Problems getting sharp images by 60MP

[harmen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For more than a week I kept posting that really the 60MP sensor is no more blurry at an overall picture level and therefore it's a non issue.  I find it eye opening to see how others derive different conclusions for their own use.  That it is an issue.  I'm baffled, but also appreciate we're all different.  I kept thinking the facts were simply not understood.  How wrong I was.

Since I cannot resist, once more, just checking that we're all aligned on the facts:

• The amount of motion/shake blur is always the same - for a full picture
• Motion blur has an impact even on a 6MP picture like my former Nikon D70.  It's just less obvious for each pixel, since a move that moves across an entire 60MP sensor's pixel only moves across a third of a 6MP's pixel, meaning the change in color/light is less pronounced
• Motion blur when zooming in to 100% is therefore less obvious on a picture with fewer pixels.

Now, that leaves us with a number of options about dealing with the more easily visible noise when zooming in to 100%

• Do not zoom in to 100%
• Do not buy the M11
• Practice steady handholding
• Set the output to 18MP
• Edit the file and then save it as a lower resolution final image
• Print it
• Just be happy

My personal choice is that I am happy with the M11 overall, not just for it's higher MP.  I enjoy the higher MP in situations where I can shoot at a higher shutter speed or using a tripod, since it simply given me that option even if I don't always do it.  I personally don't mind the blur at 100%, so will still shoot at 60MP at all times.  Finally, there is something about the colours and rendering and dynamic range that I find very appealing and less plasticky than my previous M(240), so I'm just happy.

Edited February 17, 2022 by harmen

[Sean ASA]

Without cropping the compressed 60MP produces a finer image, without question. However one of the secondary perks of having a 60MP camera is being able to crop a sixth of the image and get a great shot. Anyone who has owned a high mega pixel camera with Image stabilisation can vouch for how useful it is. My default is IS off, but if I'm using a prime and know there's a section of the available image I want to enlarge, I will put the IS on. Some think its a shame the M11 didn't have IS. Now as mentioned above you don't have to buy the M11. I'm not, the lack of IS is a contributor but not only consideration. One of the reasons, we mention it here is so Leica get a variety of customer opinion. The M12 will have no shutter, global read out with variable ISO across the face. (i.e more power sent to the pixels in the shadows, less to the sky) and probably IS. M photography won't be a challenging but produce amazing results. I've got my SL and M3, but love digitals M's.

[LocalHero1953]

57 minutes ago, harmen said:

 I find it eye opening to see how others derive different conclusions for their own use.

Extraordinary. That other people use cameras in different ways, have different physique, health, eyesight - aside from technique.
It's a good thing that it is eye-opening.

[lct]

3 hours ago, wizard said:

You have the same motion blur with your 6MP and 18MP and 24MP cameras. You just THINK you don't because due the lower resolution of those sensors you are unable to resolve the motion blur. In other words, detail resolution is not good enough to allow you to zoom into the digital output file far enough to detect the motion blur. With a 42MP and a 60MP sensor, you CAN zoom into the digital output file almost indefinitely, thus allowing to actually SEE the motion blur.

However, a printed image from a, say, 60MP sensor will not be less sharp than a printed image from a, say, 18MP sensor, if both prints are the same size. Only if you go for gigantic prints, you may see some difference. A giant print from a 60MP sensor may show somewhat fuzzy small detail (due to motion blur) whereas a giant print (same size) from a 18MP sensor will not show that small detail at all.

The above also answers your question regarding shooting the M11 at 18MP. You sacrifice resolution of very small detail, and therefore you will be unable to detect any motion blur of such very fine detail. The principle remains the same.

Sorry to insist but i have the feeling that some good posters here prefer teaching theories i've been learning last century than sharing their actual experience. Nothing personal . What i'm (we're?) facing here is something i have zero experience with i.e. an high res sensor sans IBIS with 3 levels of resolution and a shutter that doesn't work the same as on my usual RF and EVF cameras. At 18MP (or 33 MP?) will i have to multiply my shutter speeds in any way more so than with an M240 for instance? Sorry if my question seems down to earth or has already been answered.

[M9reno]

10 minutes ago, lct said:

At 18MP (or 33 MP?) will i have to multiply my shutter speeds in any way more so than with an M240 for instance?

The answer is "no".

[harmen]

11 minutes ago, lct said:

Sorry to insist but i have the feeling that some good posters here prefer teaching theories i've been learning last century than sharing their actual experience. Nothing personal . What i'm (we're?) facing here is something i have zero experience with i.e. an high res sensor sans IBIS with 3 levels of resolution and a shutter that doesn't work the same as on my usual RF and EVF cameras. At 18MP (or 33 MP?) will i have to multiply my shutter speeds in any way more so than with an M240 for instance? Sorry if my question seems down to earth or has already been answered.

At 18 it would be possible to go for a fractionally lower shutter speed than the M240.  Though depending on how stable your hands are you may find even at 60 you will still get a good number of keepers without having to go higher than you used to.  I’ll have to report back though after I’ve taken more than just a week’s worth of shots.

