ISO6400 (M10R & M11)

[oka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I mainly shoot high iso (work and personal). Malleability of high iso files are one of the most important aspect to me.

As M11 has different size of RAW files, crude test includes large and medium res RAW files. This is far from the scientific lab test, but shows clearly the difference and puts Leica statements to odd light.

ISO6400, C1 -100 highlight, 20 shadow, 50 black

M10R is "ok" if you don't push too much on edit.

M11 large is noticeable better on shadows compared to M10R.
M11 large is noisier than medium sized raw files, but in overall it looks better than medium sized raw.

M11 medium has clearly less headroom on highlights compared to full size raw.
M11 medium has slightly less headroom on blacks / shadows compared to full size raw.
M11 medium is bit soft compared to full size raw.

Leica states that medium sized raw has more DR than full sized raw. In high ISO this is not true.

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 22, 2022 by oka

[SrMi]

51 minutes ago, oka said:

I mainly shoot high iso (work and personal). Malleability of high iso files are one of the most important aspect to me.

As M11 has different size of RAW files, crude test includes large and medium res RAW files. This is far from the scientific lab test, but shows clearly the difference and puts Leica statements to odd light.

ISO6400, C1 -100 highlight, 20 shadow, 50 black

M10R is "ok" if you don't push too much on edit.

M11 large is noticeable better on shadows compared to M10R.
M11 large is noisier than medium sized raw files, but in overall it looks better than medium sized raw.

M11 medium has clearly less headroom on highlights compared to full size raw.
M11 medium has slightly less headroom on blacks / shadows compared to full size raw.
M11 medium is bit soft compared to full size raw.

Leica states that medium sized raw has more DR than full sized raw. In high ISO this is not true.

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!

Did you use same exposure (shutter speed and aperture) in your tests?

[Advertisement]

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

[oka]

12 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Did you use same exposure (shutter speed and aperture) in your tests?

Yes. Lens was different but that doesn’t make the difference on these tests.

Edited January 22, 2022 by oka

[SrMi]

22 minutes ago, oka said:

Yes. Lens was different but that doesn’t make the difference on these tests.

Thanks for confirming and doing the tests. Leica says that the smaller resolution has more DR, unless you resize the larger file to the same size of the smaller one. They also say that there should not be any image degradation in smaller resolutions. Your tests do not confirm that. 

[oka]

Same files with matched WB with linear curve. I was bit surprised how much better M11 looks compared to M10R on linear curve, difference is more than 1 stop.

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!

[oka]

Comparison to SL2S on ISO6400.
C1 linear curve, -100 highlight, 20 shadow, 50 black

M11 shows bit of banding, bit more noise and lower DR but on highlights, it can recover more than SL2S which is bit surprising...

First image is M11.

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 23, 2022 by oka

[oka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On ISO12500 things start to look strange on both cameras. M11 is much noisier than SL2S. M11 can't recover the blacks as SL2S but on SL2S, we get strong magenta cast. M11 is still ahead in highlight recovery.

...while I haven't tested yet, probably with M11 - you should expose to the right more (and recover highlights in post) than with the M10R and SL2S to get most of the DR out from the sensor - at least in high iso.

First is M11.

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 23, 2022 by oka

[Chaemono]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb oka:

On ISO12500 things start to look strange on both cameras. M11 is much noisier than SL2S. M11 can't recover the blacks as SL2S but on SL2S, we get strong magenta cast. M11 is still ahead in highlight recovery.

...while I haven't tested yet, probably with M11 - you should expose to the right more (and recover highlights in post) than with the M10R and SL2S to get most of the DR out from the sensor - at least in high iso.

First is M11.

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!

Thank you for doing these. Very interesting. Did you use the same WB?

Edited January 23, 2022 by Chaemono

[oka]

6 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Thank you for doing these. Very interesting.

I make these test to myself anyway to know how to expose and see where are the real world limits to my taste.

M11 is closer to SL2S which is quite amazing, I hope I get Visioflex2 before next wedding so I can put M11 to real worlds test. With M10/P/R, because of lacking high iso, reliability and usability reasons I couldn't use them on weddings - hopefully things change and I can replace SL2S with M11.

Edited January 23, 2022 by oka

[shirubadanieru]

5 minutes ago, oka said:

I make these test to myself anyway to know how to expose and see where are the real world limits to my taste.

M11 is closer to SL2S which is quite amazing, I hope I get Visioflex2 before next wedding so I can put M11 to real worlds test. With M10/P/R, because of lacking high iso, reliability and usability reasons I couldn't use them on weddings - hopefully things change and I can replace SL2S with M11.

thank you..i actually feel my M11 is giving me too much color noise in the shadows with anything above 1600...was expecting more. that or LR still doesn't properly support the camera files.

