How many of you are happy with their M11-D

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, pgh said:

What is it in this thread that makes you confident to say this is a myth? You’ve posted it on multiple threads now and it’s been incorrect each time. User experiences are not myths and stating such a thing is a weird gaslighting tactic for a forum. You can say it’s not something you’ve experienced, that’s fine - but stating no one does is pathological. 

Can you run controlled tests that confirm you theory?

[IkarusJohn]

21 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Can you run controlled tests that confirm you theory?

Come now - let’s not look for disagreement.

My experienec (with the X2D, with IBIS turned off) is that 01af is probably right if you exclude detailed reviewing on a computer screen, massive cropping or close inspection of large prints; but it doesn’t change experience.  Motion blur with high MP was first discussed here, if my memory serves, with the D800E, with “only” 37.5MP.  If the photographer has poor technique or is unaware of motion blur (or shutter slap) blur is always a problem.

Is it more visible with more MP?  Of course, but for careful photographers, only if you go looking for it.  At normal vewing distance, more MP doesn’t need to mean more motion blur; but that is only part of the point.  With the questionable benefit of cropping offered by the M11, it is a real issue.

The real question is, does 60MP on an M camera without IBIS make sense?  You and Elmar and others say sure; but that doesn’t change the experience of others.  I didn’t own my X1D II and X2D at the same time, so I can’t compare images in a “controlled test”, but that is a bit tough, don’t you think?  I can say, as a user of both cameras, that I am exptremely grateful for IBIS with the X2D.  Notwithstanding your enthusiasm for everything M11, some said “no thanks” - not just me …

Perhaps this is better in the M12 thread, rather than one about the M11-D.

[pgh]

35 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Can you run controlled tests that confirm you theory?

Could I? Sure I could try. Could I also waste my time and money in better, less predictable ways? Absolutely.   I doubt the other users who experience would care to either. The thing is, it would be a useless exercise and the results immaterial. 

My own experience using the camera is enough because even if a controlled test showed no difference in the sensor picking up camera shake, all that means is that there would be some other variable inherent to my using an M11 and whatever that variable is, it’s not there with the M10 - but it is there a little bit with my M10 monochrome.

If another detective wants to go digging and find that the M11 (and M10M to a lesser degree) has some inherent material property that actually makes my hands shakier when I hold it as opposed to an M10 - instead of the sensor magnifying visible camera shake they can go for it - the why makes no difference to me. It’s an academic problem when I’m concerned with the actual pictures I’m making. To call that a myth is to misunderstand what a myth is, or, as I said, is just pathological. 

Edited August 21 by pgh

[pgh]

3 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Come now - let’s not look for disagreement.

My experienec (with the X2D, with IBIS turned off) is that 01af is probably right if you exclude detailed reviewing on a computer screen, massive cropping or close inspection of large prints; but it doesn’t change experience.  Motion blur with high MP was first discussed here, if my memory serves, with the D800E, with “only” 37.5MP.  If the photographer has poor technique or is unaware of motion blur (or shutter slap) blur is always a problem.

Is it more visible with more MP?  Of course, but for careful photographers, only if you go looking for it.  At normal vewing distance, more MP doesn’t need to mean more motion blur; but that is only part of the point.  With the questionable benefit of cropping offered by the M11, it is a real issue.

The real question is, does 60MP on an M camera without IBIS make sense?  You and Elmar and others say sure; but that doesn’t change the experience of others.  I didn’t own my X1D II and X2D at the same time, so I can’t compare images in a “controlled test”, but that is a bit tough, don’t you think?  I can say, as a user of both cameras, that I am exptremely grateful for IBIS with the X2D.  Notwithstanding your enthusiasm for everything M11, some said “no thanks” - not just me …

Perhaps this is better in the M12 thread, rather than one about the M11-D.

I owned a 907x 50c at the same time as the X2D. I could hold the 907x at 1/f pretty easily, presumably because of the form factor and waist level shooting - and also because of the nature of pictures that camera is made for (different than the M). It’s a great form factor for a non-IBIS camera with a high resolution. Then there’s the very subtle leaf shutter as well.

But the X2D, with similar attention I can handhold at something like 1/15 for a 55mm lens and get pictures just as sharp despite the higher resolution. This is just my experience, but I bought the X2D because of IBIS, not the 100mp sensor. I actually liked the 50mp sensor a little better but the IBIS was what sold it, and it continues to pay off. 

Anyways, back to the M11-D…

[IkarusJohn]

9 minutes ago, pgh said:

I owned a 907x 50c at the same time as the X2D. I could hold the 907x at 1/f pretty easily, presumably because of the form factor and waist level shooting - and also because of the nature of pictures that camera is made for (different than the M). It’s a great form factor for a non-IBIS camera with a high resolution. Then there’s the very subtle leaf shutter as well.

