M11 vs MM

[geotrupede]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

a question, what is the practical effect of lowering resolution and converting to BW compared to the monochrom sensors? in my experience to date the monochrom units have a better sensors. but what about the downsampling of 60MP?

Is it any better than MM9? what about vs M246? and vs MM10?

Curious as MM9 and M246 are about £3k on used market, MM10 is about £6k and MM11 is not yet there. But M11 and MM10 are similar price.

G>

 

 

[Michel Ruck]

The M10M is better in low light.

 

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M10 MONOCHROM,Leica M11

[mediumformula]

I pondered the option of getting an M11 or buying a M10M in this thread. My experience might be of interest to you.  

[Hanno]

Worth watching Red Dot Forum’s latest stream on the M11:

At c. 54 min 30 sec, they address the comparison between M10M and M11 files converted into B&W. Their finding is that the M10M is indeed 2 steps better.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Hanno

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, Michel Ruck said:

The M10M is better in low light.

 

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M10 MONOCHROM,Leica M11

I think I understand how to read the chart. But what if we compare M10 and M11. Look here: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M11,Leica M10

They looks pretty similar, but they are not. At 6400, the PDR is 6.11 vs 5.95. It's a very important (sweet) spot reference,  

Cause the M10R has better low light performance compared to the M10, and even more the M11, right?  Why do they look the same in the chart, what am I missing?

. 

Tell me more, so I can post NO in the "Are you going to buying an M11?" thread 

 

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I think I understand how to read the chart. But what if we compare M10 and M11. Look here: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M11,Leica M10

They looks pretty similar, but they are not. At 6400, the PDR is 6.11 vs 5.95. It's a very important (sweet) spot reference,  

Cause the M10R has better low light performance compared to the M10, and even more the M11, right?  Why do they look the same in the chart, what am I missing?

. 

Tell me more, so I can post NO in the "Are you going to buying an M11?" thread 

 

There is more to low light performance then only the PDR data.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, geotrupede said:

in my experience to date the monochrom units have a better sensors

Actually the monochrome versions have the same sensors, but with the Bayer filter replaced by a clear filter. This has the effect of removing aberrations caused by the bayer filter and eliminating interpolation to create colour. This gets rid of the resolution loss caused by the process and increases acuity. 

[Kwesi]

2 hours ago, geotrupede said:

Hi all,

a question, what is the practical effect of lowering resolution and converting to BW compared to the monochrom sensors? in my experience to date the monochrom units have a better sensors. but what about the downsampling of 60MP?

Is it any better than MM9? what about vs M246? and vs MM10?

Curious as MM9 and M246 are about £3k on used market, MM10 is about £6k and MM11 is not yet there. But M11 and MM10 are similar price.

G>

 

 

Remember that Monochrom sensors don't have a color filter array so they are inherently sharper so my guess is that if you are only shooting black and white and are budget conscious then the MM246 is the best value for your money. On the other hand, if cost is no issue then the MM10 is the clear winner.

[Dennis]

19 minutes ago, SrMi said:

There is more to low light performance then only the PDR data.

Ok, correct. But what does it mean that the numbers are almost the same? Because I know that at 6400 iso, the M10 is not that good as the M11 is.

[Jeff S]

Apart from any technical advantages (e.g., resolution, low light performance), the greatest benefit of any Monochrom for me is that it fosters a singular b&w mindset, visual discipline and creativity by eliminating the distraction of looking for color compositions.

A trade off is that eliminating the color array also takes away the flexibility of using color channels in post processing (although this can be overdone if not used judiciously). Using glass color filters is much more restrictive.

Jeff

[harmen]

Not having colored lenses in front of the sensor inherently improves iso performance for a monochrome camera.  Luckily this benefit can be easily negated by mounting a colored filter on the lens 🙂

[FlashGordonPhotography]

4 hours ago, harmen said:

Not having colored lenses in front of the sensor inherently improves iso performance for a monochrome camera.  Luckily this benefit can be easily negated by mounting a colored filter on the lens 🙂

That's not how it works.

