Problems getting sharp images by 60MP

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

...To my mind, that signals a shift for the M digitals from reasonably accepted and stable technology to the more adventurous, bleeding edge end of tech...

But wouldn't we all have preferred true bleeding edge tech like a 36-45mp stacked BSI sensor with readout as fast as a mechanical shutter? The M11 sensor is still circa 2019 tech.

[aristotle]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

But wouldn't we all have preferred true bleeding edge tech like a 36-45mp stacked BSI sensor with readout as fast as a mechanical shutter? The M11 sensor is still circa 2019 tech.

Me personally?  No, I wouldn't prefer it.  I don't need it any more than I need 60MP, but if I were several generations back instead of having my M10R, and I was looking to purchase, I'd take 60MP, or fast readout sensors or whatever the latest thing du jour is over an M without it assuming that it was the same cost (e.g. M11 vs. M10R).

[Advertisement]

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

[hdmesa]

5 minutes ago, aristotle said:

Me personally?  No, I wouldn't prefer it.  I don't need it any more than I need 60MP, but if I were several generations back instead of having my M10R, and I was looking to purchase, I'd take 60MP, or fast readout sensors or whatever the latest thing du jour is over an M without it assuming that it was the same cost (e.g. M11 vs. M10R).

I meant if you were to buy an M11, wouldn't you rather it have a faster, stacked BSI sensor instead of non-stacked sensor with higher resolution?

M10-R is a near perfect camera IQ-wise, so I understand what you're saying. That's where you'd have to be lured not by the IQ or speed but by the better metering when using the rangefinder, longer battery life, lighter weight (black version), etc. 

[hmzimelka]

I seem to think that a faster readout sensor would have been a better match for what the M11 is "supposed" to be. I say supposed, since I presume that the use of a silent electronic shutter mode was a design intention for this camera.  I find it difficult to understand that a permanently live sensor mode is there purely on the premise to replace the old light metering mode. 

I'd readily give up megapixels for an electronic shutter that is usable and can be used as a real replacement for the mechanical shutter.

I'm curious how, and if, Leica implement a Electronic First-Curtain shutter mode... on the Nikon Z cameras (obviously Z9 excluded) it caused a darkening of the lower portion of the frame the higher the shutter speed. I believe its the same mechanical affect that causes the affect on bokeh. The offset distance of two curtains moving across the frame; Mechanically being offset, and electronic having no effective offset. I found the feature useless on my Z6II since it darkened the bottom of the frame enough to be bothersome. Like a grad filter.

Edited May 15, 2022 by hmzimelka

[hdmesa]

6 minutes ago, hmzimelka said:

I seem to think that a faster readout sensor would have been a better match for what the M11 is "supposed" to be. I say supposed, since I presume that the use of a silent electronic shutter mode was a design intention for this camera.  I find it difficult to understand that a permanently live sensor mode is there purely on the premise to replace the old light metering mode. 

I'd readily give up megapixels for an electronic shutter that is usable and can be used as a real replacement for the mechanical shutter.

I'm curious how, and if, Leica implement a Electronic First-Curtain shutter mode... on the Nikon Z cameras (obviously Z9 excluded) it caused a darkening of the lower portion of the frame the higher the shutter speed. I believe its the same mechanical affect that causes the affect on bokeh. The offset distance of two curtains moving across the frame; Mechanically being offset, and electronic having no effective offset. I found the feature useless on my Z6II since it darkened the bottom of the frame enough to be bothersome. Like a grad filter.

EFCS would be great to have on the M11, but it needs to implemented alongside an updated Hybrid shutter mode that automatically changes over to the mechanical shutter above 1/500 sec. so as to avoid the bokeh issues at wide apertures and exposure evenness issues. Fujifilm has this hybrid switching that lets me shoot while the camera automatically and seamlessly switches between EFCS, mechanical, and electronic.

Also, if the sensor read speed was as fast or nearly as fast as a mechanical shutter, EFCS could be used without the bokeh and exposure issues. Of course once the scan speed of the sensor equals the speed of the mechanical shutter, we don’t really need the mechanical shutter anymore. Leica could still keep the mechanical shutter, though, just like the R3 and A1 do.

