M10R Owners: Is the M11 Worth the Upgrade?

[Stevejack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Oswalt said:

Others will be able to answer that question better than I ever could. But yes, I'm likely to say that is the case. I prefer film and these newer sensors I guess just leave me feeling a bit cold. 

With each iteration of newer tech the more and more I become an old man yelling at the clouds, and perhaps feel a bit left out as the majority of people seem to enjoy these advancements. I'm left to navel gaze and wonder what could have been instead of what I am getting and likely to get in the future. 

I think that's the main issue - wanting digital to look like film. I'm not really sure with Leica if that's even one of their goals. Look at Ralph Gibson who is all over Leica's marketing, most recently for the M11. If you listen to his interviews from a few years back he talks about digital and analogue being like different languages describing the exact same thing. He doesn't want or need his newer digital work to look like his older film work and supposedly doesn't miss the film look at all, but who knows really (it's marketing after all). 

There is definitely a tug of war going on. Some people want their digital files to look like film, and others want the best 'digital' camera possible - which is a long way from looking like film. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

8 minutes ago, Artin said:

I have never wanted the film look, well that to say never liked the 35 mm film look, there was a reason why in the commercial world we always shot with the largest possible media available, most of my advertising work was done with large format and medium format. Scanned with 22,000 dpi optical tube Drum scanners oil mounted, this is the level of detail we are seeing now with this camera. And to top it all off a colour transparency film like the Velvia or provia or the Kodak chrome never achieved more then 9 stops of dynamic range on 35mm and never more then 11 stops on large format. Here we are getting around 15 stops this is crazy. So no I don’t want the film look I want a lot better then film look 

9! You were lucky to get 6 stops out of Velvia. Maybe 7 or 8 from Astia. I printed Cibachromes by hand, commercially. If I never have to make another contrast neg again it'll be too soon. If I wanted 10 stops I had to go to colour neg. More with super fine B&W if processed correctly.

I'll also be surprised if the M11 actually gets the 14/15 stops it says in real life. The most I've seen from a 135 format sensor has been around 13 usable stops from the SL2-S. The quoted figures are really only good for labratory conditions. Best taken with a grain of salt.

Gordon

[Tailwagger]

28 minutes ago, Stevejack said:

I think that's the main issue - wanting digital to look like film.

If you want digital to look analog, use an analog display, not a digital one. I've yet to print a single photo where I thought, 'that looks digital'. 

[Reciprocity]

I must be the odd man out here then since not only do I still shoot B&W film in 35, 120, 4x5 and 8x10, I have a full service darkroom at my disposal that allows me to print up to 45"x56". 

The market I am in and near supports it nicely.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Reciprocity

[Reciprocity]

8 minutes ago, Artin said:

Not at all actually I miss shooting 4x5. And I am thinking about getting a darkroom set up and dusting off the old Sinar. It is the best experience a photographer could ever have I miss it a lot 

It weighs a ton in the field but I love my P2 4x5/8x10 for work in the wind. Bust that sucker out...;-)

[Oswalt]

2 hours ago, Stevejack said:

I think that's the main issue - wanting digital to look like film. I'm not really sure with Leica if that's even one of their goals. Look at Ralph Gibson who is all over Leica's marketing, most recently for the M11. If you listen to his interviews from a few years back he talks about digital and analogue being like different languages describing the exact same thing. He doesn't want or need his newer digital work to look like his older film work and supposedly doesn't miss the film look at all, but who knows really (it's marketing after all). 

There is definitely a tug of war going on. Some people want their digital files to look like film, and others want the best 'digital' camera possible - which is a long way from looking like film. 

Main issue? No, more or less a sliding scale predicted on other features the camera offers. No problem looking past quibbles if I get along with a sensor, and I'm happy to put in the work and get a feel and finesse my final output, as I get acquainted with it  

Bigger issues I see is the lack of exciting innovation within the industry as a whole ... megapixels don't excite me, as I have my 8 x 10. No doubt I'd be a happier camper if I saw companies like Leica take a more sophisticated approach to colour science and sensor exclusivity and manufacture. The M10R did exactly this, but more as a byproduct. I'm simply not the target audience for this camera, and that's OK - insofar as I hope the M will still retain its RF.... as far as the M11? It feels like that relationship has lessened and the  gulf made wider with further modernization. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Oswalt

[opera207]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Here's the thing: so which camera do you use? I just can't understand why one would have a 10R and an 11 as one would sit unused 90% of the time (most likely the previous generation) at least in my case. I can only see the value upgrading from an R to an 11 if one truly needs something professionally that the R doesn't do, or one has no concerns financially, or just love owning five figure toys that sit in a closet. In a moment of weakness last year while my brand new M10-R BP was back to Leica for a rf calibration, I bought a CL. Haven't use once since the M came back. 

