M11 Motion blur is driving me crazy(!)

[John Smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 hours ago, jaapv said:

This is an incorrect Internet myth:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

(scroll down). 

On the contrary, the higher resolving the sensor, the more lens performance is recorded. Thus any residual aberrations of an imperfect lens will show up at the extreme magnification of 100% But overall performance will improve.

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Yes, that is evident. The APO is the “better “ lens and the higher resolving sensor is, well, higher resolving. But that does not address Roger Cicala’s argument that a higher resolving sensor will improve the lower resolving lens. Thus we do not have a weakest link situation. Obviously neither can add resolution to the other. But nor are they degrading one another. 

[John Smith]

20 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes, that is evident. The APO is the “better “ lens and the higher resolving sensor is, well, higher resolving. But that does not address Roger Cicala’s argument that a higher resolving sensor will improve the lower resolving lens. Thus we do not have a weakest link situation. Obviously neither can add resolution to the other. But nor are they degrading one another. 

I understand Cicala's logic and don't disagree with it. But Karbe's presentation demonstrates the limitations of older lenses in relation to higher MP sensors.  

[wijsbroek]

23 hours ago, CDodkin said:

I have also been using the previous Summilux 35/1.4 on my M11, and have not been 100% satisfied with the results.

I have come to the conclusion that the lens is not up to the resolution of the M11 in critical use. It's a great lens, just not a great lens on the M11.

It's not motion blur you're seeing, but the sensor out-resolving the lens.

I somewhat anticipated this might be the case - as Leica have been refreshing their key lenses of late, likely knowing they'd run into this issue with the M11 sensor.

My solution was to try the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO Lanthar, which I've been test shooting with for the last week.

I believe I'll be keeping the Voigtlander - It's a significant upgrade in image sharpness. And for the modest price compared to the Summilux, a bargain. I note Hugh Brownstone has also converted to using the Voigtlander 35mm F/2 APO - and he's all about the resolution of his images for cropping. https://www.instagram.com/p/CcaYRZbOV76/

You can buy via Amazon, and return if it doesn't work for you - maybe this would be something you could try.

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!

The sensor out-resolving the lens... wow, that could be it!

[wijsbroek]

10 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

 

The OP's image biggest problem is rolling shutter, plus the lens itself, which was never designed to be corner perfect at 1.4. There's multiple issues combining in the first photo. Not a single issue. I understand he has concerns but this is not the way.

As far as the old *M11 makes blurrier photos* chestnut, well, that depends. The *sweet spot you mention, is purely personal. It depends on your technique, natural body movement and the enlargement size. We all look at images at 100% but rarely actually output them at that size. If we judge images at full screen on a 24 inch monitor versus 100%,most of us would be saying there's no difference between and M10/M10R and the M11. We also wouldn't be saying the Summilux isn't that sharp wide open. Pixel peeping is fun but ultimately images should be judged at their output size. Because that's what counts, in the end.

From my reading it appears I'm better than many at handholding my M11 and M11M and not as good as a few. The number doesn't matter. And there isn't one number. Different lenses at different distances give different results. If I use the focal length measurement I know I'm a stop better with lenses in the 35-75 range than ultra wides and the 135 APO. I also know the difference between when I'm slow and steady versus a grab shot and after that extra espresso. I know how big an image I can print based on my personal technique and the lens I use. Why? Because I have done the tests, repeatedly. I know my gear and I know my limitations.

It 'aint the camera..... It never is. (Unless it's faulty, which a very small number of M11's have been by the comments.)

The M11 can take pin sharp images, resolved perfectly at the pixel level. Put it on a tripod with an APO lens and the timer. Shoot a static subject with the sun over your left shoulder. From here everything degrades from that ultimate IQ. The lens. The light. The weather. The photographer. Mostly the photographer. It's not whether the M11 can make sharp images. It's whether you can make sharp images with the M11. Do your own testing. Repeatedly, with every lens you own. Do those tests at the maximum you'll output an image (including cropping). Shoot within those settings. Know those settings won't be the same as mine or any one else's. The camera knows this. That's why it offers a selection for minimum shutter in auto ISO. And if you want more then get better. Practice. Often. It's an M. The one camera that demands you use use good technique and practice. The camera that rewards you most for it. And maybe one less latte before shooting....

It's up to each of us to learn their own limitations (and the equipment's) and stop blaming the gear.

Gordon

Thank you for your statement 👍🏻

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Yes, that is evident. The APO is the “better “ lens and the higher resolving sensor is, well, higher resolving. But that does not address Roger Cicala’s argument that a higher resolving sensor will improve the lower resolving lens. Thus we do not have a weakest link situation. Obviously neither can add resolution to the other. But nor are they degrading one another. 

Higher resolution sensors simply gather more information on the image pojected by the lens than lower resolution sensors. The interaction of the sensor and image is complicated and even the images produced by a poor resolving lens will be better reproduced by a high resolution sensor than by a low resolution one. I've actually tried this practically using an early photographic lens for which a lens designer friend produced a theoretical MTF chart and by today's lens standards it was pretty poor. Despite this the images produced by the lens far exceed my expectations based on the chart when used on a camera with a high resolution sensor (40+ MPixels).

