What after M11 (Stefan Daniel's interview)

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, adan said:

I think we've been around this tree a couple of times already on other threads.

The M10 Monochrom is excellent for B&W - but B&W is not my primary goal. 

I'm looking for higher ISOs to make COLOR photographs in more and more marginal lighting - with (when needed) a 135mm f/3.4. Preferably freezing the movements of rather active musicians (or dancers, or rioters and such).

The M10s come close, but are borderline. The M11 does better, but is still borderline. Not enough benefit make it worthwhile - for me.

Similar thing happened with the M(240) - it was a marginal upgrade to the M9 regarding higher ISOs. I waited to upgrade until the M10, which thankfully provided a full 2 more stops of usable sensitivity. Now I'm holding out for another 2-stop jump. That (and nothing less) will be worth the $4000-$6000 price of an upgrade.

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!

IMO, software tools (DxO, Topaz) are becoming increasingly helpful in handling high ISO images.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, adan said:

I think we've been around this tree a couple of times already on other threads.

The M10 Monochrom is excellent for B&W - but B&W is not my primary goal. 

I'm looking for higher ISOs to make COLOR photographs in more and more marginal lighting - with (when needed) a 135mm f/3.4. Preferably freezing the movements of rather active musicians (or dancers, or rioters and such).

The M10s come close, but are borderline. The M11 does better, but is still borderline. Not enough benefit make it worthwhile - for me.

Similar thing happened with the M(240) - it was a marginal upgrade to the M9 regarding higher ISOs. I waited to upgrade until the M10, which thankfully provided a full 2 more stops of usable sensitivity. Now I'm holding out for another 2-stop jump. That (and nothing less) will be worth the $4000-$6000 price of an upgrade.

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!

Well, you ‘could’ make color pics with the Monochrom…

(Could also be accomplished by taking a series of 3 pics using red/green/blue colored lens filters.)

But more seriously, SrMi raises a good point about current noise reduction software options. Some also consider the SL2-S a good low light color option, but of course not an M, and maybe still not up to your requirements.  

Jeff

[Photoworks]

8 hours ago, adan said:

I'm looking for higher ISOs to make COLOR photographs in more and more marginal lighting - with (when needed) a 135mm f/3.4. Preferably freezing the movements of rather active musicians (or dancers, or rioters and such).

The M10s come close, but are borderline. The M11 does better, but is still borderline. Not enough benefit make it worthwhile - for me.

Similar thing happened with the M(240) - it was a marginal upgrade to the M9 regarding higher ISOs. I waited to upgrade until the M10, which thankfully provided a full 2 more stops of usable sensitivity. Now I'm holding out for another 2-stop jump. That (and nothing less) will be worth the $4000-$6000 price of an upgrade.

I think the challenge is to use the 135mm 3.4 lens. Consider the a faster lens .

The M11 is excellent in low light if correctly exposed. M10M is not necessarily better because the M11 retains better detail , off course with more noise. But SENSOR in current market are not Magic.

I would switch to older 135mm f2.8 or even better the Noctilux 75 and crop to 135mm is that is needed, you are going to have much better results.

Yesterday I have tested the new A7R5 at 3200 iso. Noise was not better than A7R4. Colors and contrast still nicer on the M11

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!

[darylgo]

53 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

Yesterday I have tested the new A7R5 at 3200 iso. Noise was not better than A7R4. Colors and contrast still nicer on the M11

Has Sony hit a ceiling or plateau?  

My attempt at the AR74 sent me back to the M10 series, wondering how Leica, a small company could best Sony with color and pixel quality.  

[Jared]

8 hours ago, darylgo said:

Has Sony hit a ceiling or plateau?  

My attempt at the AR74 sent me back to the M10 series, wondering how Leica, a small company could best Sony with color and pixel quality.  

Yes, we are bumping up against the laws of physics. Quantum efficiency in the M11 or A7R4 or A7R5 is pushing 90%. Read noise can be as low as 1e- depending on fain, bit depth, etc. Thermal noise is also quite low at moderate temperatures.
 

Much of the noise you see in low light images is now shot noise. That is, it’s inherent in the light coming into the camera and has nothing to do with the sensor or other camera electronics. Definitely a plateau. Don’t expect us to ever again have a two stop improvement between generations.

[M11 for me]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Photoworks:

I think the challenge is to use the 135mm 3.4 lens. Consider the a faster lens .

The M11 is excellent in low light if correctly exposed. M10M is not necessarily better because the M11 retains better detail , off course with more noise. But SENSOR in current market are not Magic.

I would switch to older 135mm f2.8 or even better the Noctilux 75 and crop to 135mm is that is needed, you are going to have much better results.

Yesterday I have tested the new A7R5 at 3200 iso. Noise was not better than A7R4. Colors and contrast still nicer on the M11

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!

Its most probably not the final solution when you want to judge the color rendering of the 2 sensors to look at the result on the rear camera screen. It probably just says that Leica has the better screen. On the other hand on the Sony screen we see that you croped all into the picture. The images are probably not comparable at all regarding the lighting . I assume that when making a "real" test with comparable images/light and then going through serious post processing and only then asking the public which image is from which camera then probly you get a 50% correct answer. Such tests have been done many years back already and you always get the same result: Pictures might be a bit different but not better or worse and people can not identify correctly the camera (a real connoisseurs might detect differences in bouquet or other specific attributes of a specific lens that reveals the lens and through that the camera but not the sensor).