 

I am using sony a1, leica is my toy, i think leica is toy for many people, most professional like to use better af cameras i guess.

Edited January 18, 2022 by opera207

[shirubadanieru]

4 hours ago, Artin said:

I really don’t understand the modernization ??  There is nothing that has changed since the very first digital M8 

still a rangefinder 

still has manual focus 

still has a sensor 

still has a LCD screen 

still has a auto exposure 

still has a menu 

it is no different then any other digital M , it is just more refined and more capable 

in fact the menu is even more simpler and easier to navigate and a lot less buttons then the original M8 

the only issue anyone can ever have is the fact. Yes this is digital era and yes your investment does depreciate  

Major change was CCD to CMOS : p I guess some people have yet to find a CMOS sensor they like (myself included), and that’s mainly because despite all the technological marvels to me no CMOS sensor gets close to the feeling you get from film colors, so actually I’d love if my digital files would get closer to giving me the feeling / atmosphere my film files give me, despite less DR and less resolution….a 6MP film photo beats any digital photo I’ve taken (be it 18MP or 60)…so instead of focusing on megapixels, I hope that the M11 can get closer to reproducing the magic of film. The closest we got was with the M9M to be honest, perfect replacement for Tri-X. Color, M9 came close but still not the same, and the other Ms just went completely off track for me.

[Jon Warwick]

8 hours ago, Stevejack said:

There is definitely a tug of war going on. Some people want their digital files to look like film, and others want the best 'digital' camera possible - which is a long way from looking like film. 

I'm in the former camp, ie, wanting digital files to look as film-like as possible.

For some images, I've achieved this to my full satisfaction.  Albeit, here, I define that digital is better at mimicking large format film like 5x4, rather than 35mm.  I think the level of fine detail and edge precision, even off 24mp, is more reminiscent of the larger formats in 20x16" prints, for example. 

But for some other images off digital, I am utterly defeated in ever getting them to look like film!

I'm not entirely sure what drives the different aesthetic that can sometimes makes it impossible for some digital files to mimic film .....there is sometimes just a jarring look about those digital images that doesn't look smooth enough to mimic film.   I suspect a part of it is too high acuity and too high contrast of the more modern lenses? I found my v5 Summicron could get to more filmic images than my M 50 APO.  Would a vintage lens like the re-released 50 1.2 Noctilux get me even closer to a film look (via lower contrast, less acuity), or is it more uncontrolled blur that such a lens is adding?

I agree with Artin's view that we are seeing a remarkable level of detail off this camera that probably needed large format before.  For 60" wide prints, my GFX100 feels like it has a very similar resolution to drum-scanned E6 (like Provia 100) off 5x4.  That's pretty remarkable, and there is perhaps less difference in fine detail capture when I look at DNGs off the M11 vs a 100mp camera than one might expect, at least for some subjects.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[grahamc]

On 1/18/2022 at 9:29 PM, Jon Warwick said:

I'm in the former camp, ie, wanting digital files to look as film-like as possible.

For some images, I've achieved this to my full satisfaction.  Albeit, here, I define that digital is better at mimicking large format film like 5x4, rather than 35mm.  I think the level of fine detail and edge precision, even off 24mp, is more reminiscent of the larger formats in 20x16" prints, for example. 

But for some other images off digital, I am utterly defeated in ever getting them to look like film!

I'm not entirely sure what drives the different aesthetic that can sometimes makes it impossible for some digital files to mimic film .....there is sometimes just a jarring look about those digital images that doesn't look smooth enough to mimic film.   I suspect a part of it is too high acuity and too high contrast of the more modern lenses? I found my v5 Summicron could get to more filmic images than my M 50 APO.  Would a vintage lens like the re-released 50 1.2 Noctilux get me even closer to a film look (via lower contrast, less acuity), or is it more uncontrolled blur that such a lens is adding?

