.  Just a suggestion...

Or we could be using  a flash. Just another suggestion. 😀

[trickness]

I learned how to set shutter speed and hold the camera properly so I don’t get blurry photos. Maybe Leica can include photo lessons with the purchase of every M11?

Edited January 15, 2022 by trickness

[henning]

As adan and others have pointed out, 61mp is not a huge jump; less than a 2x linear magnification from the M9's 18mp. It was quite possible to make sharp photos with the M9, so now with the M11 just raise the ISO one stop higher and the shutter speed one stop higher and you're good. It's not a big deal and certainly doesn't indicate any design deficiency in the M11.

That said, I too would like IBIS in an M model. In the 90's I switched from Nikon to Canon for my SLR needs, and Canon's image stabilization, although based on lens stabilization as Sony's had been, was one factor. A 100-400 acceptable quality zoom with stabilization was a game changer! I've had stabilized cameras and lenses ever since. Some of the best implementations are in the Olympus EM-1 models with lenses such as the 12-100 zoom, or the Panasonic G9 with the 100-400 zoom which I could shoot handheld at 800mm equivalent angle of view from a zodiac in the Antarctic. My full frame camera/lens combinations have not managed that in practice, but they're getting close.

Leica M's are different. The shooting experience depends on handling, direct viewing with practiced rangefinder focussing and muscle memory . The forays into different body configurations, such as the M5 and the M240 didn't survive because they went in wrong directions, not because shooters were necessarily hidebound. The problem with IBIS systems at present is that they're too thick. Just look at where the sensor plane is in relation to the back of the screen on cameras that have IBIS. Now imagine that thickness back of the sensor plane in an M camera. If the lens mount were kept in the same position to the front of the body as now, the camera would be 6mm or more thicker. THAT would make me give up M's. The only other solution would be to move the sensor forward in the body, which would entail moving the lens mount forward the required 6+mm. I'm not sure how that would work with the view/rangefinder, but it would certainly introduce problems.

Then again, some new, innovative IBIS system that is very thin might be developed and IBIS could be introduced in the M12 which wouldn't  force the body to become bloated. Just right now, there is no neat solution, so we have an M11 that doesn't have IBIS and where you might have to bump the ISO and shutter speeds one stop, or less than 1/2 stop from that of my M10M, which has ISO range to spare.

[Winedemonium]

On 1/15/2022 at 12:30 PM, adan said:

In short, one could be worried about moving from 24 or 40 Mpixels to 240 or 400 Mpixels. Probably.

But moving from 40 to 60 Mpixels will need more like 1.2x the shutter speed/ISO/aperture. Moving from 24 to 60 will be 1.6x (ISO 200 to ISO 320; 1/125th > 1/200th sec.)

A good discussion in this thread in the end. Thanks especially to Adan for this really useful discussion, and putting the resolution jumps into perspective. Much appreciated. 

[saxo]

Am 15.1.2022 um 02:11 schrieb M Journey:

IBIS would be an awesome feature, and it would be a day 1 upgrade for me when they finally add it to a M body.  Not having IBIS doesn't make the 60mp of the m11 a negative though. It would have been better with IBIS, but it isn't there, so it is what it is.  I look forward to taking my m11 out and learning how to shoot with it and get better.  I'm not sure when I'll pick up Nikon Z again...I suppose its when I need to shoot something that my 35mm (only 1 Leica lens so far) can't handle.  

Maybe Leica didn't want to shake up the M world too much at once and risk completely alienating their purists. 

Just take your Nikon Z7 (thin cover glas) together with an adapter and you have IBIS plus buildt in EVF which allows to focus even telephoto and fast lenses accuratly. I do so with 6 M lenses, all work fine. I got tired sending the M to Leica for readjusting the rangefinder.

Even with tele lenses and fast lenses (summilux) focussing works fine with all my film M cameras, but digital makes an EVF necessary. Not for nothing does leica offer an EVF from day one. But the EVF imposed to the M looks strange. I don't like the look. A camera of at this price tag  should be capable of accurate focussing with all M-lenses without additional aid.

Why didn't Leica make use of the sensor by integrating phase-detection to assist manual focusing, e.g. in the center of the sensor and visualized the focus direction by two arrows mirrored in the rangefinder, like the M6 does for exposure metering.

So I wait for M12 and continue using my Z7.

 

[cboy]

Did anyone consider why leica choose weird magnification crops of 1.3 & 1.8

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!

35mm @ 1.3 = 45mm

35mm @ 1.8 = 63mm

WIll there be a future firmware update to allow for those crop frame lines????

[adan]

The cropped smaller files are only for use with live-view or EVF. The regular optical viewfinder framelines are completely irrelevant.

The launch firmware already provides for cropping lines in the EVF, or on the LCD, for 1.3x or 1.8x crops - with any lens (since the EVF/LV show the FoV of the lens in use at any time)

Think "Leica Q2."

A 28mm lens will give

28mm - 36mm (1.3x) - 50mm (1.8x) - close enough to 28-35-50

A 21mm lens will give

21mm - 27.3 (1.3x) - 38mm (1.8x) - close enough to 21-28-35 (or 40 - take your pick)

A 75mm lens will give

75 - 98m (1.3x) - 135 (1.8x) - close enough to 75-100-135.

