M11M Images Are Too Perfect

[Knightspirit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Without reading the entire thread - I would just like to comment that what you are seeing is not the result of the M11 sensor being "too perfect'. It's the new version of Lightroom that everyone is running their images through. I can tell you that the sensor on the M11 is not what I see at all from my Nikon Z7ii. That sensor really IS totally clean and clinical and color accurate etc. I was expecting the 60 mp sensor of the M11 to be even more so - but it isn't. It's actually a little "noisy" or grainy in a way that is very different than the Z sensor. I find this really odd considering they are probably both made by Sony (not sure of that).

Having just upgraded my Mac to the new M2 Studio - I now have access for the first time to the new PS and LR CC versions - and wow - are they crazy. AI noise reduction turns even high ISO shots super smooth. There are seemingly no restrictions on anything any more. Whatever you visualize as "perfect" - be it grainy, colorized, film-like etc - it can be created in post. So no more complaining about any of that crap. We have cheap Japanese and Chinese lenses now competing with Leica for image quality at 1.2, 1.0 and 0.95 and apo F2 lenses too. Add that to the new tools in LR and PS and there really is nothing to stop anyone from getting exactly the images they want, except the actual execution part, and that's the whole point of the Leica in my book. If you have something that you love to use - you'll use it.

PS - I started with a Leica M3 and three lenses in 1986, shooting mostly Kodachrome. I never wanted "grainy" or soft or anything else. I ALWAYS wanted the sharpest, smoothest images I could get. Now I'm in heaven.

 

[newtoleica]

5 hours ago, MarkP said:

I agree with all that.  High ISO (or not that high ISO) banding was also very frustrating.

That’s what stops me getting one too. Also they are now starting to sell for ‘collectors’ prices - well prices being asked are. I don’t go there. 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Knightspirit said:

Without reading the entire thread - I would just like to comment that what you are seeing is not the result of the M11 sensor being "too perfect'. It's the new version of Lightroom that everyone is running their images through. I can tell you that the sensor on the M11 is not what I see at all from my Nikon Z7ii. That sensor really IS totally clean and clinical and color accurate etc. I was expecting the 60 mp sensor of the M11 to be even more so - but it isn't. It's actually a little "noisy" or grainy in a way that is very different than the Z sensor. I find this really odd considering they are probably both made by Sony (not sure of that).

Having just upgraded my Mac to the new M2 Studio - I now have access for the first time to the new PS and LR CC versions - and wow - are they crazy. AI noise reduction turns even high ISO shots super smooth. There are seemingly no restrictions on anything any more. Whatever you visualize as "perfect" - be it grainy, colorized, film-like etc - it can be created in post. So no more complaining about any of that crap. We have cheap Japanese and Chinese lenses now competing with Leica for image quality at 1.2, 1.0 and 0.95 and apo F2 lenses too. Add that to the new tools in LR and PS and there really is nothing to stop anyone from getting exactly the images they want, except the actual execution part, and that's the whole point of the Leica in my book. If you have something that you love to use - you'll use it.

PS - I started with a Leica M3 and three lenses in 1986, shooting mostly Kodachrome. I never wanted "grainy" or soft or anything else. I ALWAYS wanted the sharpest, smoothest images I could get. Now I'm in heaven.

 

Historically Nikon always used more noise reduction, sharpening and smoothing in their firmware than Leica does. I'm not surprised that the Z exhibits the same.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Historically Nikon always used more noise reduction, sharpening and smoothing in their firmware than Leica does. I'm not surprised that the Z exhibits the same.

AFAIK, there is no noise reduction, sharpening, or smoothing when recording raw files (except at high ISOs), neither with Leica nor Nikon cameras. I assume you are referring to JPEGs.

[jaapv]

No. You would not know. Firmware will apply such corrections before the raw is written. The JPG is created from the raw data. 

[SrMi]

18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No. You would not know. Firmware will apply such corrections before the raw is written. The JPG is created from the raw data. 

It is possible to detect NR applied on raw files as P2P does. I have never seen any indication that sharpening or smoothing is applied to Nikon and Leica raw files and, therefore, have to assume that it isn’t. AFAIK microlens design can affect the sharpness of raw files.

Edit: this post discusses the reason for Nikon's sharpness:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4462501

Edited December 31, 2023 by SrMi

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

RAw is not a sensor dump. It is processed even before it is written, including black point, noise reduction ( very little with Leica ) colour settings, etc. then the raw file is presented to your raw  converter. 

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

No. You would not know. Firmware will apply such corrections before the raw is written. The JPG is created from the raw data. 

That’s very interesting. From my observations of various files, it seems intuitive.