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Minuten schrieb lct:

At 18MP (or 33 MP?) will i have to multiply my shutter speeds in any way more so than with an M240 for instance?

No, no multiplication of shutter speeds necessary. The M11 uses pixel binning (which means several pixels are effectively combined to form one bigger pixel, at least that's how I understand it) to arrive at the lower MP resolution. So 18MP is just that, 18MP. Why would you expect that those 18MP are more prone to motion blur than the 18MP of any other camera having a native 18MP sensor?

And why would the shutter make any noticeable difference? With a mechanical shutter, not all parts of the sensor/film are exposed at the same time (unless you are below flash synchronization time), as the slit formed by the mechanical shutter takes some time to move across the entire film/sensor area. Same with an electronic shutter, it does need some time to read all the lines of the sensor, but as with a mechanical shutter, that time is negligible.

Summarizing, I still stand by what I explained above. It's simple physics (no offense intended), not theories, and the laws of physics apply to all devices.

[lct]

4 minutes ago, M9reno said:

The answer is "no".

Thank you much. Do you have this feeling at 18MP and/or 33MP? In RF and/or LV mode? With e-shutter or not?  

[harmen]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Extraordinary. That other people use cameras in different ways, have different physique, health, eyesight - aside from technique.
It's a good thing that it is eye-opening.

I’m curious what will happen when one day getting a sensor with fewer than 100MP becomes impossible.  Would anyone still worry that they can’t get every pixel sharp?  

[pgk]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The interesting question to me (as neither a M10R nor M11 owner) is not whether some users, with good health, eyesight and technique can take photos without blur, but whether it becomes an issue for the bulk of Leica's intended market for the M11 - that would certainly be a spur for Leica to introduce IBIS asap.

And it's not so much a question of whether you can tell the difference between a shot at 60mp and one at 18mp viewed at the same size, but whether those who buy the M11 to take advantage of the M11 for cropping (a selling point often mentioned in this forum) will see it. True Leica users never crop, of course, but Leica has to sell its cameras to all sorts of strange people these days, who might not be happy with the blur revealed by cropping.

Trying to make a 35mm camera to, in effect, achieve 6x9cm results is always going to have its drawbacks. On the ropping comment, does anyone know of many photographers who shot medium format in order to crop to 35mm? Yes, picture editors do crop but generally speaking, its never been a reason to shoot medoium format film over 35mm. We are now talking about having to use exacting technique in order to achieve requierments we never used to have IMO.

[KenTanaka]

The next major M model, if it’s introduced, will almost certainly have IBIS. Leica has the tech (see their SL2 cams) and, no, it wouldn’t need to bloat the body. (My Ricoh GR III cams have had IBIS and their bodies haven’t swollen a millimeter since their film ancestors.). Given the increasingly aging profile of Leica’s customers (like me) it’s an essential no-brainer. In fact I really expected the M11 to have IBIS, especially with that new truck battery!
 

 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

Trying to make a 35mm camera to, in effect, achieve 6x9cm results is always going to have its drawbacks.

I will add to this that if you search for medium format (6x9) rangefinder cameras you will see that a number used to be made, and many are still in use, and are much appreciated. You will also find that to get the best out of them is not as easy or straightforward as shooting a 35mm rangefinder. IMO trying to achieve the same level of results with a 35mm camera (FX, high MPixels) is obviously going to run into similar requirements, the commonest being the need to use a tripod. Yes, medium format cameras can be, and have often been, handheld, but using them with Velvia 50 and trying to coax crisp, detailed images out of them usually means using them on a tripod. And as I said before (with the exception of panorama adapters), generally speaking nobody uses them in order to substantially crop the result or just for small prints (reduced MPixels). They are used to benefit from the large negative/transparency size and this requires fairly exacting technique.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, KenTanaka said:

The next major M model, if it’s introduced, will almost certainly have IBIS. Leica has the tech (see their SL2 cams) and, no, it wouldn’t need to bloat the body. (My Ricoh GR III cams have had IBIS and their bodies haven’t swollen a millimeter since their film ancestors.). Given the increasingly aging profile of Leica’s customers (like me) it’s an essential no-brainer. In fact I really expected the M11 to have IBIS, especially with that new truck battery!

Leica said that currently IBIS would "bloat the body", and therefore was not added to M11.

[M9reno]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Thank you much. Do you have this feeling at 18MP and/or 33MP? In RF and/or LV mode? With e-shutter or not?  

Just to clarify: I don't own the M11.  I speak from the basis of the output at 41MP with the M10-R and M10-M (which I do own) and comparing it to what is produced by, e.g., the 24MP M10P/D and18MP M9/ M9M (which I also own), all using RF and mechanical shutter.

[lct]

10 minutes ago, M9reno said:

Just to clarify: I don't own the M11.  I speak from the basis of the output at 41MP with the M10-R and M10-M (which I do own) and comparing it to what is produced by, e.g., the 24MP M10P/D and18MP M9/ M9M (which I also own), all using RF and mechanical shutter.

