Purchase an M11 or an M10-R…?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only reasons I see to get an M10R (I have both) over an M11 are cost and availability.

A few things above I don't agree with. Many I do.

1. Start up and wake up times are near enough to be un-noticable. The differences are measured in milliseconds.

2. Removing the shutter blade sensor in the M11 (live view only) has improved the performance of some lenses.

3. Properly processed the M11 has less noise while retaing more detail at ISO 6400.  Popping up a couple of un proceesed raw files next to each other in LR is not indicative of the cameras.

I bought the M11 with the intention of keeping my M10R. Now I think I'll get a second M11. I do miss the baseplate but I love the battery and USBC charging.

Gordon

[M11 for me]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb kona:

This doesn't look like a good comparison to me. When you have sensors with different resolutions you need to resize to the same output size for the comparison to be meaningful. Otherwise the higher resolution sensor will always be at a disadvantage since you are effectively looking at a larger size image so any issues are magnified.

This is indeed a very week point of this video. Unfortunately the author did even not mention that point. This leaves a very bad feeling as I imagine that this content lacks knowhow.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

1 hour ago, M11 for me said:

This is indeed a very week point of this video. Unfortunately the author did even not mention that point. This leaves a very bad feeling as I imagine that this content lacks knowhow.

I would point over to Sean Reid's site (reidreviews.com) who has done a deep comparison of M11 and previous generation M10s. From his work and other reviews, one potential upside for the M11, mostly above ISO 6400 (e.g. 12800+) is absence of color banding. That's it. The BSI sensor "advantage" seems to be eaten up by the higher resolution (smaller pixels) and per-pixel noise levels in the M11 are similar at all 3 resolutions. The YouTube video in question shows a case where M10R does better at ISO6400 - this is more relevant to me than 12800 or 25600 as it's closer to what I would be shooting at? It also shows M11==M10R at regular "daylight" ISO ranges (base for each etc.), in a systematic way - I don't agree that "content lacks knowhow".

[M11 for me]

and still you have to look at images at same size. Whatever your view might be.

Edited March 14, 2022 by M11 for me

[Fedro]

14 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The only reasons I see to get an M10R (I have both) over an M11 are cost and availability.

A few things above I don't agree with. Many I do.

1. Start up and wake up times are near enough to be un-noticable. The differences are measured in milliseconds.

2. Removing the shutter blade sensor in the M11 (live view only) has improved the performance of some lenses.

3. Properly processed the M11 has less noise while retaing more detail at ISO 6400.  Popping up a couple of un proceesed raw files next to each other in LR is not indicative of the cameras.

I bought the M11 with the intention of keeping my M10R. Now I think I'll get a second M11. I do miss the baseplate but I love the battery and USBC charging.

Gordon

Hi Gordon, not sure if you still have it, but would you keep the M10M if you buy a second M11?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

44 minutes ago, Fedro said:

Hi Gordon, not sure if you still have it, but would you keep the M10M if you buy a second M11?

Yes. I don't know if there's a significat IQ advantage. High ISO is certainly cleaner but colour chanels allow flexibility in post....... Pros and Cons.

For me, there's something in my head that changes when I use the Monochrom. Knowing I can't use the colour channels changes the way I *see*. Also for some reason I like shooting in b&w at night. I just like the look of high contrast and golf ball grain. So I'm happy to take advantage of the really high ISO's. With any colour camera I always try to keep ISO as low as possible, often resorting to a tripod.

Gordon

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M10-R is the best IQ of the color M10... only M!)M has better IQ

At base ISO the the M10-R and M11 IQ is very close, just a touch better on M11

On ISO 6400 and up the verdict is still out. At this point the M10-R does better most of the time in high iso, in some shooting situation the M11 has a little more base noise at every MP setting, but it is usable and pleasing up to 12500ISO.  Then again I did shoot at 3200ISO underexposed 2 stops at night and the results where not amazing. Too much noise in the shadows.
Will have to check back when the M11 firmware comes out and see if that gets improved.

The M10-R sensor gets hot, and it is design to eliminate the heat from the body, so the screen get hot and the screen protectors keeps coming off.

On the M10 cameras with Visioflex on you can't see the shutter speed you have set. that always bugged me.

If you want a modern camera get the M11, Flexible resolution, New shutter with and quick live view on off, Great battery life, Image stabilization LV, instant connection with USB cable and fotos app.

With the update some fore futures will come like prospective control , tethering to computer...

I would go for M11.

[opera207]

21 hours ago, mzbe said:

I think the "M11 better at" high ISO claim has been debunked (vs. M10-R, see here - M10-R is clearly less noisy at ISO 6400, see screenshot below). Low ISO (base 64 ISO) - yes, improved with M11. Wifi not sure, when it works seems to be better, but in the "buggy firmware" category reports of Wifi not working reliably all the time (back to the situation for all my Leica cameras ever since Leica introduced Wifi connectivity with the Fotos app) ... 

 

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!

 

I sold my m10r after getting m11, to me high iso of m11 is obviously better. m11 wifi hardware is updated.

