m11 camera shake VS m10-r

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 9 Stunden schrieb dkmoore:

You are absolutely, unequivocally, wrong. 

It doesn’t matter what is causing it, camera shake, high sensitivity, shutter shock, doesn’t matter. It’s 100% fact that there is a difference in required speeds needed to get sharp images between the two cameras.  

Please allow me to disagree. I have heard and read this position numerous times, but applying the laws of physics it just doesn't make sense. I believe what people are mixing up is the following: Higher MP sensors will usually be able to resolve much finer detail. Such fine detail will not be resolved by lower MP sensors, which is why some very slight camera shake will usually not be noticed, as that very fine detail would not have been recorded by those lower MP sensors anyway even when there was no camera shake at all. However, with modern high MP sensors, there is the ability to resolve extremely fine detail, but even the slightest camera shake will prevent those details from being recorded on the sensor. It was the same in the film days, if you wanted to record extremely fine detail (there were films that could do that) you had to avoid camera shake to the utmost extent, else you would lose those fine details. Using a 60 or even 100 MP camera today is just like using a very high resolving film in the old days, it enables you to record exceedingly fine detail, but only if your technique (no camera shake or sufficiently high shutter speed) matches this goal.

[Herr Barnack]

On 4/3/2023 at 9:42 AM, 01af said:

Yes.

There is absolutely no difference in these cameras (or any other 35-mm-format cameras) in terms of sensitivity to camera shake ... or rather, loss of sharpness due to camera shake. After all, they are the same image format and virtually same size, same weight. Given the same lens, blur from camera shake depends on shutter speed and your individual ability to hand-hold the camera steadily.

An amount of camera shake that will transform a single point in your subject into a streak of, say,  one 10th of a millimeter in the image on the M10 sensor will transform the same point into a streak of 1/10 mm on the M11 sensor also. Hence—same loss of sharpness. As simple as that. End of story.

You make a valid point, @01af as does @ianforber with his comments.

This may leave a bitter taste in some mouths, but it has occurred to me that it could possibly be that there are some M11 buyers/users who have not yet refined their photographic technique to a level that a camera like the M11 requires; that is not the camera's shortcoming.

Quote

We said that about 8 MP, 12 MP, 18 MP, 24 MP.

@jaapv you are also correct.  It's funny how the so-called sweet spot of megapixel count keeps moving on us like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Herr Barnack

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, wizard said:

Please allow me to disagree. I have heard and read this position numerous times, but applying the laws of physics it just doesn't make sense. I believe what people are mixing up is the following: Higher MP sensors will usually be able to resolve much finer detail. Such fine detail will not be resolved by lower MP sensors, which is why some very slight camera shake will usually not be noticed, as that very fine detail would not have been recorded by those lower MP sensors anyway even when there was no camera shake at all. However, with modern high MP sensors, there is the ability to resolve extremely fine detail, but even the slightest camera shake will prevent those details from being recorded on the sensor. It was the same in the film days, if you wanted to record extremely fine detail (there were films that could do that) you had to avoid camera shake to the utmost extent, else you would lose those fine details. Using a 60 or even 100 MP camera today is just like using a very high resolving film in the old days, it enables you to record exceedingly fine detail, but only if your technique (no camera shake or sufficiently high shutter speed) matches this goal.

Indeed. It is really quite simple: there will be a certain amount of shake. Higher resolutions can record smaller amounts of motion blur Then the image is blown up to 100% on a screen and thus the smaller amount of blur becomes visible. 

[Jeff S]

58 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Indeed. It is really quite simple: there will be a certain amount of shake. Higher resolutions can record smaller amounts of motion blur Then the image is blown up to 100% on a screen and thus the smaller amount of blur becomes visible. 

Yes, magnification.  Not too complicated, really.

Jeff

[dkmoore]

You still need to use a faster speed. It is very real. 
 

My technique is surely suboptimal but have been using M rangefinders for over a decade now. M11 requires faster speed and better technique than even the m10R. 
 

Im not arguing what causes it but the difference exists. 

[hdmesa]

23 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

You still need to use a faster speed. It is very real. 
 

My technique is surely suboptimal but have been using M rangefinders for over a decade now. M11 requires faster speed and better technique than even the m10R. 
 

Im not arguing what causes it but the difference exists. 

There is no arguing going on here that I can see, just semantics as to when it makes a difference. If you always review your images at 100% magnification, indeed a higher res camera will require higher handheld shutter speeds.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

 If you always review your images at 100% magnification, indeed a higher res camera will require higher handheld shutter speeds.

Potentially at any viewing magnification higher than when using predecessor cameras, assuming consistent technique.
 

Jeff

Edited April 6, 2023 by Jeff S

[hdmesa]

Just now, Jeff S said:

At any viewing magnification higher than predecessor cameras, assuming consistent technique.
 

