The M11 is actually a great camera!

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, jakontil said:

I still relying on my 907x cfv100c.. especially on landscapes.. i still see that difference or am i bluffing myself?

To each their own eyes! No right or wrong answer, and I can only speak for my own observation. On a standalone basis, I thought the 100mp camera was excellent.  But when comparing with a 60mp full frame, I felt that I “ought” (“wanted”?) to see more difference in favour of the medium format….100mp vs 60mp, 16 bit vs 14, larger sensor, smoother tonality….. and tested them extensively side-by-side, often for landscapes. In my case, a GFX100S/GF55mm vs M11/50 APO Lanthar, on tripod, self-timer etc etc. Where there was a difference (for some subjects) is less false color and aliasing from the 100mp, but I found the “Enhance” function (with noise reduction off) for processing the DNG in ACR narrowed down that difference. By the time I printed crops from 45-50” images (normally at 300dpi on either a Lambda or inkjet), the difference in detail / tonal rendering was very subtle to my eyes. fwiw, I think what’s recorded in terms of fine detail is higher off the M11 Monochrom than any of the above - no aliasing in sight, just very purely captured detail. 

[Gavin G]

6 hours ago, jakontil said:

I dont always use handgrips in the past except that comes with arca swiss.. but my anxiety of not having baseplate pushed me to use the handgrips all the time lol and yeah i never notice it’s protected… but doesnt matter to me.. my phone port is exposed all the time, just good to know

I still relying on my 907x cfv100c.. especially on landscapes.. i still see that difference or am i bluffing myself?

Hasselblad #hncs still gives the neutral and correct WB while output. But street, M the best

Edited April 15 by Gavin G

[DadDadDaddyo]

I hadn't looked it up before but did just now: both the GFX100 sensor and the M11 (and M11M) sensor have a pixel pitch of 3.76 microns. 

So while the larger sensor does, of course, contain more pixels, those pixels are of the same size. 

My guess is that a 45" print is not large enough to make the difference in resolution between 60 megapixels and 100 megapixels readily visible. 

Noise is another contributing factor to the visible quality of an image, so the identical pixel size between the two sensors suggests they will have similar noise characteristics. 

And, as ever, the monochrome sensor stands out by delivering full engagement of all of its pixels, as opposed to the sensor behind the Bayer filter, in which the interpolation process needed to produce a color image results in lower apparent resolution.

Folks engaged in astrophotography pay intense attention to pixel sizes. This is because, in comparing two sensors with the same resolution but differing in pixel size, the sensor with the larger pixels will generally deliver a better signal to noise ratio than the smaller sensor which, again, while of the same resolution, has smaller pixels. 

This is the reason the most critical work in astrophotography (research-related, for example) is done with monochrome cameras.

To create a color image, these astrophotographers use color filters (typically on a filter wheel) to capture separate one-color frames (each of which has been color-filtered in its entirety). Those separate frames are combined during processing to produce the final color image. 

Astrophotography cameras with Bayer filters installed are referred to as "One-shot Color" cameras. They are great for folks like me, for the production of beautiful pictures as opposed to those in which the investigation of particular wavelengths may be the object of research. 

The pursuit of low noise is an obsession to astrophotographers, for whom "shutter speed" is measured in hours rather than fractions of a second. The better deep-sky cameras employ cooling (refrigeration, actually) to chill their sensors many degrees below ambient temperature to achieve lower noise. 

In short, the benefits of the monochrome sensor that are apparent to terrestrial photographers also apply, in fact even more so, to folks engaged in the madness of imaging nebulae and galaxies, objects that are almost unimaginably dim.

I can speak of it as madness because I am one of those pursues such imaging, albeit for enjoyment rather than for research.

Some of my astrophotography friends do indeed use mono cameras in their astrophotography. Me, I use a one-shot color camera, as do, probably, the majority of folks who have been caught up in deep sky imaging for fun. Why? It's simply much faster and easier, qualities that are appallingly rare in the hobby. 

Anyway, to get back on topic, for folks like me who produce prints of a size in the typically maximum range of 3 or 4 feet along the long edge, a resolution of 60 megapixels is demonstrably more than sufficient. 