I agree with Artin's view that we are seeing a remarkable level of detail off this camera that probably needed large format before.  For 60" wide prints, my GFX100 feels like it has a very similar resolution to drum-scanned E6 (like Provia 100) off 5x4.  That's pretty remarkable, and there is perhaps less difference in fine detail capture when I look at DNGs off the M11 vs a 100mp camera than one might expect, at least for some subjects.

 

Just a side note on some of the questions you have raised here.  In my limited experience, you may want to check out RNI (Really nice images) lightroom profiles.  They give quite a nice analogue look (despite it being highly debatable whether each particular profile look like the actual stocks that they claim to).  They are really nice profiles (Excuse the pun) with beautiful tones and they play really nicely with leica files.    I find that combining these with mandler era lenses such as the 50:2 v5 you have mentioned seems to get me close to an analogue look.

What is lacking though is the depth of an image shot on film that seems to draw you in in a way that (for me) digital doesn't quite match 

[grahamc]

Hi All

I have the opportunity to buy an M10R at a reduced price, that I am considering .  I am seeing quite an organic /earthy colour Pallette to some of the M11 images which I really like - looks similar to how some of the VM classic line of lenses render.   However I agree with others that the files shared so far also seem to look a little flat.

I wonder whether these earthy tones are coming from post production or if it's a character of the M11's colour ?   (Is anyone else noticing this in quite a lot of the shots coming out of M11 ?).

I like to switch between film and digital and try to mimic film in post production where possible.  So I wonder how M10R will play with my style of editing, relative to M11 or whether there will be no difference - There's a lot of mixed messages out there as some people are mentioning the M11 looks too digitised and sharpened but others are saying it's soft.... so who knows !  

Overall, are the M10R owners amongst us happy with the colour ?  I will read Reid's Review also which I gather is quite extensive in comparing the colour from 10R and 11 . 

Thanks for any thoughts 

Edited January 21, 2022 by grahamc

[Guest]

On 1/18/2022 at 11:29 AM, Jon Warwick said:

I'm in the former camp, ie, wanting digital files to look as film-like as possible.

For some images, I've achieved this to my full satisfaction.  Albeit, here, I define that digital is better at mimicking large format film like 5x4, rather than 35mm.  I think the level of fine detail and edge precision, even off 24mp, is more reminiscent of the larger formats in 20x16" prints, for example. 

But for some other images off digital, I am utterly defeated in ever getting them to look like film!

I'm not entirely sure what drives the different aesthetic that can sometimes makes it impossible for some digital files to mimic film .....there is sometimes just a jarring look about those digital images that doesn't look smooth enough to mimic film.   I suspect a part of it is too high acuity and too high contrast of the more modern lenses? I found my v5 Summicron could get to more filmic images than my M 50 APO.  Would a vintage lens like the re-released 50 1.2 Noctilux get me even closer to a film look (via lower contrast, less acuity), or is it more uncontrolled blur that such a lens is adding?

I agree with Artin's view that we are seeing a remarkable level of detail off this camera that probably needed large format before.  For 60" wide prints, my GFX100 feels like it has a very similar resolution to drum-scanned E6 (like Provia 100) off 5x4.  That's pretty remarkable, and there is perhaps less difference in fine detail capture when I look at DNGs off the M11 vs a 100mp camera than one might expect, at least for some subjects.

 

Coming from the cinema side of things, ( well I started in photography then after moving to the US I segued into cinematography for several decades ), the "...looks like film' debates always make me smile. It happened in cinematography work starting around when digital cinema cameras were starting to nudge film cameras aside, primarily at first for cost of production reasons, ( film-stock cost, processing, film to digital transfer and so on, much of which went away with digital acquisition ). There was a constant griping, there still is, about whether this or that sensor or camera system "looked like film", even in post-production people went to great and sometime really expensive ends to get that "film look" out of their digital rushes.........As one prominent DP said to a director / producer who was demanding a "film look" for the movie, "........easy, shoot the damn thing on film". End of story.

Now perversely there's an uptick in demand for DP's that know how to work in film, more productions are originating on film, 35mm and S16, because of the looks for sure but also because of the work-flow. Much of the old "craft" of filmmaking went out of the window when so many switched to the "easier" way of digital, but more people are now finding that the older ways had a lot of sense to them. All a question of choice, but I know which side my mop flops. 

[Olaf_ZG]

On 1/18/2022 at 12:57 AM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Plus long exposures and switchable LENR are now a thing on the M camera.