Jeff

Can’t assume that since I get 5 years older and more feeble with every increase in resolution 🫠

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Can’t assume that since I get 5 years older and more feeble with every increase in resolution 🫠

Funny, but possibly a real factor that some here might attribute to, and confuse with, higher MP effects. I think more about my benign left hand tremor and aging eyesight than any MP increases.  So far, no problems moving from 18 to 40 MP (and effectively more with the M10 Monochrom) with similarly sized prints. But I can be a bit lazier technique-wise with IBIS on my SL2, albeit with substantially larger and heavier zoom lenses.

Jeff

[harmen]

It’s important to recognise how different factors combine to a more detailed capture, but are each independent:

• Lens quality.  A better lens improves the overall picture.  Always.  Vice versa a so so lens does not mean that there is no point to having a higher resolution sensor.
• Hand-hold ability.  The amount of shake is not dependent on the sensor.  Any amount will affect the image, even if the movement translates to less than 1 sensel size.  Better ability to hold the camera steady always improves the image.  But that doesn’t mean you should not buy great lenses or sensors if you’re a little shaky.
• Number of pixels.  Having more pixels has no impact on overall amount of noise, no impact on how much you shake the camera, etc.  More pixels simply capture more fine detail.  When you zoom in onto the captured image, a low resolution picture would already show individual pixels while a high resolution image still has some way to go before you reach individual pixel levels of zoom.  More pixels always help you get a more detailed image, regardless of lens quality or shake.  Even when you have some motion induced blur, the extra pixels still make the overall capture better.
• Amount of light available.  More light nearly always helps, up to where you run out of (desirable) shutter speeds and aperture.  With less light, there is bigger variety in the number of photons that hit each sensel (even if you were taking a picture of a perfectly blank sheet) and more noise from amplifying the signal.

Edited April 7, 2023 by harmen

[Eliehbk]

On 4/2/2023 at 2:14 PM, ryanlowry said:

Hello forum!

I have been shooting the M11 for about 4 months now and have been driven crazy by the amount of camera shake that is legible on the M-DNG and L-DNG files above 1/180th with my 35mm Summicron ASPH.

I am considering selling the camera and making a backwards move to a M10-R or even an M10-P.

I know for a fact the m10-p or m10 will do exactly what I need it to do as I owned the m10 for 5 years, and was quite happy with the camera. My reasons for upgrading to M11 were only based on the extended dynamic range and colors of the M11 - the added resolution was a perk, and I figured the ability to change the resolution would help with the camera shake but it doesn't seem to make a substantial enough difference compared to M10.

Has anyone extensively used m10, m10-r, and m11 that could speak to this for me? I am shooting a lot of flash outside which is where I see a lot of motion blur especially. 

I can shoot mine with a 35mm lens handheld at 1/35 with no problem at all. If I lean onto something, I can even do 1/20. I don’t see a difference to the M10 and M10R I had. 

[MyLeicaWorld]

19 hours ago, jaapv said:

We said that about 8 MP, 12 MP, 18 MP, 24 MP. The industry wants us to buy the newest… Noiseless sensors? That will never be. There is cosmic noise, black matter, background radiation,  random quantum effects, etc. The solution lies in software and AI. 

Since the day I met with Topaz and DXO products, I stopped caring about noise..

[sometimesmaybe]

1 hour ago, MyLeicaWorld said:

Since the day I met with Topaz and DXO products, I stopped caring about noise..

im def with you on that. the algorithms are only going to get better, so hang on to your DNGs

[jpto]

I didn't notice a difference in camera shake moving from a M10R to M11. 

[goodbokeh]

I don't own a M11. But in testing my M10-R on a tripod with 2 sec self timer with my 50/1.4 Asph lens @ 300% I've detected a small amount of shutter shock at 1/180 sec in Live View mode only. Given that Live View on the M10-R implements the double action first curtain mechanical shutter, which the M11 uses continually, this may be what the OP is experiencing. Leica has been chronically negligent in not providing EFCS to quash this problem.

 

[SrMi]

24 minutes ago, goodbokeh said:

I don't own a M11. But in testing my M10-R on a tripod with 2 sec self timer with my 50/1.4 Asph lens @ 300% I've detected a small amount of shutter shock at 1/180 sec in Live View mode only. Given that Live View on the M10-R implements the double action first curtain mechanical shutter, which the M11 uses continually, this may be what the OP is experiencing. Leica has been chronically negligent in not providing EFCS to quash this problem.

 

Using a 180mm lens, I did not see any difference between M10-R and M11 using the mechanical shutter (200%). M11's electronic shutter produced a bit sharper result. I did not see any difference below 135mm.

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

Using a 180mm lens, I did not see any difference between M10-R and M11 using the mechanical shutter (200%). M11's electronic shutter produced a bit sharper result. I did not see any difference below 135mm.