When I tried both, my reaction (rightly or wrongly) was that RAWs off the Panasonic S1R seemed inherently more sharpened and with less noise compared to the SL2, naturally looking at both when the sharpening slider in ACR was at zero.

And my feel is my GFX100S’ RAW files come out the box more sharpened than what I see off both the X2D or M11.

I’d rather have a gentler starting point, that’s for sure, and it’s something Leica seems habitually quite good at doing. In comparison, it can be occasionally tricky for me to “tame” the sharpness on the GFX down to a level that I like, clearly with the sharpness slider starting at zero, and especially for small prints. FWIW i also prefer the starting point of the M11 compared to the SL2 for the same reason.

[Knightspirit]

2 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

That’s very interesting. From my observations of various files, it seems intuitive.

When I tried both, my reaction (rightly or wrongly) was that RAWs off the Panasonic S1R seemed inherently more sharpened and with less noise compared to the SL2, naturally looking at both when the sharpening slider in ACR was at zero.

And my feel is my GFX100S’ RAW files come out the box more sharpened than what I see off both the X2D or M11.

I’d rather have a gentler starting point, that’s for sure, and it’s something Leica seems habitually quite good at doing. In comparison, it can be occasionally tricky for me to “tame” the sharpness on the GFX down to a level that I like, clearly with the sharpness slider starting at zero, and especially for small prints. FWIW i also prefer the starting point of the M11 compared to the SL2 for the same reason.

I have been so used to seeing the digital files from Nikon (literally from the very first D1 with the 2.7 mp sensor) that it took me a couple of weeks of mental anguish to wrap my brain around what Leica is doing. Once I realized that they simply removed a lot of the pre- processing jujitsu that Nikon and others are doing, I understood. And I like it. It gives the images a much more film like feel - but with the sharpness and dynamic range of a 60 mp sensor. Once you put it into LR - you can do what you like. And as you say - it’s a nice starting point.

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, Knightspirit said:

I have been so used to seeing the digital files from Nikon (literally from the very first D1 with the 2.7 mp sensor) that it took me a couple of weeks of mental anguish to wrap my brain around what Leica is doing. Once I realized that they simply removed a lot of the pre- processing jujitsu that Nikon and others are doing, I understood. And I like it. It gives the images a much more film like feel - but with the sharpness and dynamic range of a 60 mp sensor. Once you put it into LR - you can do what you like. And as you say - it’s a nice starting point.

Yes, it’s the more “film like” feel of images off the M11 (and M11 Monochrom) that I especially like, and I think the gentler starting point (possibly a mix of less aggressive mid-tone contrast, less RAW sharpening, ? etc) is a large contributor to why I find images from these 2 latest M cameras to be so pleasing.

Whilst I’m very light-handed in sharpening images and will also habitually add grain, I will take all the resolution I can get in order to record fine detail itself - in that sense, moving from c 40mp resolution with the M10M to 60mp M11M doesn’t make the images “too perfect” at all for my personal goal of very large prints, especially as I’m used to the aesthetic of 5x4 large format film that records a ton of fine detail especially with B&W films like Acros 100 or TMX 100.

Having shot identical scenes to compare, I think it’s taken 100mp medium format color sensors and/or M11M to reach the equivalent resolution of 5x4 film. I’m not sure many people would think in a gallery that photos off 5x4 are too perfect. What I do think can look too perfect in a fake way is too much sharpening, whether baked inextricably into the RAW files or added over zealously in post. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Jon Warwick

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, Jon Warwick said:

I think it’s taken 100mp medium format color sensors and/or M11M to reach the equivalent resolution of 5x4 film. I’m not sure many people would think in a gallery that photos off 5x4 are too perfect. 

So now we're at the point where everything is going to, or should, look like it was taken with a 4X5 just because one can? No thank you.... 

[Jon Warwick]

34 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

So now we're at the point where everything is going to, or should, look like it was taken with a 4X5 just because one can? No thank you.... 

At 20x16”, my old M240 at 24mp looks like it’s taken with my 5x4 (Provia drum-scanned). I took the same shot of a mountain scene with both and the “aesthetic” is the same ( * edit). So it depends on print size, but at that smaller print size the ship sailed over a decade ago ……

( * edit)

the reason being both prints at that smaller size appear completely grain / noise free, have very high acuity, and need no resampling for a 300dpi print (ie, at maximal resolution up to c 20” wide off the M240).

Edited December 31, 2023 by Jon Warwick

[fotografr]

1 hour ago, Jon Warwick said:

I'm not sure many people would think in a gallery that photos off 5x4 are too perfect. 