Edited March 15, 2022 by opera207

[Guest]

10 hours ago, M11 for me said:

and still you have to look at images at same size. Whatever your view might be.

Do you have access to Reidreviews? His findings are M10-R (down-sampled to 18 Mega Pixels) is cleaner at ISO 12500, compared to M11 at 18 Mega Pixels (!).

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, mzbe said:

Do you have access to Reidreviews? His findings are M10-R (down-sampled to 18 Mega Pixels) is cleaner at ISO 12500, compared to M11 at 18 Mega Pixels (!).

That is not what he wrote.

Sean wrote that the older camera's (aka M10-R) picture is a bit cleaner up to ISO 12500, but after that, M10-R's banding makes M10-R an inferior camera! Mic drop!

Just kidding, M10-R is not an inferior camera, but it has some issues above ISO 125000, which most people do not care about anyway. Below ISO 12500, there does not seem to be much difference, and you need to resize M10-R's output in the post while you get 18MP as the real raw output of M11. For B&W analysis, Sean writes that both cameras preform comparable at 18MP.

[M11 for me]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb mzbe:

Do you have access to Reidreviews? His findings are M10-R (down-sampled to 18 Mega Pixels) is cleaner at ISO 12500, compared to M11 at 18 Mega Pixels (!).

Yes, I am enrolled to Reidreviews. This is a very good analysis. 

[ianforber]

I went for the M11 as my first M, let alone digital M. I researching prior to purchase I concluded that the performance of the M10-R and M11 were, for all practical purposes, identical in almost every situation.
 

The reason I went for the M11 was the extra cropability of the files. I frequently crop my images very severely and having those extra megabytes was an important factor for me. At the time I bought the camera, the price of both were the same but even with a drop in price for the M10-R, I’d still go for the M11. 

[Jacobjuul]

9 hours ago, ianforber said:

I went for the M11 as my first M, let alone digital M. I researching prior to purchase I concluded that the performance of the M10-R and M11 were, for all practical purposes, identical in almost every situation.
 

The reason I went for the M11 was the extra cropability of the files. I frequently crop my images very severely and having those extra megabytes was an important factor for me. At the time I bought the camera, the price of both were the same but even with a drop in price for the M10-R, I’d still go for the M11. 

I think this is the only sensible reason. Too much emphasis is put on high ISO capability/differences, when in reality we rarely go above 3200 (at least I rarely do, in fact, I rarely go above 800)

[AndersPH]

I found a New M10-R silver for around $6600, save around $2300 compared to M11, worth it? I live in Sweden 

[maxpower]

That's hard to say for us, I am new to Leica and opted for the M11 because I could not find a new M10-R for that much cheaper at time of purchase, plus I was impressed by the battery life and usb-c connectivity/charging options. The internal storage is nice to have as well but wouldn't miss it if it was gone. The IQ and 60MP I don't really need, so then for me the reasons that I bought the M11 I would not say are worth $2300 extra. I have Silver but with the Black version of course there is also the possible benefit of it being a lighter camera. For you, whether it's worth it, I can't say.

(If you can save $2300 you could use that to invest in some nice glass instead, if you don't have that yet.)

[M Street Photographer]

I faced the same problem a few weeks ago, even amplified since I was eyeing the M9. This was then quickly out, 13 years old, how long will there be spare parts?
I chose the M 10 R and not the M 11, why?
I know 60 MP from the RIV and I never needed it for my work. I think 40 MP is ideal. The sensor of the M10 R shows me an organic, analogue noise in the noise, which, although rarely used, ISO 6,400 and more is not a problem.
For adapted lenses I use the round Visoflex 2. It's good enough for me. The different display doesn't bother me either, since I only need it when I have to go to the menu, which is very, very rarely the case. Last but not least, the price difference is not negligible. I got lucky, found a demo model with 300 actuations, got a 2 year warranty and a 3rd year after registration. The price was less than 6,000.00.

Now I'm even considering parting with the RIV, which will make it even easier for me to buy one or the other Leica lens.

So I'm happy and at peace with my decision to go with the M10 R and can recommend it unreservedly.

[Kwesi]

1 hour ago, AndersPH said:

I found a New M10-R silver for around $6600, save around $2300 compared to M11, worth it? I live in Sweden 

I think if you can comfortably afford the M11 - Go for it! I own it and love it.

On the other hand $6600.00 for a brand new M with warranty is hard to beat.

BUT if $6600.00 is also a bit of a stretch then I would strongly suggest an M10-P. Functionally you get everything the M10-R has for about $4500.

[AndersPH]

I normalt always buy the latest version so You Are probably right! This will also be my first Leica 

[Kwesi]

I think the M11 is really the way to go. I've owned at least one digital M from each generation since the M9 and the M11 is by far the best one to date.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

if you care for very long battery life, the new elf and 60 MP go for M11.

The M10r has a small advantage in regards of corner sharpness and purple fringing (with some lenses).

I switched to M11, but the M10r was a very nice camera as well.