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, M11 for me said:

Its most probably not the final solution when you want to judge the color rendering of the 2 sensors to look at the result on the rear camera screen. It probably just says that Leica has the better screen. On the other hand on the Sony screen we see that you croped all into the picture. The images are probably not comparable at all regarding the lighting . I assume that when making a "real" test with comparable images/light and then going through serious post processing and only then asking the public which image is from which camera then probly you get a 50% correct answer. Such tests have been done many years back already and you always get the same result: Pictures might be a bit different but not better or worse and people can not identify correctly the camera (a real connoisseurs might detect differences in bouquet or other specific attributes of a specific lens that reveals the lens and through that the camera but not the sensor).

Both cameras where zoomed into the face and I use both cameras on the same setting, The image showed same characteristic on the computer .

I was just surprised how the Sony files still needs lots more work to edit than Leica files. nothing new.

I still have the 2 previous Sony R's and was just testing if it has gotten better at higher ISO. at 3200ISO Sony had lots of noise in the blue, much more than the M11, and I don't think there is much improvement in IQ from the a7R4. looks like the same sensor.

What is interesting is that Sony can do 3 raw formats now, just like the M11, but different MP counts.

And the SL2 viewfinder is still so much nicer than the Sony. 

[M11 for me]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Photoworks:

I was just surprised how the Sony files still needs lots more work to edit than Leica files. nothing new.

I agree that Leica images in some cases need less pp. But I must admit that my experience is with Canon (r5) and not with Sony.

[adan]

16 hours ago, Jared said:

Yes, we are bumping up against the laws of physics. Quantum efficiency in the M11 or A7R4 or A7R5 is pushing 90%.

Could very well be. Although I'm always careful about making assumptions like that - too many times technology has busted the presumed physical or conceptual limits ascribed to it.  

"Who needs more than 640K of RAM?" ... "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." - US Patent Commissioner Henry Ellsworth, 1841 ... etc.

On 10/28/2022 at 9:03 AM, Photoworks said:

I think the challenge is to use the 135mm 3.4 lens. Consider the a faster lens .....

I would switch to older 135mm f2.8 or even better the Noctilux 75 and crop to 135mm is that is needed, you are going to have much better results.

Oddly, I tried out a 135 f/2.8, and also 90mm f/2.8s, and got the same exposures with the f/3.4 in the same light. I suspect the newer coatings and thinner glass on the APO-Telyt have increased its light transmission (T/stop) to nearly equal the last f/2.8 (designed 1976). At least within the margin of error of Leica's EXIF and meter readout.

And since my entire reason for paying Leica M prices is to avoid carrying lenses heavier than 460g, that also rules out the 135 f/2.8, and the Noctilux/Summilux 75s.  

On 10/28/2022 at 12:39 AM, SrMi said:

IMO, software tools (DxO, Topaz) are becoming increasingly helpful in handling high ISO images.

A good point also - but those can be used with the M10 as well.

[Jared]

On 10/29/2022 at 10:48 AM, adan said:

Could very well be. Although I'm always careful about making assumptions like that - too many times technology has busted the presumed physical or conceptual limits ascribed to it.  

"Who needs more than 640K of RAM?" ... "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." - US Patent Commissioner Henry Ellsworth, 1841 ... etc.

Oddly, I tried out a 135 f/2.8, and also 90mm f/2.8s, and got the same exposures with the f/3.4 in the same light. I suspect the newer coatings and thinner glass on the APO-Telyt have increased its light transmission (T/stop) to nearly equal the last f/2.8 (designed 1976). At least within the margin of error of Leica's EXIF and meter readout.

And since my entire reason for paying Leica M prices is to avoid carrying lenses heavier than 460g, that also rules out the 135 f/2.8, and the Noctilux/Summilux 75s.  

A good point also - but those can be used with the M10 as well.

Caution is reasonable, of course, on whether we will continue to make substantial improvements in high ISO performance. However there is a difference between thins like 640K of memory and the move to close the patent office... The barrier with regard to quantum efficiency is set by the laws of physics rather than just our perceived uses. So, rather than breaking the laws of physics, can we get around them somehow? Perhaps. Something like night vision goggles--where you are creating cascades of particles from a single photon--would probably count as a product having a quantum efficiency greater than one. I'm not sure it would help, though, in terms of SNR. In any event, there is still a bit of head room even without hitting a barrier. We've still got room for perhaps a 20% improvement in quantum efficiency across the visual spectrum, and read noise and thermal noise are not yet insignificant. I just wouldn't expect any more 2-stop jumps in a single generation.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Jared said:

Caution is reasonable, of course, on whether we will continue to make substantial improvements in high ISO performance. However there is a difference between thins like 640K of memory and the move to close the patent office... The barrier with regard to quantum efficiency is set by the laws of physics rather than just our perceived uses. So, rather than breaking the laws of physics, can we get around them somehow? Perhaps. Something like night vision goggles--where you are creating cascades of particles from a single photon--would probably count as a product having a quantum efficiency greater than one. I'm not sure it would help, though, in terms of SNR. In any event, there is still a bit of head room even without hitting a barrier. We've still got room for perhaps a 20% improvement in quantum efficiency across the visual spectrum, and read noise and thermal noise are not yet insignificant. I just wouldn't expect any more 2-stop jumps in a single generation.