I agree. When a digital file is printed on photo paper, I feel that the negative qualities I described in my opening comment are mostly overcome. High quality photo papers can replace the depth and filmic character that seems to be lacking in M11M images posted on web forums like this one. I do, however, feel that even gallery images can have that smooth, sterile look that I don't like. I have a friend who spent several months in Iceland putting an exhibition together using his Sony system. He had all of his images printed on large high gloss aluminum sheets and although they did retain extreme sharpness and detail, they came off as rather boring--too smooth, too perfect. I wasn't the only person who felt that way about the prints.

What has happened with the megapixel race is that sharpness and detail have become the Holy Grail traits in image making. If that's what flips your switch, that's absolutely fine and I make no criticism or judgement about it. To each his own. But for my taste it's gone a bit too far, which is why the M10M is likely the end of the road for me. 

[thighslapper]

Somewhat perplexed by this whole thread.

Surely 'Grain' in digital images is noise ..... and dependent on ISO and how 'clean' the amplification of the signal is.

Hi resolution, when downsized to normal viewing sizes reduces apparent noise still further. 

Any camera that increases pixel count and low light performance is going to produce a much cleaner image viewed at the same size. 

Anyone under the age of about 40 wouldn't understand what all this wittering about 'too perfect' is about. They are used to clean, grain free images. I bet most viewers wouldn't notice it one way or the another anyway and just appreciate the image for what it is. 

Those who wan't the retro look of 'pseudo film grain' can reproduce it in processing with Silver Efex Pro or PS to whatever degree they fancy.

I really can't see the point of complaining about the M11M failing to produce 'film like images'.

It ain't film and never will be. 

[lct]

17 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

Anyone under the age of about 40 wouldn't understand what all this wittering about 'too perfect' is about. They are used to clean, grain free images.

Ditto for oldies who sweared by K25 only in the film days... K64 let alone K200 were definitely too grainy 😄

[trickness]

23 hours ago, Overgaard said:

I think is perfectly legitimate to claim that the M11M files are "too perfect" and it is good fuel for thought.

Is resolution image quality, or is it just the only thing that can be amplified in modern photography?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think these ultra hi resolution sensors can make edges seem too defined and "plasticky", especially if one is a little heavy handed in post. Never really felt that with 24 mpx cameras.

[Jon Warwick]

11 minutes ago, lct said:

Ditto for oldies who sweared by K25 only in the film days... K64 let alone K200 were definitely too grainy 😄

Haha, yes, Ektar 25 on my side in the 90s, rather than the ISO 100 version to get the finer grain in, err, less than 8x10” sized prints.

If one wants to get closer to a “35mm film” aesthetic, I personally look at what the generation below (now in their mid-teens) chat about, apparently some discuss c 8mp CCD cameras to get the less perfect, and more gritty and noisy (“grainy”) 35mm filmic look they want ….fortunately in the drawer, unused for over a decade, I still had a C-Lux 2 to hand over!

[thighslapper]

24 minutes ago, trickness said:

I think these ultra hi resolution sensors can make edges seem too defined and "plasticky", especially if one is a little heavy handed in post. Never really felt that with 24 mpx cameras.

Please explain 'too defined and plasticky'.

I also feel that most of these moans and groans are a product of viewing images on hi-res screens rather than in prints.

Please explain why those who still stick to film and full frame cameras like Ansell Adams did  still use them  ...... other than to achieve high resolution almost grain free prints. 

[RobW0]

Back in the 70's and 80's I would shot FP4 at 100 ASA or Pan F to get the fine grain I wanted in my B&W prints.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[trickness]

1 hour ago, thighslapper said:

Please explain 'too defined and plasticky'.

I also feel that most of these moans and groans are a product of viewing images on hi-res screens rather than in prints.

Please explain why those who still stick to film and full frame cameras like Ansell Adams did  still use them  ...... other than to achieve high resolution almost grain free prints. 

I print my images and yes, the drop in resolution often flatters the pictures and removes the plasticky look.

Film is another matter entirely and I didn't mention it in my post. And Ansell Adams was a genius and would be no matter what camera he shot with. And he spent A LOT of time in the darkroom getting his prints right.

Large high resolution sensors are different than cramming triple the amount of pixels onto the same sized sensor that used to house 24 megapixels. Mark Di Paolo has mentioned in some of his lectures the thought that "bigger" pixels might be better in the way they capture light and that 24 megapixels are as much as he really ever needs.

Of course that's one photographer, and it's just a hypothesis. Personally I enjoy adding noise, under or overexposing images, blowing highlights - I don't mind starting with something high resolution because I really never leave it looking that way when I'm done.

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by trickness