If the M11's electronic shutter produced even minimally-sharper results, then you did detect some minor shutter shock. 180mm is outside my use case for the M11, though.

I have found that I get better pixel-level results with the electronic shutter, so I have to wonder if shutter shock is made worse in combination with poor handheld technique. For example, it could be possible that the photographer's movement while pressing the shutter could resonates with or against the first curtain movement of the mechanical shutter. I say this because sometimes I will shoot the same scene handheld 3x, and one of the three will clearly have what looks like movement at the pixel level compare to the other two. From my perspective, my technique was the same between all three shots, but there could be some variance that interacts with the mechanical shutter to produce the blur. Talking about shutter speeds close to 1/500 sec. at only 50mm, so it's unlikely to be solely bad technique on my part.

Edited April 8, 2023 by hdmesa

[DadDadDaddyo]

Now we're getting somewhere. 

It's really about pixel size, and in that sense, only indirectly about megapixels, in that sensor resolution is a function of how many pixels the frame's dimensions are divided into. 

Each pixel will gather only one value. No pixel can capture a point smaller than the pixel itself - that point will be reproduced by the entire pixel, even if the point being represented is smaller than the pixel; the pixel will arrive at only one value.

A motion blur occurs when that motion moves an edge (or a point that could be captured cleanly), and moreover, moves it while the exposure is occurring.

The motion smears the edge (or what have you) being captured across the boundaries between pixels. A black point becomes a grey streak. When the pixels are smaller, it takes less motion to smear an edge or point across the pixels capturing it. A shake resulting in movement of less than a pixel's shake should be invisible. But today's pixels are really really tiny. 

Now remember, lenses are analog. They don't have megapixels. A lens that's capable of less resolution than the sensor being used will not be improved with a higher-res sensor. Rather, that higher-res sensor will simply give you a higher resolution rendition of the portion of the image circle produced by that lens that's captured by the sensor. (an aside: note I didn't use the term "rendering" - Gawd how tired I am the near infinite uses to which that incredibly sloppily-defined term has been put! If you're not sure how to describe what you see in a picture, be it an artifact of the camera, the sensor, the lens, or the technique, you can always say you like (or don't like) how it renders. (I reckon it means about the same as "comes out"....))

Oh and by the way, the amount of motion (in terms of angle) that's imparted by the lens to the sensor is also a function of the focal length of the lens! Longer lenses are harder to hand hold. 

All this said, good technique has always required that we take measures to inhibit motion blur. Always. Unless we want it for some intentional effect. If unintended, it doesn't belong there. (Well, we can always just say we intended it, so as to capture the zeitgeist of the fengshway of the gestalt.  Or some such drivel...)

But that hasn't suddenly emerged with 60 megapixel sensors! If I was shooting Panatomic-X in my IIIc I had to be careful of motion blur - and not because it was fine-grained film but because it was bloody slow! I had to be just as careful shooting Tri-X. (And we haven't even addressed distinguishing between camera motion and subject motion.)

So we practiced, back in those old dark days. We practiced hand holding exposures under available light. We developed all sorts of physical techniques to apply just before and during the exposure. We analyzed our results under a magnifying glass (a loupe, y'know). We practiced more. Over years, and thousands of exposures, our technique improved, and camera-motion-derived blur from any source became less and less of an issue among practiced practitioners. We got better at it. 

The old hardbound Leica Manual used to spend pages talking about how to hold the camera, how to position yourself, how to breathe, how to squeeze off the shutter release, on and on, and every bit of it contributed to success. 

I dunno. Maybe Leica ought to bring some of those old chestnuts back into print. AH! I have it! Make them a Limited Edition, bound in snake skin, with gold leaf on the page edges, and charge zillions for them!! They'll sell like hotcakes. 

Only trouble is, those folks will have to Read them to benefit from them. Read them, and what's more, diligently incorporate the advice on those pages into their practice. Being able to afford the book isn't enough. Buying the book isn't enough. Displaying the book on your coffee table isn't enough. Arguing over whether you prefer it to be bound in snake skin or unborn seal fur isn't enough. 

Sorry. End of rant. Guess I'd better go get something to eat. I've had too much coffee. My hands are trembling slightly. Doggone it, I'm never gonna to be able to get that shot this way...

Edited April 8, 2023 by DadDadDaddyo

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

Oh and by the way, the amount of motion (in terms of angle) that's imparted by the lens to the sensor is also a function of the focal length of the lens!

Actually, its not a function of the focal length as much as it is the focus distance.   As an aside, this is an oft over looked issue with the panacea known as IBIS. I've shot tack sharp images at night out in the field with the SL-75mm at shutter speeds over 2", yet failed to get anything usable with the SL-35mm at 1/10" when shooting an object indoors.  The difference, of course, was down to the difference in subject distances; the angles being greater when near than when at infinity.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[DadDadDaddyo]

Yup. Well said.