If you want something done right....

[THEME]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the work and thread, OP, a great reminder that technicalities are a small part only of a good photograph. Also no idea who ever said that a good photo has to be properly focused.

Noise, motion blur, out of focus... every camera for that matter is able to shoot a great picture IF THE CAMERA HOLDER IS ABLE TO SEIZE THAT VERY MOMENT.

The latest Leica M makes it just more pleasurable to shoot that moment. It's, however, a completely debatable whether better specs lead to better images.

[adan]

Thanks.

I will get those new ISO 40000 examples up soon, but I ran into a rush printmaking session today (and likely Friday as well - big show at the gallery Friday night, and my cupboard of framed prints is a bit empty ).

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

On 5/6/2022 at 1:02 AM, THEME said:

Also no idea who ever said that a good photo has to be properly focused.

Recently had the privilege of producing a new print from a friend's archive of her grandfather's work.  Taken in the '40s, about as sharp as a wet noodle, but in my view a truly extraordinary capture.

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!

 

[adan]

Anyway - getting slightly back on topic - I mentioned previously that at ISO 40000 the M11's higher DR range is visible as better shadow separation.

Here is a screen shot from the ISO 40000 pictures, at 50% pixels, since this is not the main test.

Note the separation of the back box lid in the deep shadow under the shelf - seems to me the M11 separates that from the wall behind better. Also, the shaded part on the left side of the box seems to have a bit more tonality and "openess"  the M11.

May help to click on the image to get a black backgound so you are not blinded by a bright monitor. And don't try to judge anything about noise (yet) since it not full res and making a screen-shot may have affected the rendering of the fine detail (i.e. noise speckles). I'll put those up separately.

In effect, we are getting a look at the "noise floor."

M11-60.....M10-24....M11-18

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!

Edited May 8, 2022 by adan

[tom0511]

dont forget that noise will look different in different colors, in different light, and depending on exposure etc.

I am not sure if such images will tell you much for real life photography.

After shooting with both my M10r (before I had a M10) and a M11 for betatest for several months now I dont think that the difference in noise behaviour would make a (big) difference. They are so close IMO. I would rather look at the new shutter(sound), exp metering, battery, EVF, and maybe color behaviour, weight of the body and decide based on these factors - at least thats what I did.

Edited May 9, 2022 by tom0511

[adan]

I take your point.

The things you list, however, are not, in and of themselves, reasons I would upgrade from my M10s. I won't go off-topic to discuss them, but they don't really move the needle for me.

I would upgrade for better extreme-ISO noise performance, for my "dark places" photojournalism (which is definitely "real life photography," thank you very much ). Especially as influenced by the reduced-resolution, reduced-megabytes files. Which is the only place I find my current M10s to be (marginally) deficient.

Unfortunately, everyone so far (including reviewers) has mostly been so wrapped up in the "60-megapixel Kool-Aid" that they forgot to explore what is (or might be) more important to some of us. No one (until yourself - thanks for that) even bothered to simply say "They are so close (that no-one should expect any significant improvement in low light)." Let alone provide actual evidence.

So, having found the opportunity, I'm exploring it for myself, and sharing for others.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This review indicates somewhat better high ISO noise performance from the M10-R than the M11 (about 19 minute mark)…

The Red Dot Forum (Miami) guys have separately done various high ISO comparisons between the various M10 bodies.  They have informally tested the M11, but have yet to publish a formal comparison to include the M11.

Jeff

[adan]

So here we go at ISO 40000.

First, the whole picture, small as a locator. White box shows the approximate position (and scale) of the full-size-pixel crops/detail further down. As before, one 50 Noctilux f/1.0 was used for all the pictures, stopped down to f/4.0 to represent the "needs" of my 135mm f/4.0 Tele=Elmar in low light.

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!

Now the crops at full resolution - you will want to click the image to get the original upload, I hope less processed by the forum software. Also you will then be able to swap between them using the < > arrows, and against a black background.

 

What I see:

1) All three are actually pretty decent for my purposes, unless one is going to make really large prints, where the M10 will suffer a bit even compared to the 18Mpixel .DNG version. I'm satisfied I can get to ISO 40000 with reasonable results with the M11, that somewhat improve on the plain-vanilla M10 (no -M, no -R), both as to noise (after reduction), and as to shadow separation.

Which was my target - acceptable noise in color, with a rangefinder, in dim light similar to many venues I shoot in, indoors and/or at night, at f/4.0 and 1/250th sec (for using my 135mm Tele-Elmar).

The M11 may not be an SL2-S or an M10 Monochrom - but those aren't what I'm looking for either, at this point.

My next comparisons won't be shown here - they will be actual A2 (16x20) prints from my Epson.