[hmzimelka]

3 hours ago, hdmesa said:

EFCS would be great to have on the M11, but it needs to implemented alongside an updated Hybrid shutter mode that automatically changes over to the mechanical shutter above 1/500 sec. so as to avoid the bokeh issues at wide apertures and exposure evenness issues. Fujifilm has this hybrid switching that lets me shoot while the camera automatically and seamlessly switches between EFCS, mechanical, and electronic.

Also, if the sensor read speed was as fast or nearly as fast as a mechanical shutter, EFCS could be used without the bokeh and exposure issues. Of course once the scan speed of the sensor equals the speed of the mechanical shutter, we don’t really need the mechanical shutter anymore. Leica could still keep the mechanical shutter, though, just like the R3 and A1 do.

It's my understanding the bokeh issue is due to the offset shutters, in other words the physical distance the one shutter is from the sensor. Since the mechanical shutter has a slight refractive property like a secondary iris in the light path, and by contrast to the electric shutter which doesn't have this property. 

I could be wrong... but I'm honestly not completely clear about this phenomenon. Would love to get a detailed explanation for it . Although the exposure unevenness seems to make more sense with regard to speed differences of the shutters traveling across the sensor.

Edited May 15, 2022 by hmzimelka

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Technology seems to be increasingly driving specs and marketing (including pricing) in top end Leica M products.  We see this in top M lenses now, too, as a Leica presentation revealed that the 35 APO M Summicron was initially spec-ed with the standard 70cm MFD, and only later in the development process, the tech side of the house said that 30cm could be achieved.

Possibilities and usability seem to have started to separate. There are far more effective solutions than a rangefinder for close focus (and at least one is adding an EVF) so what is driving this desire for specification and marketing? One thing is absolutely certain and that is that it isn't photographers who actually demand fuctionality such as close focus in a rangefinder. When it is discussed here on the forum most of the discussion I seem to remember is about the 0.7~1m range and susually related to specific lenses. Focusing closer than this is IMO pure marketting and has very little to do with actual usability.

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Focusing closer than this is IMO pure marketting and has very little to do with actual usability.

Not my point of view i must say. Difference between 0.58m (Ultron 35/2) and 0.70m (Summicron 35/2) is not insignificant when shooting closeups and the ability to focus that close with the RF is a real advantage to the point that i tend to use the Ultron preferably on the M11. 

[hmzimelka]

8 minutes ago, lct said:

Not my point of view i must say. Difference between 0.58m (Ultron 35/2) and 0.70m (Summicron 35/2) is not insignificant when shooting closeups and the ability to focus that close with the RF is a real advantage to the point that i tend to use the Ultron preferably on the M11. 

Exactly. Those 20cm are worth a lot for some people... enough to swap lenses for.

[lct]

2 minutes ago, hmzimelka said:

Those 20cm are worth a lot for some people...

Even 12cm can be

[hmzimelka]

8 minutes ago, lct said:

Even 12cm can be

😆 wow, embarrassing. Yeah, 12cm 🤦🏻‍♂️

[pgk]

So how do you deal with parallax?

[lct]

59 minutes ago, pgk said:

So how do you deal with parallax?

Frame lines still move between 0.7m and 0.58m and don't look significantly less accurate or more inaccurate at 0.58m than at 0.7m at first glance but i did no measurement.

[hdmesa]

5 hours ago, hmzimelka said:

It's my understanding the bokeh issue is due to the offset shutters, in other words the physical distance the one shutter is from the sensor. Since the mechanical shutter has a slight refractive property like a secondary iris in the light path, and by contrast to the electric shutter which doesn't have this property. 

I could be wrong... but I'm honestly not completely clear about this phenomenon. Would love to get a detailed explanation for it . Although the exposure unevenness seems to make more sense with regard to speed differences of the shutters traveling across the sensor.

I thought it was the interaction of the electronic shutter cascade with the rear curtain shadow, but then again this tech stuff can make my head hurt, lol.

