M11 Safe Shutter Speed?

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I drink a lot of coffee so on my m10r I go with min 1/125 with auto iso and then go manual with the shutter dial when I want to go below that threshold. I mainly shoot 24mm, 35mm and 50mm and I’m good with those. I can handhold at 1/30 and get acceptable sharpness most of the time. I think with the m11 I would go with an additional stop and take the min to 1/250. 

[SrMi]

A reminder: M11 has "only" 21% more linear resolution than M10R. In theory, M11 would need a 21% higher minimum shutter speed to avoid camera motion blur when looking at 100% (pixel peeping).

[01af]

Are you guys photographers? Or just camera owners?

What you see at 100 % view on the monitor is totally irrelevant ... umm, or it may be relevant but only to those who enjoy pixels. In the real world, however, people use cameras in order to get pictures. And no matter if your camera has 12 or 18 or 24 or 36 or 60 or 100 or 1,000 megapixels—the same camera shake will degrade your picture's sharpness always to the same degree. And the higher-resolving camera will always show more details, even in the presence of camera shake, defocus, or diffraction blur.

So if you haven't ruined your hand-held photos at 1/60 s with an M10, M9, or M3 in the past then you won't with an M11 now.

Edited May 17, 2024 by 01af

[lct]

2 hours ago, 01af said:

Are you guys photographers? Or just camera owners? What you see at 100 % view on the monitor is totally irrelevant ... umm, or it may be relevant but only to those who enjoy pixels [...]

Strange question. I don't define myself a photographer but i do my own post processing and i do need to view images at 100% magnification.

[IkarusJohn]

When I still had my M9, I decided I wanted a zoom - I got a Nikon D800E, with the 80-400mm zoom. I was interested to see if doubling the MP made a difference.  It absolutely did!  I couldn’t get a sharp image for love or money - I don’t think I was pixel peeping, but I may have been looking for a difference.  I thought the blurred images were a result of the increased MP, but I soon realised it was shutter shock - really nasty shutter shock.  So I sold the lot.

I have never experienced shutter shock with a Leica camera (haven’t looked for it, haven’t felt the need).  Similarly, I’m not particularly impressed or put off by MP count.  My 18MP Monochrom is all I need, my other digital Leicas have 24MP, and my X2D has 100MP - not an advantage or disadvantage either way, it just comes with the latest tech, I guess.

I do feel more confident getting sharp images with the X2D’s leaf shutter and IBIS, I must say.

Edited May 18, 2024 by IkarusJohn

[01af]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb lct:

... but I do my own post-processing and I do need to view images at 100 % magnification.

Okay. Let's assume you're processing two raw files, one from a Leica M9 (18 MP) and the other from an M11 (60 MP). Consider two scenarios:

• You look at both files on your monitor at 100 % view each.
• You print both files—full size, no crop—on 13 × 19 inch sheets.

Do you see what the fundamental difference between these two scenarios is?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, 01af said:

Okay. Let's assume you're processing two raw files, one from a Leica M9 (18 MP) and the other from an M11 (60 MP). Consider two scenarios:

• You look at both files on your monitor at 100 % view each.
• You print both files—full size, no crop—on 13 × 19 inch sheets.

Do you see what the fundamental difference between these two scenarios is?

I don't use prints to tweak my pic files in post. Never did this in 20+ years on 4mp, 6mp, 10mp, 40mp, 60mp and others i don't recall. I don't think i could quote a single exception when i did such a strange thing.

Edited May 18, 2024 by lct

[01af]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb lct:

I don't use prints to tweak my pic files in post.

Of course you don't. Nobody does.

But the fact you're assuming I was suggesting that means you don't understand what we're talking about. So go ahead and enjoy your pixels. To me, tweaking files in post-processing serves a purpose: to prepare a good print.

[jaapv]

That is not what Olaf said - you don't always want - or need to edit a file at 100%, it depends on the size you want to view or print it. He means that you should judge your processing at the size that you will view or print it, maybe double the size to aid your vision.  100% or even 200%  can be useful - for instance to judge the halos that you need to get a sharp print, but usually it only leads to pixel peeping and false conclusions.

[jaapv]

12 hours ago, SrMi said:

A reminder: M11 has "only" 21% more linear resolution than M10R. In theory, M11 would need a 21% higher minimum shutter speed to avoid camera motion blur when looking at 100% (pixel peeping).

But you would need to print it 21% larger as well - or buy a 21% larger monitor. 

[jgeenen]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb mboerma:

I agree that the MPs don't matter, but the difference between the M11 and previous digital M's is the shutter. This, in my case, causes more camera shake (maybe except for the original M8). On my M11 the camera shake is most felt at or around 1/125s. The whole "close, open, close, open" sequence for each photo taken is not as well dampened as the more simple "open, close" sequence on previous camera's. It has to do this much faster because of the extra "open, close" steps. I simply can feel it in my nose. (I wrote this two years ago and I still stand by it! 🙂 )

If you examine the movement sequence of a focal plane shutter, you realize that there might be no need for an additional close/open sequence, just a reordering of sequence.