[oka]

7 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

thank you..i actually feel my M11 is giving me too much color noise in the shadows with anything above 1600...was expecting more. that or LR still doesn't properly support the camera files.

Personally I don't care about the noise if the picture in overall looks ok, which M11 definitely can do it in high iso.

But you're right, while I haven't tested, Reid Review noise tests M11 is clearly noisier on any ISO compared to M10R (well before M10R "falls apart" after ISO3200).

If noise is high on your priority list, I would choose something else than M11 with current firmware. M11 medium looks so odd that I wouldn't make final conclusions yet, it might be something what Leica could fix on firmware and if it does - it would be basically neck to neck with SL2S. Then we would get highres camera with great low light capabilities when needed.

[shirubadanieru]

5 minutes ago, oka said:

Personally I don't care about the noise if the picture in overall looks ok, which M11 definitely can do it in high iso.

But you're right, while I haven't tested, Reid Review noise tests M11 is clearly noisier on any ISO compared to M10R (well before M10R "falls apart" after ISO3200).

If noise is high on your priority list, I would choose something else than M11 with current firmware. M11 medium looks so odd that I wouldn't make final conclusions yet, it might be something what Leica could fix on firmware and if it does - it would be basically neck to neck with SL2S. Then we would get highres camera with great low light capabilities when needed.

yeah very weird..regular noise is ok, but i do think color noise is ugly so yes, it looks bad to my eyes from ISO 2500. I'm shooting M-DNG. I was expecting much better performance.

Given all the bugs this camera has though..this might be another one.

Edited January 23, 2022 by shirubadanieru

[oka]

17 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

yeah very weird..regular noise is ok, but i do think color noise is ugly so yes, it looks bad to my eyes from ISO 2500.

Have you tried C1? With current profiles it might give bit better noise (reduction) results than Adobe.

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb shirubadanieru:

thank you..i actually feel my M11 is giving me too much color noise in the shadows with anything above 1600...was expecting more. that or LR still doesn't properly support the camera files.

Is this when you pull up the shadows or OOC?

[shirubadanieru]

35 minutes ago, oka said:

Have you tried C1? With current profiles it might give bit better noise (reduction) results than Adobe.

I don’t have C1 because I only use IPad Pro (capture one doesn’t have an iPad app right?)

[shirubadanieru]

13 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Is this when you pull up the shadows or OOC?

No, just straight out of camera…but when you zoom in / zoom out that color noise comes and goes..which makes me think there’s something funky going on with the algorithms 

[Photoworks]

5 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

No, just straight out of camera…but when you zoom in / zoom out that color noise comes and goes..which makes me think there’s something funky going on with the algorithms 

many application render preview to size for better performance, if you zoom in you should wait for the new preview to be generated...

I had noticed that too.

[Photoworks]

6 hours ago, oka said:

I make these test to myself anyway to know how to expose and see where are the real world limits to my taste.

M11 is closer to SL2S which is quite amazing, I hope I get Visioflex2 before next wedding so I can put M11 to real worlds test. With M10/P/R, because of lacking high iso, reliability and usability reasons I couldn't use them on weddings - hopefully things change and I can replace SL2S with M11.

thanks for testing , it is good to know the sensor

this is a better test of performance to me than other test in perfect light situation.

it is more realistic to use high iso in this situations..

The EVF is much more useful for low light photos. but the SL2s is probably easier without the M11 blackout periods on quick action situation.

[Photoworks]

17 hours ago, oka said:

I mainly shoot high iso (work and personal). Malleability of high iso files are one of the most important aspect to me.

As M11 has different size of RAW files, crude test includes large and medium res RAW files. This is far from the scientific lab test, but shows clearly the difference and puts Leica statements to odd light.

ISO6400, C1 -100 highlight, 20 shadow, 50 black

M10R is "ok" if you don't push too much on edit.

M11 large is noticeable better on shadows compared to M10R.
M11 large is noisier than medium sized raw files, but in overall it looks better than medium sized raw.

M11 medium has clearly less headroom on highlights compared to full size raw.
M11 medium has slightly less headroom on blacks / shadows compared to full size raw.
M11 medium is bit soft compared to full size raw.

Leica states that medium sized raw has more DR than full sized raw. In high ISO this is not true.

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!

surprised to see the M11 Medium files loose all highlight details.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mon10a]

9 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

I don’t have C1 because I only use IPad Pro (capture one doesn’t have an iPad app right?)

I have heard that C1 will have an iPad app this year. Hopefully, sooner rather than later. 

m