2) My M10 does show some banding (left-center vertical streaks in the crop) - and also a slightly "moth-eaten" look to the noise overall, after noise reduction. The NR also mushes the nylon-web texture of the lens case peering over the lip of the gray plastic bin, although that could also be due in part to the lower capture resolution of the M10 in the first place.

Those are not jpeg-compression artifacts - they show up in the original in my Photoshop as well. They are similar to what the video just above shows regarding the M10-R vs. the M11.

As a decades-long shooter of Tri-X pushed to 3200 or higher, nice smooth, even, "grain" speckles don't bother me (when necessary). But "digital" artifacts like banding or patchy NR do.

3) The M11, at either 60 or 18 Mpixels, avoids those artifacts. It holds more resolution even in the smaller 18 Mpixel size, due the lighter NR required, and probably the original 60-Mpixel sensor capture (downsampled by the camera) - again, see the nylon-fabric texture at the top of the crops.

4) The M11 at 60 Mpixels shows some subtle "pulsing" green-blue-purple color variations in the "gray" bin plastic. Even with additional color NR those didn't go away, but they are probably minor in the scheme of things. The M10, and M11 at 18-Mpixels also show some, but not quite as strongly.

5) The M11 at 60 Mpixels does reveal some ~1-pixel CA fringes to the bright zipper-hardware on the nylon case. I'll show some stronger examples of that in my next post - but it is not the main subject of this test (and a documented effect already reported elsewhere). It does not show up - in these examples - with the M10, or the 18-Mpixel M11 images.

6) The M11 at 18 Mpixels does produce slightly smoother and more even noise than at 60 Mpixels. Maybe not as much as Leica suggests, or some may find worth the loss of pixels, but it's there.

Edited May 9, 2022 by adan

[Photoworks]

Not sure what the point is.

If I where you I would shoot it with a different optic and open the lens a stop or more.

If you use a 90mm you can do to use the digital zoom 1.3 crop and it would be still better.

Or the 135 2.8 Elmer lens with googles. I pick one up for $250 and it works well.

 

In any case what I see is the M10 has lost lots of dynamic range when you go up on ISO. Noise reduction is much stronger, loosing all fine details.

The M11 at 60MP plus crop is way better solution.
It is wort experimenting on the same M11 60mp  correct exposure on different ISO and Underexpose 1 and 2 stops , just in post and then see what better fits your needs.

[adan]

39 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

Not sure what the point is.

Just doing a little objective test to clarify my options.

58 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

In any case what I see is the M10 has lost lots of dynamic range when you go up on ISO. Noise reduction is much stronger, loosing all fine details

I mostly agree, now that I have actually done the test.

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

If you use a 90mm you can do to use the digital zoom 1.3 crop and it would be still better.

How does one compose with the digital zoom? I have zero interest in using an EVF - otherwise I would just get an SL2-S. Split-image RF-only for me, please.

And 1.3x crop would feel a bit like going back to an R9/DMR or M8, in 2006 . My "cropped-sensor" days are in the past, thankfully.

A 135 Elmarit-M f/2.8 is certainly also an option, but heavy and bulky (and needs to be stopped down to at least f/4 anyway to match the Tele-Elmar's resolution). But as you say, cheap enough to keep around as a special-purpose lens.

In any case, I found out most of what I needed to know.

[Photoworks]

6 hours ago, adan said:

How does one compose with the digital zoom? I have zero interest in using an EVF - otherwise I would just get an SL2-S. Split-image RF-only for me, please.

And 1.3x crop would feel a bit like going back to an R9/DMR or M8, in 2006 . My "cropped-sensor" days are in the past, thankfully.

A 135 Elmarit-M f/2.8 is certainly also an option, but heavy and bulky (and needs to be stopped down to at least f/4 anyway to match the Tele-Elmar's resolution). But as you say, cheap enough to keep around as a special-purpose lens.

 

There are PRO and CONS with everything .

The EVF is not that great in low iso, even at 3200. the preview is so noise that it is hard to focus. but with magnified zoom I was able to focus better, but slow.
In some light condition and color stage lights the EVF looks like colorized image. 
On top of that when you have preview on with hold and want to see the image you just took the experience is total garbage. I looks like the noise, blurry, version of the JPG. totally useless. The images in camera look good after you download them on the computer.

The rangefinder focus is so hard on stage if you have soft and dim light. I have started that way and only 50% of images where on point.
If I am doing serious work I won't take the M11 for this. to slow and stressful. I want small and enjoyable .
 

the 135 is surprisingly good at 2.8 , in the view finder you have a 90mm enlarged frame lines . I don't think it needs to be shot at F4.

hope that helps.