This realization enabled me to shed an entire camera system (Fujifilm Medium Format Digital) once I had gotten hold of the M11 and M11M. 

Got me a few more lenses out of the bargain...

I still have my old 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. They are there to enable a kind of immersion into process that, like astrophotography, can also approach a kind of madness. 

It's OK. Madness is at the heart of many "hobbies." 

Golf, for example. If your goal is to get the ball into the hole, there must be better ways to accomplish it. To try to do so using the tools specified is, well, madness, is it not?

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

Noise is another contributing factor to the visible quality of an image, so the identical pixel size between the two sensors suggests they will have similar noise characteristics. 

Noise comparisons make only sense at the same output size. A smaller sensor requires more enlargement, so noise is more pronounced in smaller sensors than in larger sensors.

Pixel pitch matters only when viewing images at 100%.

2 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

Folks engaged in astrophotography pay intense attention to pixel sizes. This is because, in comparing two sensors with the same resolution but differing in pixel size, the sensor with the larger pixels will generally deliver a better signal to noise ratio than the smaller sensor which, again, while of the same resolution, has smaller pixels. 

This is only true if you look at 100% (pixel peeping) but not when comparing at the same output size.

[Dr Cron]

2 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

I hadn't looked it up before but did just now: both the GFX100 sensor and the M11 (and M11M) sensor have a pixel pitch of 3.76 microns. 

So while the larger sensor does, of course, contain more pixels, those pixels are of the same size. 

My guess is that a 45" print is not large enough to make the difference in resolution between 60 megapixels and 100 megapixels readily visible. 

Noise is another contributing factor to the visible quality of an image, so the identical pixel size between the two sensors suggests they will have similar noise characteristics. 

And, as ever, the monochrome sensor stands out by delivering full engagement of all of its pixels, as opposed to the sensor behind the Bayer filter, in which the interpolation process needed to produce a color image results in lower apparent resolution.

Folks engaged in astrophotography pay intense attention to pixel sizes. This is because, in comparing two sensors with the same resolution but differing in pixel size, the sensor with the larger pixels will generally deliver a better signal to noise ratio than the smaller sensor which, again, while of the same resolution, has smaller pixels. 

This is the reason the most critical work in astrophotography (research-related, for example) is done with monochrome cameras.

To create a color image, these astrophotographers use color filters (typically on a filter wheel) to capture separate one-color frames (each of which has been color-filtered in its entirety). Those separate frames are combined during processing to produce the final color image. 

Astrophotography cameras with Bayer filters installed are referred to as "One-shot Color" cameras. They are great for folks like me, for the production of beautiful pictures as opposed to those in which the investigation of particular wavelengths may be the object of research. 

The pursuit of low noise is an obsession to astrophotographers, for whom "shutter speed" is measured in hours rather than fractions of a second. The better deep-sky cameras employ cooling (refrigeration, actually) to chill their sensors many degrees below ambient temperature to achieve lower noise. 

In short, the benefits of the monochrome sensor that are apparent to terrestrial photographers also apply, in fact even more so, to folks engaged in the madness of imaging nebulae and galaxies, objects that are almost unimaginably dim.

I can speak of it as madness because I am one of those pursues such imaging, albeit for enjoyment rather than for research.

Some of my astrophotography friends do indeed use mono cameras in their astrophotography. Me, I use a one-shot color camera, as do, probably, the majority of folks who have been caught up in deep sky imaging for fun. Why? It's simply much faster and easier, qualities that are appallingly rare in the hobby. 

Anyway, to get back on topic, for folks like me who produce prints of a size in the typically maximum range of 3 or 4 feet along the long edge, a resolution of 60 megapixels is demonstrably more than sufficient. 

This realization enabled me to shed an entire camera system (Fujifilm Medium Format Digital) once I had gotten hold of the M11 and M11M. 

Got me a few more lenses out of the bargain...

I still have my old 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. They are there to enable a kind of immersion into process that, like astrophotography, can also approach a kind of madness. 

It's OK. Madness is at the heart of many "hobbies." 

Golf, for example. If your goal is to get the ball into the hole, there must be better ways to accomplish it. To try to do so using the tools specified is, well, madness, is it not?

Totally with you on 10x8 btw.  And here I am about to (probably) make the jump into Leica digital!