I am hopeful that photon-counting image sensors will give a substantially better high ISO behavior. But, unfortunately, we have a long way to see that technology in commercial products.
In the near future, I see most advances with faster sensors which would allow getting rid of the mechanical shutter but not improve high ISO noise. IMO, in the near future, mitigation of high ISO noise will come mainly with improved noise reduction software.

[Jeremy Bunting]

My preferred focal length is 50mm unless I'm going to be cramped inside somewhere, in which case I go with 35mm (and even that often feels wider than I'd like).

A huge advantage of the M11 OVF for me compared to the EVF in my Q2 (which I've since sold) is the ability to see beyond the frame lines. I can compose the ideal image from the scene in front of me much quicker when I can see through the viewfinder what is lying out of frame. The 0.72 magnification of the M OVF is, to me, ideal for composing in 50mm. It's why I went with an M2 over an M3 for analog photography, even though the price difference is relatively negligible. I want to see what I'm missing.

It is true that the OVF is difficult to focus in very poor lighting. But all aspects of photography are more difficult with less light, so that's hardly surprising. In these cases, I generally will use the the LCD screen with focus-peaking--but even that struggles when the light is very bad, and usually the light has to be very, very bad for me to prefer EVF. In decent lighting, I find the rangefinder much faster to focus than the EVF in my Q2. No fussing with magnification that makes me lose track of the composition, etc. Just line up the subject, compose.

I would not buy an M camera with no OVF. If Leica can come up with an effective hybrid solution that does not compromise the OVF, that would be very tempting.

I'm all for IBIS.  That's really the only part of the Q2 shooting experience that I miss. I don't dare go below a 1/60 shutter when shooting 50mm, and even then good technique is essential. 1/125 is much more forgiving. 

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bunting said:

I'm all for IBIS.  That's really the only part of the Q2 shooting experience that I miss.

🧐, Q2 IBIS? what are you saying?

anyway this is M11 post.

[Jeremy Bunting]

46 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

🧐, Q2 IBIS? what are you saying?

anyway this is M11 post.

OIS, my bad. It was very effective either way.

[lct]

Just now, Jeremy Bunting said:

OIS, my bad. It was very effective either way.

Hard to get OIS with M lenses though .

[hdmesa]

23 hours ago, SrMi said:

I am hopeful that photon-counting image sensors will give a substantially better high ISO behavior. But, unfortunately, we have a long way to see that technology in commercial products.
In the near future, I see most advances with faster sensors which would allow getting rid of the mechanical shutter but not improve high ISO noise. IMO, in the near future, mitigation of high ISO noise will come mainly with improved noise reduction software.

This is why IBIS is such a big deal for handheld shooting. Sure the M11 is good when reduced down to SL2-S resolution, but when I shoot the SL2-S, I rarely have to shoot high Iso anyway due to IBIS. So when I compare the M11 with the SL2-S in low light for how I shoot, the results are not even close with regard to noise.

[Jared]

22 hours ago, hdmesa said:

This is why IBIS is such a big deal for handheld shooting. Sure the M11 is good when reduced down to SL2-S resolution, but when I shoot the SL2-S, I rarely have to shoot high Iso anyway due to IBIS. So when I compare the M11 with the SL2-S in low light for how I shoot, the results are not even close with regard to noise.

Yes, there are tons of use cases for IBIS. I wouldn’t be surprised if Leica puts it in the M whenever they eventually go to an electronic shutter and can free up some space. They obsess over the M form factor and don’t want it to increase in thickness, hence no IBIS yet.

[jdlaing]

3 hours ago, Jared said:

Yes, there are tons of use cases for IBIS. I wouldn’t be surprised if Leica puts it in the M whenever they eventually go to an electronic shutter and can free up some space. They obsess over the M form factor and don’t want it to increase in thickness, hence no IBIS yet.

They do not obsess over the form factor. Users obsess over the form factor. The room for ibis is not the only drawback.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

16 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

They do not obsess over the form factor. Users obsess over the form factor. The room for ibis is not the only drawback.

The only other drawback that I can think for is that the sensor is harder to wet-clean.

[Artichoke]

On 6/5/2022 at 4:36 AM, tom0511 said:

Taste is difference.

• I dont really miss the video function but I would like to have it and see it as a real benefit. I also dont see how it does impact those people, who do not want to use it.
• Viewfinder - the optical rangefinder is the main reason I shoot Leica M; EVF I only need for long or ultrawide lenses.
• IBIS-would be nice

each to their own taste

don't want video, don't want IBIS

video without IBIS generally sucks

this is the uber-M, shooting MF resolution in an M body & with the Viso

a dream realized