But the X2D, with similar attention I can handhold at something like 1/15 for a 55mm lens and get pictures just as sharp despite the higher resolution. This is just my experience, but I bought the X2D because of IBIS, not the 100mp sensor. I actually liked the 50mp sensor a little better but the IBIS was what sold it, and it continues to pay off. 

Anyways, back to the M11-D…

Yes, I liked the 50MP sensor too, and it wasn’t the 100MP sensor that brought me back - the AF of the X1D II drove me to distraction.  I only have the 38V lens, but it was the focus clutch which convinced me to give the Hasselblad another chance.

[SrMi]

50 minutes ago, pgh said:

Could I? Sure I could try. Could I also waste my time and money in better, less predictable ways? Absolutely.   I doubt the other users who experience would care to either. The thing is, it would be a useless exercise and the results immaterial. 

My own experience using the camera is enough because even if a controlled test showed no difference in the sensor picking up camera shake, all that means is that there would be some other variable inherent to my using an M11 and whatever that variable is, it’s not there with the M10 - but it is there a little bit with my M10 monochrome.

If another detective wants to go digging and find that the M11 (and M10M to a lesser degree) has some inherent material property that actually makes my hands shakier when I hold it as opposed to an M10 - instead of the sensor magnifying visible camera shake they can go for it - the why makes no difference to me. It’s an academic problem when I’m concerned with the actual pictures I’m making. To call that a myth is to misunderstand what a myth is, or, as I said, is just pathological. 

I think it would be helpful for everyone to find out if these logical conclusions are true

- if you reduce resolution on M11, your handholding shutter speed improves the same way using a lower resolution sensor does.

- if you compare high resolution and low resolution at the same output size, does the required shutter speed remain the same.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I think it would be helpful for everyone to find out if these logical conclusions are true

- if you reduce resolution on M11, your handholding shutter speed improves the same way using a lower resolution sensor does.

- if you compare high resolution and low resolution at the same output size, does the required shutter speed remain the same.

Now, I’d quite like some evidence of this pixel binning benefit.  I’m serious about this - there have been a lot of posts about how it works, with little other than “believe me” comments.  Many of the comments have been contradictory, and quite a few self-affirming comments from camera owners.

It’s all magic - explain it, if you have the time …

[pgh]

Yea, for me pixel binning to 18mp did not seem to yield the benefits of shooting on an 18mp sensor. It didn’t yield any benefits other than a smaller file, if I owned the camera I’d never do it, I would just downsize when I needed to, same result. 

[IkarusJohn]

3 minutes ago, pgh said:

Yea, for me pixel binning to 18mp did not seem to yield the benefits of shooting on an 18mp sensor. It didn’t yield any benefits other than a smaller file, if I owned the camera I’d never do it, I would just downsize when I needed to, same result. 

Like in-camera cropping …

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Now, I’d quite like some evidence of this pixel binning benefit.  I’m serious about this - there have been a lot of posts about how it works, with little other than “believe me” comments.  Many of the comments have been contradictory, and quite a few self-affirming comments from camera owners.

It’s all magic - explain it, if you have the time …

There is no pixel binning, but the raw gets resized while keeping it raw. Leica said the lower resolution has the same effect as resizing in Photoshop.

[IkarusJohn]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

There is no pixel binning, but the raw gets resized while keeping it raw. Leica said the lower resolution has the same effect as resizing in Photoshop.

Thanks, but that’s little more than Leica’s marketing info.  “The raw gets resized” without loss of pixels makes no sense to me.  What it seems to suggest is pixels getting merged in some way, which also makes no sense.  I’ll stick with pixel binning until I get a proper explanatin I think as there must be a loss in pixels …

[SrMi]

12 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Thanks, but that’s little more than Leica’s marketing info.  “The raw gets resized” without loss of pixels makes no sense to me.  What it seems to suggest is pixels getting merged in some way, which also makes no sense.  I’ll stick with pixel binning until I get a proper explanatin I think as there must be a loss in pixels …

When you downsize in camera or in post, there is always loss of pixels. This was discussed on a technical YouTube video by Leica representatives.

Check-out how post processors resize images.

I am not a specialist, but I believe you need something like Quad Bayer CFA to pixel bin, and the resolution can go down only by a factor of 4.

[IkarusJohn]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

When you downsize in camera or in post, there is always loss of pixels.

Hence the term pixel binning.

[SrMi]

6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Hence the term pixel binning.

There are many ways to resize, not every method is pixel binning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_binning

[IkarusJohn]

12 minutes ago, SrMi said:

There are many ways to resize, not every method is pixel binning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_binning

Sophistry - less pixels, they went somewherre.

The real test is an M11, pixel binned to 18MP compared to an 18MP sensor image.

[pgh]

Whatever the term or method it’s easier to get a handheld image sharp with a 50mm lens at 1/60 on the 24 mp m10 than it is to get one on the m11 at 18mp, by about 1- 1.5 stops roughly, in my actual use, which is all I really care about. 