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!

[Dr Cron]

(That's an Ilford FP4+ 10x8 film contact-printed argyrotype, btw., film cut down to about 5x7 inches after development for the print dimensions I was after.)

 

NB the 10x8 camera is NOT going anywhere!

Edited April 15 by Dr Cron

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

guess is that a 45" print is not large enough to make the difference in resolution between 60 megapixels and 100 megapixels readily visible. 

I think that’s probably what might be happening, in my view. At that image size of 45”, in print or even zoomed at 100% on my iMac, I find that the differences between 60mp vs 100mp systems in terms of fine detail capture to be much more subtle than I would have assumed, and with lens quality being a bigger driver than megapixel horsepower.

At 200%(!!) on the iMac, yes I can see a more apparent difference, in favour of 100mp - less aliasing from the color filter array at 100mp allowing more detail to be recorded at that extreme pixel-peeping level. 

But even at 100mp, there is aliasing going on. And that’s where, to my eyes, the benefit of the M11 Monochrom in terms of faithfully recording fine detail stands out even more than the 60 vs 100mp color filter cameras. Really no aliasing at all off the Monochrom, allowing all the detail to be recorded in true form. Pretty incredible, all in a tiny camera body weighing not much more than 500g!!

I think what the Monochroms do is reminiscent of what “multi-shot” is doing on the color cameras - ie, eliminating the problems of the color filter.  But with the obvious benefit of the Monochroms achieving that resolution advantage in a single-exposure.

Despite waffling on here re: resolution, it’s actually other aspects of the Monochroms that i more respond to, notably a very extended and smooth tonal range and a “less processed” rendering (to my eyes) due to not scrambling around with RGB data!

Edited April 15 by Jon Warwick

[setuporg]

So I guess 907x with CFV 50 C would be even better, with larger pixels!:)

[Jon Warwick]

2 hours ago, setuporg said:

So I guess 907x with CFV 50 C would be even better, with larger pixels!:)

😀 Not one I’ve owned, but I have tried out and printed off the 50mp X1D, and thought the rendering was very pleasant with the XCD 45 3.5 lens I had on it. I think getting to what one likes in terms of pixel size vs lens rendering is rather important, far more so than what is in the paper specifications. For example, the GFX100 as noted by DadDadDaddyo is the same pixel size as the M11, but I increasingly appreciate that the very open M lens system (many brands, many vintages, many “looks”) gives the M cameras a lot of flexibility in terms of the rendering of the files that is harder to come by with more closed systems. 

[jakontil]

7 hours ago, setuporg said:

So I guess 907x with CFV 50 C would be even better, with larger pixels!:)

I always love the lower megapixels sensor for that same reasons.. and i wish the 36mpx mode on m11 or even 18mpx is the real deal but it aint in terms of benefits having bigger microns per pixel

 

5 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

😀 Not one I’ve owned, but I have tried out and printed off the 50mp X1D, and thought the rendering was very pleasant with the XCD 45 3.5 lens I had on it. I think getting to what one likes in terms of pixel size vs lens rendering is rather important, far more so than what is in the paper specifications. For example, the GFX100 as noted by DadDadDaddyo is the same pixel size as the M11, but I increasingly appreciate that the very open M lens system (many brands, many vintages, many “looks”) gives the M cameras a lot of flexibility in terms of the rendering of the files that is harder to come by with more closed systems. 

Exactly why my M is always my go to.. i pair with my film bodies too and that makes it very versatile 

[algrove]

As for Fuji I like to 50SII since it has a large pixel pitch and a pre-BSI sensor which for my liking creates a  more organic versus crisp files. One can always make it crisp if desired, but organic is not so easy in PP.

Must check to see if the HB 50C has the same 44x33 sensor. 

Edited April 16 by algrove

[algrove]

On 4/14/2025 at 9:27 PM, jakontil said:

I dont always use handgrips in the past except that comes with arca swiss.. but my anxiety of not having baseplate pushed me to use the handgrips all the time lol and yeah i never notice it’s protected… but doesnt matter to me.. my phone port is exposed all the time, just good to know

I still relying on my 907x cfv100c.. especially on landscapes.. i still see that difference or am i bluffing myself?