This would be for me THE reason to buy the m11, but somehow there is not much info regarding this.

 

[SrMi]

6 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

This would be for me THE reason to buy the m11, but somehow there is not much info regarding this.

 

What additional information do you need? The maximum shutter speeds are in the technical spec. No practical experience was reported yet, though the recent technical talk had some examples.

 

[Olaf_ZG]

3 minutes ago, SrMi said:

What additional information do you need? The maximum shutter speeds are in the technical spec. No practical experience was reported yet, though the recent technical talk had some examples.

 

The specs I have seen. I miss examples/experience from users for either the m10r or m11.

at the moment my camera for long exposure is the gfx50, but it would be great to be able to use the m-system.

for this i am doubting between SL or M.

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

The specs I have seen. I miss examples/experience from users for either the m10r or m11.

at the moment my camera for long exposure is the gfx50, but it would be great to be able to use the m-system.

for this i am doubting between SL or M.

AFAIK, SL has mandatory LENR, while SL2 does not.

I am also looking forward to examples of long exposure with M11.

[Olaf_ZG]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

AFAIK, SL has mandatory LENR, while SL2 does not.

I am also looking forward to examples of long exposure with M11.

To be clear, doubting between SL2(s) or m10r/m11. 

all cams have great specs; long exposure possibilities (upto 16min plus LENR) will be the deciding factor. 
 

 

[Łëïčä]

On 1/17/2022 at 8:56 PM, John Smith said:

I think a few of the beta testers of the M11 said that it provided only marginal difference from the M10R. I think one test showed that the M11 might have a 1/2 stop difference in noise. The M10R's sensor is unique and was Leica's best lowlight camera before the M11. And there is the 20 MP bump, but if you don't print big . . .  In any case, for those M10R owners who traded in for an M11 or have both cameras, what are your thoughts about upgrading and why?

Those who traded an M10R for an M11 is because they’re in it for the gear. They’ll constantly be buying new stuff. All the time. 
 

some people are into photography and others into gear. Pretty sure they traded the M10 to the 10P and the 10P to the 10R and now the 10R to the M11 and soon they’ll go to the M11P. And on and on it goes. 
 

as far as I’m concerned, if you’re more worried about your photos, there’s really no reason to upgrade any M, unless of course some sort of issue is getting in the way of you making the images you want to make; then of course you change. Any of your M cameras, if they’re working for you now, then they’ll keep working for you. 
 

Every M camera since the M9 has beautiful characteristics that work for different photographers. It depends on the resulting image. What sort of images are you trying to make? What sort of lenses do you use?

They’re all good. Any differences between the M10R and the M11 are academic. I don’t see any reason to “upgrade”. Just put an extra battery in your pocket. Electronic shutter? Nobody is really going to be using that. Aluminum body? Nobody wants that. Everything that matters about taking a photo is basically the same. Both cameras give you amazing raw files you can manipulate to suit your taste. 
 

A significant change for me in terms of every day use would’ve been for the m-shutter to be able to go to 1/8000. Other than that, I think most will just use this in 37MP mode once the “new toy syndrome” wears off, and I guess the only real benefit will be that they’re able to go on the whole day with just 1 battery instead of the tragedy of having to put a small extra one in your pocket. 
 

as far as the metering. People have been using the center weighted metering since the digits Leicas were created and they’ve been making beautiful images. This metering is good, it has only been getting better, in the M10R is accurate, it is very predictable, once you know you’re camera you can pretty much nail the exposure, and the highlight recovery is amazing anyway. So this is another much ado about nothing. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Łëïčä

[Łëïčä]

On 1/18/2022 at 7:01 AM, tappan said:

One reviewer mentioned that with the electronic you will need a tripod because the photos will warp with any movement much like the X1D does.
What does that mean? 

Mark 

Tripod won’t help if what you’re photographing is moving. The camera can be perfectly still but if the subject is swinging a golf club, then the club is going to look like a U. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Tailwagger]

2 minutes ago, Łëïčä said:

Those who traded an M10R for an M11 is because they’re in it for the gear. They’ll constantly be buying new stuff. All the time. 
 

some people are into photography and others into gear. 

Astonishing. A mere seven posts on the board and such phenomenal insight into the community psyche.  I bow to your genius. Truly wonderful contribution to the discussion. Insightful, succinct and utterly inaccurate.