Edited August 22 by pgh

[SrMi]

56 minutes ago, pgh said:

Whatever the term or method it’s easier to get a handheld image sharp with a 50mm lens at 1/60 on the 24 mp m10 than it is to get one on the m11 at 18mp, by about 1- 1.5 stops roughly, in my actual use, which is all I really care about. 

That is what I wonder: is that your feeling or have you done a controlled test?

[elmars]

This refers to pgh post No 80 on page 4 of this thread. 

Unfortunately, I don't know what gaslighting tactics are. In any case, I didn't deny anyone's experience, I just said that I think the reason for it is wrong. Because what has been reported so far (if anything): The M11 produces blurry images. Has anyone bothered to compare it statistically with cameras with lower resolution? Or has anyone (as I did; see my linked report on the M11) systematically measured the M11 with the different resolutions of the M11 at different shutter speeds? I am not aware of this having been done so far. Instead, it is simply claimed that the blurring is caused by the higher resolution. This may come from a discussion that has been going on since the Nikon D800. Someone here in the forum offered me an explanation that this is incorrect, which I find convincing. I linked to that. Nothing more.

Edited August 22 by elmars

[Derbyshire Man]

5 hours ago, pgh said:

Whatever the term or method it’s easier to get a handheld image sharp with a 50mm lens at 1/60 on the 24 mp m10 than it is to get one on the m11 at 18mp, by about 1- 1.5 stops roughly, in my actual use, which is all I really care about. 

I rarely have a problem with camera shake and even more rarely care (by the time I’ve converted to B&W and added some grain it’s moot). Is the effect the same with taking the shot at 18mp to taking at 60MP and reducing in post?

Re the M11D - absolutely love it.

Edited August 22 by Derbyshire Man

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Smudgerer]

I've already answered this post earlier in this thread, albeit briefly so I thought I'd elaborate......

Yes I am very content with the M11-D, and saying this after owning, ( co-owning with Wetzlar's Service dept' ), the M10-D. Sadly as said before my particular M10-D was a troubled child and had to go home to Mother too many times for a variety of electronic complaints and in the end I switched out to the M11-D and I have been happy to have done so.

Why?

1/ the lighter body is a great plus, I am not a fan of brass / brassing for it's own sake and see no reason to have a M made of the heavier metal just for cosmetic reasons down the road, ( or sooner with sandpaper ). My M2 feels like two M11's in the hand.

2/ Battery and USB charging anywhere, a very convenient plus that I use all the time.

3/ not having to deal with the M10-D's ridiculous rear multi on/off/compensation/wifi switch anymore. That was a big annoyance with the 10-D, do I miss the faux winder/thumb rest, yes.....But not as much as Initially thought I would, so that's moot. 

4/ much better metering, I appreciate the Highlight setting.

5/ the start-up shutter dance doesn't worry me, and I just checked my M11-D is ready to shoot in about two seconds from turning on, good enough, I also keep it turned on at a long "sleep" setting when I need it ready to take a snap.

6/ multi resolution setting. I like this option and both my M11's are glued to 18mp. I have no problems getting up to A1 prints from that mp setting, but maybe my demands on "sharpness" and resolution differ from most, for me it's the image that paramount not it's technical attributes and 18mps are just fine for what I use the M11's for, a Leica M is not a "precise" instrument it wasn't designed to be so, MF is the way to go if that's one's desire...... I do wish though that Leica didn't chase the pixel race with the M's, I am convinced that 24mp is the sweet spot of an M's sensor and I wish that they'd concentrated on producing an even better 24mp sensor than was in the M10-D/P, but that horse has left the barn.

7/ and this camera / pixel shake debate......Well pushing well into my 80's now for me it's more annoying that I can't keep peas on a fork as well as I used to be able to let alone keep a camera rock steady enough for 1/15th exposures on a regular basis, so I have simply adapted the way I use the camera to compensate for my inherent wobbles, let alone the camera's. My maximum shutter speed is nailed at 1/250th and when I need it to that sorts out the problem just fine. The ASA capabilities of the camera enables this solution without a problem.

8/ Fotos. I couldn't care less about this App, use it rarely and then only to check that my settings haven't slipped, ( after upgrading the FW for instance ). I never check my exposures / images when out with the camera, ( no longer being in the "crack smart 'phone" environment , but I can access the camera via Foto's on an iPad when back at base if I would wish too ). Chimping with Foto's in whatever way when you've bought a M11-D is just wrong wrong wrong, you should have got a M11-P instead if that's what you need to do.........I do so wish that Leica had made the M11-D entirely independent of this sort of Foto's nonsense, and be able to set whatever in/on camera one's needs and not requiring another digital thing to enable all of that, but there goes another horse......However once the camera is initially set-up one can ignore Fotos, which I do except for the very occasional settings check..

There may well be more, but for now these are the salient points...........It's a good camera.