I would have thought it relatively easy to check for motion blur using a high resolution sensor simply by taking a shot on a heavy stable tripod followed by handholding the same shot. If they look the same and there is still a 'problem' with unsharpness then its not motion blur. If the tripod mounted image shows no problem then you probably have motion blur. Simply posting a single handheld image is of little use since there is no control image to compare it with.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

44 minutes ago, wijsbroek said:

The sensor out-resolving the lens... wow, that could be it!

No, that could not be it. Sensor-lens is a single image producing system   The sensor showing up the limitations of the lens would describe the situation better. See the discussion between John and me above and the appendix of the article by Roger Cicala. 
if you want the highest resolution possible on the sensor of the M11 you need to pair it with the 35 APO. However you would only see a small benefit on normal-sized prints or at web size. 

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

if you want the highest resolution possible on the sensor of the M11 you need to pair it with the 35 APO. However you would only see a small benefit on normal-sized prints or at web size. 

MTF cascades also include the viewing medium and/or printing system. On 'normal' sized prints or the web its extremely unlikely that any 'resolution' difference could be detected from an uncropped image file.

[jaapv]

In the end you run into a biological limit too: you simply won’t be able to see the difference. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

4 hours ago, pgh said:

Really, I said as much in my post. You could have saved yourself the time. 

My point was that I've known plenty persons who have run up against this practical limitation in real life. If I have to take that much care to get usable images with the M11 then the whole experience is pretty meh. This isn't much difference than back in the film days when some people have no issue shooting a pentax 67 handheld and others think of it more as a tripod camera. The thing that's new is the small form factor demanding such care - it can be a little misleading. For me and others I know, the 40~ of the R is (practical) limit. I got plenty of usable pics when I used an M11 but on balance I lost too much for it to have an appeal of it being a high res walk around camera. For those intrepid and highly skilled users of the M11 who have no such issues (as I said we know you're out there, there's no need to tell us), then I'm sure it's a great tool. 

My post was more of an expansion. Not a criticism.

Gordon

[CDodkin]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

No, that could not be it. Sensor-lens is a single image producing system   The sensor showing up the limitations of the lens would describe the situation better. See the discussion between John and me above and the appendix of the article by Roger Cicala. 
if you want the highest resolution possible on the sensor of the M11 you need to pair it with the 35 APO. However you would only see a small benefit on normal-sized prints or at web size. 

Again - semantics 

[jaapv]

That is a strange term for a fact. 

[CDodkin]

3 hours ago, wijsbroek said:

The sensor out-resolving the lens... wow, that could be it!

Let me know if you see any of the issues you have with the Summilux in this full sized shot from my M11 with Voigtlander f/2 35mm APO shot wide open Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO Test Image (Full Size) Focus was on the front wing side indicator on the truck.

Edited May 17, 2023 by CDodkin

[CDodkin]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That is a strange term for a fact. 

We are not disagreeing on the material facts, we are disagreeing about the language used to describe the outcome

[jaapv]

Basically I don't see that we are disagreeing at all.

[neonvoid]

I'm seeing the lack of technique on my part when pixel-peeping some of my images.

You either try to develop the technique or you stop obsessing and realize that you'll never see a difference by looking at a full size image, nor will others.
It's a liberating experience, I highly recommend it.
 

Edited May 17, 2023 by neonvoid

[LocalHero1953]

I've given up commenting on this thread until the OP actually posts some images that cut down the potentially misleading factors. Put the camera on a tripod, focus on a specific point on (e.g.) a slatted fence, a long tape measure, a brick wall, all at an angle so we can see exactly where the system is focusing compared to where it should be focusing. Until we see those shots, this thread will just degenerate into bad temper.

[pgk]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

In the end you run into a biological limit too: you simply won’t be able to see the difference. 

Reality is a bugger isn't it?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Alan Friedman]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:19 AM, CDodkin said:

I have also been using the previous Summilux 35/1.4 on my M11, and have not been 100% satisfied with the results.

I have come to the conclusion that the lens is not up to the resolution of the M11 in critical use. It's a great lens, just not a great lens on the M11.

It's not motion blur you're seeing, but the sensor out-resolving the lens.

I somewhat anticipated this might be the case - as Leica have been refreshing their key lenses of late, likely knowing they'd run into this issue with the M11 sensor.

My solution was to try the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO Lanthar, which I've been test shooting with for the last week.

I believe I'll be keeping the Voigtlander - It's a significant upgrade in image sharpness. And for the modest price compared to the Summilux, a bargain. I note Hugh Brownstone has also converted to using the Voigtlander 35mm F/2 APO - and he's all about the resolution of his images for cropping. https://www.instagram.com/p/CcaYRZbOV76/

You can buy via Amazon, and return if it doesn't work for you - maybe this would be something you could try.

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!

Handsome agave!

The VM apo-lanthar 35 and 50 are wonderful. I originally purchased both to use with the Sigma fp-L and have just begun using them with the M11 Monochrom. I've posted a few examples using the 35 on the dedicated thread for these lenses. For shoots where resolution and edge to edge sharpness are paramount, they deliver and then some.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Alan Friedman

[CDodkin]

1 hour ago, Alan Friedman said:

Handsome agave!

The VM apo-lanthar 35 and 50 are wonderful. I originally purchased both to use with the Sigma fp-L and have just begun using them with the M11 Monochrom. I've posted a few examples using the 35 on the dedicated thread for these lenses. For shoots where resolution and edge to edge sharpness are paramount, they deliver and then some.

Alan - how does the VM 50 APO stack up against the Summilux 50mm for example - any data?