Thanks for making this clear. 

[erudolph]

Following Scott Kirkpatrick's lead, out of curiosity I made a quick and dirty test this a.m.  Standing over a piece of sheet music, holding M11 with 50mm APO-Summicron-M, I made a series of exposures beginning at 1/250 and proceeding in half steps down to 1/30.  Ironically, the least sharp of the images was the first at 1/250.  Below 1/45 I could not get a steady shot, but I feel it could be done.  FWIW, I am 76 years old with a reasonably steady hand.  What you'll see below is a series of 100% crops with, at top, a crop of the full image.

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!

[scott kirkpatrick]

4 hours ago, KenTanaka said:

The next major M model, if it’s introduced, will almost certainly have IBIS. Leica has the tech (see their SL2 cams) and, no, it wouldn’t need to bloat the body. (My Ricoh GR III cams have had IBIS and their bodies haven’t swollen a millimeter since their film ancestors.). Given the increasingly aging profile of Leica’s customers (like me) it’s an essential no-brainer. In fact I really expected the M11 to have IBIS, especially with that new truck battery!

As the M models got slimmed down to film M body thickness of 34 mm, the lens mount in front has gotten a little thicker, while still keeping the rangefinder cam and the link to the framing window in the optical finder working. There is now a 3mm thick flange at the base of each lens on M10s and M11s.  Subtracting the 28mm (actually 27.8 mm, but I can't measure that precisely) M register distance, places the "image plane" in an M 9 mm in front of the back of the body.  That's the thickness of the sensor, its contacts, and a cooling mount.  If you put the same M lens on an SL, using the M to L adapter, the back of the M lens is 44 mm from the back of the camera , so there is an extra 7mm thickness of stuff back there in an SL to perform the IBIS magic.  Or, the SL IBIS+sensor package is twice the thickness of the M's sensor.

So I'm not holding my breath for M IBIS.  Quite aside from the philosophical implications, there is some hard engineering required, and much of that extra 7 mm is space required for the sensor to move out of the image plane to correct for pitch and yaw.  Movies of sensor motion in the most aggressive examples (Olympus) show the sensor really dancing around in its frame, not just moving side to side.

Edited February 17, 2022 by scott kirkpatrick

[KenTanaka]

Thanks for the status summary, Scott. Very informative! 
 

But let me pose the challenge differently, as a narrative. You’re 70 and have naturally lost limb strength and, perhaps, a bit of neurological motor steadiness. You’re otherwise perfectly healthy and have plenty of spare cash. You just can’t keep your old Leica 11 steady enough to make good “sharp” pictures any more.  Yet the images you make from your far less costly (— insert any contemporary camera —) sure look sharp and vivid!  That newfangled “image stabilization” must really work.  Maybe time to sell the Leica kit?

So do you really expect Leica’s management to hold the M waistline a few millimeters for posterity, dimensions they’ve already ceded once for other “features”?   Never.  IBIS will be what ultimately keeps the M line alive.  But, as has been typical, Leica will introduce it at exactly the last moment. And you’ll be among the first to upgrade, won’t you?
 

Oh, and about that tiltable rear screen…. 😂

[scott kirkpatrick]

I use both the SLs and M10-11s, so thanks to the pack of lenses that are in their cabinet calling to me, I'll keep going. (I've only resisted the M35 APO so far.)  The basic SL body thickness (away from the handgrip/battery-SD card holder end) is still less than the thickness of the M9 and M240, so I think Leica's pretty convinced that thin is important.

Edited February 17, 2022 by scott kirkpatrick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, KenTanaka said:

Thanks for the status summary, Scott. Very informative! 
 

But let me pose the challenge differently, as a narrative. You’re 70 and have naturally lost limb strength and, perhaps, a bit of neurological motor steadiness. You’re otherwise perfectly healthy and have plenty of spare cash. You just can’t keep your old Leica 11 steady enough to make good “sharp” pictures any more.  Yet the images you make from your far less costly (— insert any contemporary camera —) sure look sharp and vivid!  That newfangled “image stabilization” must really work.  Maybe time to sell the Leica kit?

So do you really expect Leica’s management to hold the M waistline a few millimeters for posterity, dimensions they’ve already ceded once for other “features”?   Never.  IBIS will be what ultimately keeps the M line alive.  But, as has been typical, Leica will introduce it at exactly the last moment. And you’ll be among the first to upgrade, won’t you?
 

Oh, and about that tiltable rear screen…. 😂

I'd buy an IBIS M. But I wouldn't buy one 8mm thicker than the M11. People set off fireworks when we went from the 240 to the M10 which was less than 3mm.

The only way I can see it happening is if Leica slightly extend the lens mount out of the M12 to keep the main body the same depth. Not sure whether the faithful with allow that.

It's more likely that Leica will make an EVF and IBIS based body with an M mount that's not got the M badge. That'll allow the M to stay pure. No one will care if a few mm is added to a non *M* camera.

Gordon