M11 Highlights and shadows

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, adan said:

Leicas cost more than Nikons for decades, while the "sensors" and "DR" remained identical (Kodachrome 25 at one end and Delta 3200 at the other).

It is not the sole measure of a camera system.

 

Yes I said this earlier myself. However, it seems an important one, and more importantly one that would go hand in hand with the M ethos that would sacrifice no other considerations that are considered integral to the M. There's no good reason not to also have one of the best (if not the best) 35mm sensor in a camera of that price. Seems like they may finally have gotten there with this, better late than never.  

[Advertisement]

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

[onasj]

These test results are not inconsistent with Leica's claims about maximum DR of DNG-M vs. DNG-L files.  *Maximum* DR means base ISO (64), while these tests are done at high ISO.  Useful information for those who shoot high ISO.

In general it's easy enough to scale down in post that I always shoot full-resolution and let photoshop do the scaling later since I know I'm going to have to process all the raw files in PS anyway.

[jakontil]

18 hours ago, Photoworks said:

I think you sure try it before you Bild up you negative vibe.. the M10R and M11 have a night and day differences in sensor performance in color and resolution to the M10. 
I had the a7R2, and I still have a7R3 and a7R4, m10R and M11 and I think I can say with confidence the M11 camera produces the best image quality that Leica has currently in any other camera.

I was never a huge fun of M10-P limitation, the M10-R solved all that, M11 is a touch better too

 

Night and day, should be more than just a touch better IMHO

[Nilei]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb jakontil:

Night and day, should be more than just a touch better IMHO

Regarding night and day difference, I think he means both M10-R and M11 compared to the M10.
And M11 is even a touch better than the M10-R.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've been wondering what the practical difference is between the ISOs from 64 to 160 and the boosted ISOs from 200 on up.  So I shot a few scenes with ISO first at 64 and then at 400.

Here's 64:

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!

 

 

and here's 400, both are straight out of COne 22, no corrections applied.

 

The church steeple in the distance has started to merge into the highlights in the second picture.  (Both are easily recovered.)  I didn't change the aperture but the exposure of the ISO 400 picture was only reduced by 5 times, even though the ISO went up by 6 times.  So Leica's firmware is giving a little extra highlight relief at the lower ISOs.  

I repeated the experiment with another scene which I then corrected inn COne.  Removing all the overexposure in the sky could be done in each shot but I could take out 1.0 stops in the 400 shot, ad 1.2 stops in the ISO 64 shot.  The shadow in the 64 shot also went a bit deeper, so there is extra range at both ends.

Edited January 23, 2022 by scott kirkpatrick

[M11 for me]

But the 400 picture is lighter than the 64 one ???

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, and they were handheld, but I see that both were framed identically.  I used multifield exposure, and it may have made a different judgement of the scene on the second try, even though only the ISO had changed.   For example, the ISO 400  exposure thought the lens was set to 2.4, when it was actually 2.8 ike the other shot.  But that should have encouraged it to underexpose, while in fact it slightly overexposed.  So the second exposure window may be playing a role in this...