Jump to content

Leica M11 Sony Sensor - Doesn’t have the “Leica Look”


KeyofG

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Jared said:

You are complaining about “harshness” and contrast in a photograph of a snowy alpine scene?

I’m not really complaining. I’m saying the M11 has lost that “Leica Magic” so I’m comparing it side by side with other M’s in B&W.  
 

4 hours ago, Photoworks said:

M11 camera has the most natural colors I have seen in a Leica. it reflect the closed to what I see with my eye.


The images out of the M11 are a little more contrasty , if you want the old look just tweet the JPG setting to your liking.

Could be. But I’m really not liking what I see in B&W. The colors from the M10R are great. I’m not entirely sure what exactly makes up the “Leica look”. Whatever it is, the 10R has it in spades. Maybe the M11 is a bit of a Leica Impostor and that’s why they come out a little “too contrasty” Because that’s the first think people think about when they think Leica. Or maybe it’s just the New Leica Look. 

Edited by KeyofG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

ll those analog Leica look 3d-pop shots on film

The lenses (and film used… pretty sure it’s not all the same with all films). But that’s why I put examples with Leica lenses. 

Edited by KeyofG
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KeyofG said:

I was waiting to see more photos taken with the new M11.
 

Back when I started getting interested in photography the first photo that grabbed my attention and started my list for Leica was a B&W photo taken with the M240 and a Summilux. That B&W looked so dreamy and buttery smooth. 
 

Now I have the M10R and I see the same thing, even I’m not shooting with a Leica lens, just the JPEGs I gets straight from the camera are like butter. 
 

Lately some have been posting B&W photos from the M11 (with Leica lenses) and they look pretty terrible. That magic of Leica is gone. It’s harsh and blown out. That Sony sensor really is showing it’s true “colors”. 
 

Here are some links. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CddRr0KO-yG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

 

Not even the summilux can save it 

I’m speechless. 

Mine definitely has the Leica look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jared said:

is that just for the under bridge scene? And contrasting that with the “buttery smoothness” of two interior shots made with diffuse window light?

Well  ok  diffused light, shallow depth of field  interior shot

M11 + Summilux 50

 

Diffused light. shallow depth of field. Interior shot. This one is not even a Leica lens.

M10R + 28f2 Ultron II


I understand I’m wrong and none of my examples prove anything. 

I'm just saying. I see things. 

Edited by KeyofG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, KeyofG said:

I'm just saying. I see things. 

Well, then see differently and adjust/process accordingly.  That's the basis for all photography.  Otherwise, everyone using the same gear would produce similar results.  Fortunately, that's never been the case, film or digital, regardless of gear. 

I judge by making prints, never starting with JPEG.  But that's just me. Mileages vary.

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KeyofG said:

Got any B&W shots to share?

That's a great way to turn things around, make a questionable statement and then ask other people to disprove you. Are they your slaves?

I have no love for the M11 because I don't think it gives me anything to work with over an M10, but other people do love it and I'd suggest that most of the people using it can do some post processing and are making the style of images they want to make. So you are either oblivious to this and commenting on the camera based on this, or oblivious that you can do post processing in the first place. I can't think of a dumber argument that M11 files can't be made 'dreamy and creamy' but are somehow set in stone as they come out of the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SiOnara said:

I tend to use the Q2M for black and white. I can do some black and white shots though. 

I’ll make sure I use a Leica lens too. Don’t want the Voigtlander or Zeiss look 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KeyofG said:

I’m not really complaining. I’m saying the M11 has lost that “Leica Magic” so I’m comparing it side by side with other M’s in B&W.

But if you don't believe in the Leica M11 fairy it will die. And when it does the magic will be gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KeyofG said:

I was waiting to see more photos taken with the new M11.
 

Back when I started getting interested in photography the first photo that grabbed my attention and started my list for Leica was a B&W photo taken with the M240 and a Summilux. That B&W looked so dreamy and buttery smooth. 
 

Now I have the M10R and I see the same thing, even I’m not shooting with a Leica lens, just the JPEGs I gets straight from the camera are like butter. 
 

Lately some have been posting B&W photos from the M11 (with Leica lenses) and they look pretty terrible. That magic of Leica is gone. It’s harsh and blown out. That Sony sensor really is showing it’s true “colors”. 
 

Here are some links. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CddRr0KO-yG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

 

Not even the summilux can save it 

I’m speechless. 

I think the way to judge it is to see how one's own photos look in BW from the M11, not how others edit their photos (which can go any direction, depending on their view).

The M11 straight-out-of-the-camera JPG in black and white ... yes, I don't know what went on there. I can't use those (more on that later in an article and video), but I anyways shoot DNG and convert to monochrome on M10 and M240, and so it is the case with the M11.