M10:  s1 starts, (exposure), s2 starts, s1 stops, s2 stops, s1 and s2 back to start (sensor is covered)

M11: s2 back to start (sensor is covered), s1 starts, (exposure), s2 starts, s1 stops, s2 stops, s1 back to start (sensor is open)

consequently the additional shake is just the travel of half of the shutter and the additional delay just in the order of 1/100 sec.

of course, I haven’t seen any slow motion videos of the actual shutter movements, so Leica engineers might have been silly enough to implement the dumb double shutter movement but the sound and timing of shutter action points for me to the optimized flow I described above

 

[lct]

1 minute ago, 01af said:

Of course you don't. Nobody does.

But the fact you're assuming I was suggesting that means you don't understand what we're talking about. So go ahead and enjoy your pixels. To me, tweaking files in post-processing serves a purpose: to prepare a good print.

You do what you like with your post processing but you cannot escape the question to know if camera shake blur is more visible at 60mp than at 6mp, which is the question we are (were?) talking about.

[01af]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

He means that you should judge your processing at the size that you will view or print it. 

Umm ... not really.

What I actually mean is you should judge your image quality at the size that you will view or print it. At processing time, of course you will look at details at 100 % view, or even higher, in order to fine-adjust parameters like noise reduction and sharpening. But when you're aiming at, for example, a 13 × 19" print then you'll need a certain degree of detail resolution for the print to look good. Camera shake blur will destroy details. And the point is: the limit of acceptable shake does not depend on the sensor's pixel count. It only depends on the size of your print. So if you get sharp 13 × 19" prints from your M9 captures taken hand-held at, say, 1/30 s then you also will get equally sharp 13 × 19" prints from your M11 captures taken hand-held at 1/30 s. The higher pixel count won't lead to more camera shake blur.

.

vor 7 Minuten schrieb lct:

... but you cannot escape the question to know if camera shake blur is more visible at 60 MP than at 6 MP ...

Sure it's more visible at 60 MP than at 6 MP—when you look at the 60 MP file at higher magnification. Which for comparison purposes would be a stupid thing to do. When you look at the two files at equal magnification then the blur will be equally visible. And this is what counts when looking at pictures rather than pixels.

[Strmbrg]

Nowadays I focus nearly all my "energy" on finding motifs, chose photographic angle, chose photographic distance and such things. 
The "inner-technical-extreme-details" fall very far outside of my agenda.
I remember periods when my inspiration, my ideas and general creativity was rather lacking. Then my interest focused much more on gear, performance, gear-comparisons and even diving deep into very small details. I didn't know the word "peeping then", maybe there is some similar word in Swedish. Low inspiration - high focus on the technical side.
Exactly the same pattern regarding hifi.

That's me i.e.
Maybe most other hobby-photographers are different minded and can manage to focus on both aspects simultaneously. Don't know, I don't know any hobby-photographers.

[Strmbrg]

1 minute ago, Strmbrg said:

Doublet.

 

Edited May 18, 2024 by Strmbrg

[250swb]

It's a strange discussion, given the price of the lenses and the camera body Leica are helping out as much as they can by providing a tripod socket to solve all these 'problems' and workarounds. It's a fundamental bipod problem you are talking about, you're all missing an extra leg.

[lct]

8 minutes ago, 01af said:

Sure it's more visible at 60 MP than at 6 MP—when you look at the 60 MP file at higher magnification. Which for comparison purposes would be a stupid thing to do.

Of course it is more visible at 60mp,  to claim otherwise is to deny the obvious. As for knowing for what purpose such comparisons are made what is stupid for you can be clever for others.

[jaapv]

 

 I would say that that is obvious from my post to the point of redundancy that I am talking about the quality of the final result. And then you expand on it into detail…🙃

 

1 hour ago, 01af said:

Umm ... not really.

[jaapv]

36 minutes ago, lct said:

Of course it is more visible at 60mp,  to claim otherwise is to deny the obvious. As for knowing for what purpose such comparisons are made what is stupid for you can be clever for others.

Not at the same magnification. Both images will have the same amount of blur. After all, the camera movement was the same. The higher pixel count will resolve an amount of blur which the lower count could not. So if you look at the image at the same magnification you will see no difference.The only thing that might reveal a minimal amount of extra blur is the acuity of the more modern sensors.  Due to the 3 nm UVE lithography machines the sensors are printed more precisely leading to a more exact and cleaner rendering. But it is still the blur created by the camera movement and not by the sensor. The obvious you mention is blindly pixel peeping at an indiscriminate 100%. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

56 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Not at the same magnification. Both images will have the same amount of blur. After all, the camera movement was the same. The higher pixel count will resolve an amount of blur which the lower count could not. So if you look at the image at the same magnification you will see no difference. [...]

I do and i always work at 100% magnification whatever the sensor used. We must not have the same eyesight i guess... Mine is almost perfect BTW (cataract surgery).

Edited May 18, 2024 by lct