There’s a long thread about it over on DPR forums where it’s discussed, but it’s been a long time since I read through it.

[pgk]

50 minutes ago, lct said:

Frame lines still move between 0.7m and 0.58m and don't look significantly less accurate or more inaccurate at 0.58m than at 0.7m at first glance but i did no measurement.

Well their coverage must vary in its accuracy as you focus closer because the focal length shifts silghtly and unless the centre of the viewfinder image shifts substantially closer to the lens axis in the frame lines then there will be both the shift in magnification, and a need for the frame to move coser to the lens axis too. There has always been this problem with rangefinders. They have never been good a close distances and there are far better systems available for close up photography so why Leica should change this is a matter of conjecture, but may be linked to the probable increase in the use of EVFs. Personally, if I want to shoot close up stuff I use a different system which is far more accurate, often has lenses specifically intended to do this, and is cheaper than changing a Leica M lens for the rather dubious advantage on closer focus on an M.But it all goes back to specification and marketing.

[lct]

My pics at 0.58m can hardly be much sharper so i see no problem with RF extension closer than 0.7m personally. YMMV. (M11, CV 35/2 asph, f/2, 0.58m, 100% crop).

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!

 

[Jeff S]

And others have since chimed in to say that they’ve also had no issues closer focusing with their M10 variant.  So still no evidence that the M11 is improved or unique in this regard. As usual, individual experiences vary, depending on camera, lens type, sample used, use case and technique, output and magnification, etc. Opinions also vary on the topic in general, on practical and technical bases, much like most topics here. And the beat goes on….

Jeff

[pgk]

16 hours ago, Jeff S said:

And the beat goes on….

Not really. Close focus subject matter can be taken optimally or it can be undertaken with gear which may work but is sub-optimal. Rangefinders are sub-optimal. There is no room for varied opinion. I do a lot of close up work. I do not and would not use a rangefinder because doing so is far from ideal solution (though I have worked at minimum focus if for some reason I have not had other, better suired cameras to hand. The problem is always the same - framelines inaccuracy.

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Not really. Close focus subject matter can be taken optimally or it can be undertaken with gear which may work but is sub-optimal. Rangefinders are sub-optimal. There is no room for varied opinion. I do a lot of close up work. I do not and would not use a rangefinder because doing so is far from ideal solution (though I have worked at minimum focus if for some reason I have not had other, better suired cameras to hand. The problem is always the same - framelines inaccuracy.

It has always been so since the fifties i guess. Was preferable to use a Visoflex of course but how many times did we carry a Visoflex housing on travels? Never happened to me i must say. So we had accessories like the Macro-Adapter-M v1 with goggles. Allows to focus down to 0.5m but the goggles are not very handy. What is new (to me) is the possibility to focus at 0.6m or (a bit) closer sans accessory. Doesn't seem more or less inaccurate than at 0.7m at first glance but can make interesting differences in FoV, DoF, perspective and bokeh. Test shots at 0.7m and 0.58m below (M11, CV 35/2 asph, f/2).

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

Not really. Close focus subject matter can be taken optimally or it can be undertaken with gear which may work but is sub-optimal. Rangefinders are sub-optimal. There is no room for varied opinion. I do a lot of close up work. I do not and would not use a rangefinder because doing so is far from ideal solution (though I have worked at minimum focus if for some reason I have not had other, better suired cameras to hand. The problem is always the same - framelines inaccuracy.

You just illustrated my point, thanks.  By saying “the best goes on,” I was referring to the varied opinions on this and other topics, not who is necessarily right or wrong. Tastes vary and debates emerge around everything it seems, even on the seemingly simplest of matters.

Ironically, I agree with your opinion on this, and would not rely on RF for macro work, although I seldom do it.  I might have had interest in the new 35 APO lens, if it hadn’t been complicated by the unnecessarily complex focus design, which boosted the price and apparently made manufacturing difficult (and perhaps might affect future reliability). I would have preferred a more simple and still optically stellar design, suited only for RF work. And the beat goes on.

Jeff