The M9 particularly, and to some degree the M240 and M10 family have good or ok BW files traight-out-of-camera JPG. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Perhaps your previous workflow is getting in the way.  I'm having no difficulty, quite the opposite.  A few of my most recent captures...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea I can see it in these shots too. Just doesn’t have the magic for me. It’s not bad, just not quintessential Leica. 
 

For me these also look over-processed. The M10R and other M’s don’t need much of anything for me  either RAW or JPEG. It’s natural and magic. Something went Sony-fied with the Leica M-11 and it’s just not for me  

 

15 minutes ago, Overgaard said:

yes, I don't know what went on there. I can't use those (more on that later in an article and video),

Hmm.  Interesting. That’s what I’m saying when people are praising the “processing and it’s not the sensor” argument. For me there’s something with the M11 that’s is definitely different from the other M’s and I’m not liking it. 
 

Granted, I can take a RAW from any decent camera and tweak it to my liking. I don’t think anyone can say the M11 has a “bad” sensor. It doesn’t. 

Edited by KeyofG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, KeyofG said:

I’m not really complaining. I’m saying the M11 has lost that “Leica Magic” so I’m comparing it side by side with other M’s in B&W.  
 

Could be. But I’m really not liking what I see in B&W. The colors from the M10R are great. I’m not entirely sure what exactly makes up the “Leica look”. Whatever it is, the 10R has it in spades. Maybe the M11 is a bit of a Leica Impostor and that’s why they come out a little “too contrasty” Because that’s the first think people think about when they think Leica. Or maybe it’s just the New Leica Look. 

I’ve had, I think, every digital M other than the monochroms. And I’ve written pretty in depth reviews of some of them. And I’ve used them in all sorts of circumstances. And I sold an M10-r to buy an M11. 
 

And I see no substantial difference between the 10-r and the M11 other than smaller, lighter, more pixels (which I really use) and a larger battery with no need to carry a charger. 
 

The M11 is clearly if marginally the better camera for my needs. You may not need or want the ways in which its better - they may be irrelevant to you. People should use the camera that meets their needs.
 

But the belief, based on a few low resolution JPEGS  processed by people you don’t know in software you haven’t verified with profiles and presets and specific processing parameters you have no information on, that the M11 has ‘lost the Leica Look’ (which is much more lens dependent than anything) feels, frankly, like what it is. 
 

Bait. 

Edited by tashley
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, tashley said:

But the belief, based on a few low resolution JPEGS  processed by people you don’t know in software you haven’t verified with profiles and presets and specific processing parameters you have no information on, that the M11 has ‘lost the Leica Look’ feels, frankly, like what it is. 
 

Bait. 

See @Overgaard’s reply above. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

it is what it is. Like I said. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m seeing things. And the things I see I don’t like. 

Edited by KeyofG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, KeyofG said:

See @Overgaard’s reply above. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

it is what it is. Like I said. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m seeing things. And the things I see I don’t like. 

He’s talking JPEGS. Nobody serious gives a s£&t about JPEGs unless they’re shooting sports or wars and uploading it via Elon. 
 

Edited by tashley
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, KeyofG said:

Granted, I can take a RAW from any decent camera and tweak it to my liking. 

So why not just do that and create your so-called ‘Leica look’ ?  Then simply make some preset(s) and/or default import setting for a better starting point.  JPEGS are someone else’s defaults.
 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, tashley said:

He’s talking JPEGS. Nobody serious gives a s£&t about JPEGs unless they’re shooting sports or wars and uploading it via Elon. 
 

Read my original post. 
 

 it also goes to the “processing it’s not the sensor” argument when anyone brings up Sony. 

it’s just not the same. That’s all. For me the Leica magic is gone. *see the over processed files posted above. 

Edited by KeyofG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

So why not just do that and create your so-called ‘Leica look’ ?

Tailwagger tried. Didn’t work so well. (See above). The whole thing about the Leica look is it doesn’t need much of anything. It just looks like over-processed raw files that could’ve come from any camera. And that’s not why I bought a Leica. 
 

This video is a guy trying to make a Micro Four Thirds look like a Leica. 

Like he says, the difference between the RAWs is very different also 

The problem is, we are back at the beginning. You spend $9,000 for a LEICA M and you need to work the RAW to fake the Leica look? 🤣🤣🤣 
 

If you need to tweak the M11 RAW to FAKE the Leica Look then, the M11 is a Leica Impostor. 
 

So did we end up with a Sony A7RIV Rangefinder edition?

Edited by KeyofG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...