[cboy]

2 hours ago, adan said:

The cropped smaller files are only for use with live-view or EVF. The regular optical viewfinder framelines are completely irrelevant.

The launch firmware already provides for cropping lines in the EVF, or on the LCD, for 1.3x or 1.8x crops - with any lens (since the EVF/LV show the FoV of the lens in use at any time)

Think "Leica Q2."

A 28mm lens will give

28mm - 36mm (1.3x) - 50mm (1.8x) - close enough to 28-35-50

A 21mm lens will give

21mm - 27.3 (1.3x) - 38mm (1.8x) - close enough to 21-28-35 (or 40 - take your pick)

A 75mm lens will give

75 - 98m (1.3x) - 135 (1.8x) - close enough to 75-100-135.

Sorry but I have to respectfully disagree

50mm @ 1.3 = 65mm

50mm @ 1.8 = 90mm

35mm @ 1.3 = 45mm

35mm @ 1.8 = 63mm

A 50mm is not a 65/63mm; 50mm not quite a 45mm; 35mm not quite 38mm;

Just as much there are 'close enough' equivalent framelines ( except for 65mm) showing those new set of framelines would of been convenient for more accurate rangefinder framing. It would also makes the rangefinder relevant to the new features ( Yes, I understand range finder framelines are inherently less accurate due to parallax /optimised at a certain distance). Adding a simple new set of electronic overlays is not difficult and a oversight by leica imo.

It would be convenient if there was a feature when pressing the function crop button it'd automatically change to the equivalent framelines. Similar to an automatic switchover when a lens is attached.

Having to forcibly switch to EVF/LCD for more accurate framing further removes the main experience of M camera. It also further points that the new features of M11 was made specifically with the use of the EVF/ LCD in mind...

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!

Edited January 16, 2022 by cboy

[lburn]

On 1/15/2022 at 2:17 AM, Yarosuav said:

Blah, blah, blah… 

That’s all I have to say. Obviously not a camera for you, so just stop waisting time. Seriously why anybody would take the time to write a bunch of nonsense like this is beyond me. 

Wasting time?  This is a discussion forum and many people are discussing this topic, you included. You might want to ask yourself why Leica bothered to include stabilisation in the SL etc. Might it be because there was room in those camera bodies and Leica recognise it is a useful tool for photographers to have if they want it? That is my point and Leica appear to have taken the decision, in the M10R and now even more so in the M11, to put high res sensors in before they are able to solve the stabiliser problem in an M body. To me that matters but to you, and many other users and reviewers , it appears to be of no interest. 

[lburn]

5 hours ago, Winedemonium said:

A good discussion in this thread in the end. Thanks especially to Adan for this really useful discussion, and putting the resolution jumps into perspective. Much appreciated. 

I entirely agree and have found this discussion really helpful and for me anyway, it has filled what was, for me,  a gap in the excellent reviews from some experienced reviewers on this camera.

[mujk]

Having two new, different features (three resolution alternatives and digital zoom/crop) that both affect the resulting output size is likely to occasionally cause some initial confusion. However, both Jono's review and Leica technical specifications

DNG™
L-DNG 60,3 MP 9528 x 6328 pixels
M-DNG 36,5 MP 7416 x 4928 pixels
S-DNG 18,4 MP 5272 x 3498 pixels

JPG
L-JPG 60,1 MP 9504 x 6320 pixels
M-JPG 36,2 MP 7392 x 4896 pixels
S-JPG 18,2 MP 5248 x 3472 pixels

The entire sensor surface will always be used irrespective of format and resolution.
Digital Zoom 1.3x and 1.8x available (always based on L-DNG or L-JPG).

are quite clear on this point.

As @adanpointed out the digital zoom/crop works like in the Q series. Because OVF frame lines are optically generated and mechanically selected by the lens in use, it is not possible to change them for digital zoom. It would be different if the frame lines in the OVF were generated electronically, but I don't think Leica has indicated that they have any plans to do this.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rosuna]

The important thing about the Nikon Z9 is that they no longer put the mechanical shutter. It only has some protection with a set of curtains. That indicates that Nikon already has a fully functional electronic shutter. Leica will be late, of course, in three to four years. The electronic shutter of the M11 shows the so-called rolling effect with moving subjects. Now they are using the 60MP sensor which Sigma had been using for some time, which is undoubtedly excellent, but the innovation is no longer in the BSI (back-illuminated) sensors, taken for granted, but in this revolutionary Nikon camera and electronic shutters.

Sending the mechanical shutter to hell will greatly reduce costs, but it will also allow, accompanied by more powerful processors, the camera to "build" the image from several shots with extremely short shutter times, for "taking out" detail from the most illuminated parts, and others shots with longer exposition times for the shadows. The collection of exposure times will be chosen by the camera, like on mobile phones, based on an analysis of the scene. It will no longer make sense to take "one" photo at 1/250th of a second. An image will be built from several shots more or less automatically instead.

I know that this is totally foreign to the photographic experience accumulated during two centuries, but it is what explains why many mobiles are capable of offering surprisingly good images, easy to obtain and more than competitive compared to those of an expensive camera, and therefore what explains why the photographic industry is suffering so much, in my opinion.

This is the only way to follow and the Japanese are pursuing it. Leica puts more magapixels and larger batteries into the M, and that is OK, but the SL or CL cameras must to go beyond that quickly.