The Monochrom sensor is still recording mono data without interpolation. All the colour filter does is cut certain colour wavelengths so the sensor see less of them.

Gordon

[harmen]

To be more precise then, if the scene consists of red hues only, you would find no sensitivity benefit between a mono sensor and the red sensels on a colour sensor.  However, if the scene has whites, you will find that the sensels on the mono sensor are exposed to more light, as no colours are removed.

[Stevejack]

You'll be hard pressed to tell a difference once the image is finalised. The M11 makes beautiful black and white conversions, just the same as any modern camera. Where you'll notice the difference with the Monochrom cameras is in your post processing. The files are beautiful even at extremely high ISOs, you can crop them quite heavily and the digital noise looks very 'film like' in comparison with the colour cameras. 

Take a look on my instagram and you'll see a mix of black and whites taken with the M10M, M11, M10R, Q2, Sony A1 and Sony A9. Once they're processed, reduced to 1080px, and then posted I usually can't even remember which camera I took them on. But that's because I process them to get the best out of files that I can, given whatever camera I was using. When you look at the raw files in Lightroom you can certainly see the difference, and can do more with the Monochrom files during editing and get better results overall than I can with my colour cameras. If I'm using a colour camera I have to process it differently, but I can get a decent result either way. 

If you're looking at M10M vs M11, go with the M10M. If you're looking at the M11 vs the M246,  I would personally go with the M11. The resolution makes a bigger difference to me vs the monochrom files - but that's very subjective.  The M10M is the camera I use the least, but it's the one camera I'll never let go!

Edited February 2, 2022 by Stevejack

[orcinus]

8 hours ago, harmen said:

To be more precise then, if the scene consists of red hues only, you would find no sensitivity benefit between a mono sensor and the red sensels on a colour sensor.  However, if the scene has whites, you will find that the sensels on the mono sensor are exposed to more light, as no colours are removed.

Yes, but that is not a terribly relevant metric, as you’ll have the full number of photosites responding to the red on the monochrome sensor, and 1/4th of them on a colour sensor.

Individual photosite sensitivity will be similar (in reality, probably better for the colour sensor, because the bayer filter is thinner and has lower losses, than a filter mounted on the lens), but total collected light will be lower. And, of course, true resolution will be 1/4th of the monochrome one.

[Hanno]

15 hours ago, Dennis said:

Ok, correct. But what does it mean that the numbers are almost the same? Because I know that at 6400 iso, the M10 is not that good as the M11 is.

M11 has same ISO performance as M10R but with 50% more pixels. That is the difference 😀

Edited February 2, 2022 by Hanno

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, Hanno said:

M11 has same ISO performance as M10R but with 50% more pixels. That is the difference 😀

Low ISO performance is better with M11. Leica claims that with M11 they have "clear and strong advantage in color rendition at high ISO in the finest details. If you are looking only at ground noise level, you will not see much difference." I have not tested it.

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, Hanno said:

M11 has same ISO performance as M10R but with 50% more pixels. That is the difference 😀

at 64 ISO the M11 is a little better then M10-R at 100, they are both amazing...

in my use the limit of the M10-R was 6400 ISO

The M11 is amazing at 12500 ISO..

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!

[Hanno]

5 hours ago, Hanno said:

M11 has same ISO performance as M10R but with 50% more pixels. That is the difference 😀

Edit, based on the previous 2 posts, and to clarify my point: M11 has improved ISO performance, specially at lower and higher ISO, but it should be kept in mind that it has 50% more pixels! Even if it had the same absolute performance than the M10R, it would still be an amazing achievement.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Hanno

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[shirubadanieru]

6 hours ago, SrMi said:

Low ISO performance is better with M11. Leica claims that with M11 they have "clear and strong advantage in color rendition at high ISO in the finest details. If you are looking only at ground noise level, you will not see much difference." I have not tested it.

That’s not what reidsreview findings were by the way. Not that I care since these differences are so minimal you only notice when pixel peeping.