You see what you want to see, same as me.

[Lee S]

On 4/12/2025 at 2:25 AM, jakontil said:

I prefer the usb c at the bottom.. keep it streamlined rather than having else where

I just charge it face down standing up on the lens 😱

[jakontil]

2 hours ago, Lee S said:

I just charge it face down standing up on the lens 😱

Exactly what i did, anyhow even the days prior to usb c at the bottom that’s how i always put my M, just old habits 🤣

[colint544]

Happy to contribute to a thread acknowledging that the M11 is a great camera. I've had mine - the standard black version - for two years now. A few issues at the beginning, with random overexposures on auto, and a couple of freezes. But it's been rock solid with the last two firmware updates. 

My M11 is a similar weight to my M2, and I like how it handles. The image quality is superb. It's really growing on me. Here are a few photos I took with it. First image was with the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE mk1, and the other two on the 28mm Summicron ASPH mk1.

 

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!

Edited April 17 by colint544

[costa43]

1 hour ago, colint544 said:

Happy to contribute to a thread acknowledging that the M11 is a great camera. I've had mine - the standard black version - for two years now. A few issues at the beginning, with random overexposures on auto, and a couple of freezes. But it's been rock solid with the last two firmware updates. 

My M11 is a similar weight to my M2, and I like how it handles. The image quality is superb. It's really growing on me. Here are a few photos I took with it. First image was with the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE mk1, and the other two on the 28mm Summicron ASPH mk1.

 

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!

Nice images Colin. May I ask your general opinion of the 28mm Summicron v1 paired with this sensor? I’m after a 28mm and I’m being typically indecisive. The Summicron v1 is one of my considerations. 

[colint544]

1 hour ago, costa43 said:

Nice images Colin. May I ask your general opinion of the 28mm Summicron v1 paired with this sensor? I’m after a 28mm and I’m being typically indecisive. The Summicron v1 is one of my considerations. 

Cheers, I think the Summicron mk1 renders really nicely on any M camera. No complaints on that score. At F2 it's ever so slightly soft in the corners, but I don't mind that. It's a lens with character. You can make great pictures with it.

My copy was made in 2010, and I've owned it since 2012. Leica rebuilt it in 2014, because it began to fall apart. I had to have it rebuilt again a couple of years ago, this time by a local camera repair shop. There's already a slight play beginning in the front housing. I don't know what they were smoking in the factory when they came up with the design. The disassembly issue is well documented. I'd recommend paying a bit more and getting the mk2 version. It's built properly, has a far superior lens hood, and apparently is a little sharper in the corners.

[costa43]

32 minutes ago, colint544 said:

Cheers, I think the Summicron mk1 renders really nicely on any M camera. No complaints on that score. At F2 it's ever so slightly soft in the corners, but I don't mind that. It's a lens with character. You can make great pictures with it.

My copy was made in 2010, and I've owned it since 2012. Leica rebuilt it in 2014, because it began to fall apart. I had to have it rebuilt again a couple of years ago, this time by a local camera repair shop. There's already a slight play beginning in the front housing. I don't know what they were smoking in the factory when they came up with the design. The disassembly issue is well documented. I'd recommend paying a bit more and getting the mk2 version. It's built properly, has a far superior lens hood, and apparently is a little sharper in the corners.

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. I wasn’t aware of the suspect build quality. 

[colint544]

9 hours ago, costa43 said:

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. I wasn’t aware of the suspect build quality. 

I think there might be a thread about it on here somewhere, I'm far from the only one to have this trouble. The outer barrel is attached to the inner barrel by three microscopic screws which, however carefully you handle the lens, always seem to work loose. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sergius]

On 4/17/2025 at 7:49 PM, colint544 said:

Happy to contribute to a thread acknowledging that the M11 is a great camera. I've had mine - the standard black version - for two years now. A few issues at the beginning, with random overexposures on auto, and a couple of freezes. But it's been rock solid with the last two firmware updates. 

 

Pleas Colint, I know you have a MM9 (me too..) I'd like to know if M11 has same recovery shadow and black zone. What about the B&W on M11 ? I need a new camera because sometime I need a color camera. Do you think M11 is a competitive with MM9 ?