Any downsides related to pixel binning/reduced mode?

[Jan_t]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I'm getting my Leica M11P tomorrow (upgrading from my M10). 🎉 I was wondering if there are any downsides when using the 36MP mode? I understand there will be less resolution, so limited cropping options. But if I know upfront that I won't need the full 60MP for a shot, is there any reason not to use the 36MP reduced mode? 

My reasons for considering the reduced mode:

• smaller file sizes, so quicker to transfer & edit
• I'll be mostly shooting hand-held, so 60MP could show motion blur

[Advertisement]

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

[JNK100]

Motion-blur shouldn't be an issue at 60mp.

If you mean camera -shake , just move up the ISO to get a faster shutter-speed.

 

[lct]

2 hours ago, Jan_t said:

My reasons for considering the reduced mode:

• smaller file sizes, so quicker to transfer & edit
• I'll be mostly shooting hand-held, so 60MP could show motion blur

OK for smaller size, if needed, but i hardly see significant differences re camera shake blur. To avoid it, i simply shoot at 1/(2f)s but better photogs than me here go up to 1/(3f)s or 1/(4f)s. Same in auto iso mode where i set the shutter speed limit to 1/(2f)s. I end up shooting at 60mp most of the time though TBH.

 

[SrMi]

10 hours ago, Jan_t said:

Hi, I'm getting my Leica M11P tomorrow (upgrading from my M10). 🎉 I was wondering if there are any downsides when using the 36MP mode? I understand there will be less resolution, so limited cropping options. But if I know upfront that I won't need the full 60MP for a shot, is there any reason not to use the 36MP reduced mode? 

My reasons for considering the reduced mode:

• smaller file sizes, so quicker to transfer & edit
• I'll be mostly shooting hand-held, so 60MP could show motion blur

There are no downsides.

[IkarusJohn]

24 minutes ago, SrMi said:

There are no downsides.

They should just make 18MP permanent, then shouldn’t they?

[SrMi]

23 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

They should just make 18MP permanent, then shouldn’t they?

OP said, "I understand there will be less resolution." My reply was in that context.

I never shoot in reduced resolution, as I believe that higher resolution is more useful, and I can always reduce it in post-production. However,  I don't judge anyone who is happy using the M11 as an 18MP or 36MP camera. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Reduced resolution also means reduced tonality. You are reducing the number of possible tonal and chromatic variations. 60mp and downsampled to 36mp is not going to be experienced as a large loss in that way, but it is to some extent a loss. There is always a trade off. The motion blur is a non-issue: any motion blur there at 60mp is also there at 36mp. That is a magnification issue, not a resolution issue. So if you are looking at an 8x10 from a 18mp, 36mp or 60mp file they should all be the same. It is only more obvious because when you zoom in to 100% on 60mp, you are magnifying more than you would at 100% on 36mp. 

Personally, it never made sense to me to downsample, as there seems to be no gain, only a permanent and irreversible loss of potential quality. I can't really comment on PC, but any Mac with Apple Silicon will chew through 60mp files with ease if you give it a decent amount of RAM. Mine shows minimal hiccups even with 1gb film scans from large format. Lightroom makes a jpeg that it works from for this very reason. Unless you are consistently dealing with many hundreds or thousands of images at a time, importing and exporting is over in a matter of seconds. Anyway, that's just my take. 

Edited July 10 by Stuart Richardson

[IkarusJohn]

38 minutes ago, SrMi said:

OP said, "I understand there will be less resolution." My reply was in that context.

I never shoot in reduced resolution, as I believe that higher resolution is more useful, and I can always reduce it in post-production. However,  I don't judge anyone who is happy using the M11 as an 18MP or 36MP camera. 

Even in that context, there are downsides, surely.  You’ve commented often that it’s not pixel binning.  How then does this work?

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Even in that context, there are downsides, surely.  You’ve commented often that it’s not pixel binning.  How then does this work?

The camera resizes the image in firmware, but outputs it in non-demosaiced and still scene-referred form. Apart from the reduced resolution, which was implied, what other downsides are you considering?

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Reduced resolution also means reduced tonality. You are reducing the number of possible tonal and chromatic variations.

That does not make sense.

Are you saying that when you print smaller (lower resolution), you lose tonality?

Are you saying that the 24MP M10s lose tonality compared to the M10Rs?

[IkarusJohn]

10 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The camera resizes the image in firmware, but outputs it in non-demosaiced and still scene-referred form. Apart from the reduced resolution, which was implied, what other downsides are you considering?

It was a serious question.  I had always assumed that Leica chose the 60MP Sony sensor because it was the most recent and best one available, rather than any desire to have 60MP - that was just a side issue.

I’ll take your word for it that there are no downsides to the reduced resolution.  Makes no sense to me, but them I’m not a buyer …

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

It was a serious question.  I had always assumed that Leica chose the 60MP Sony sensor because it was the most recent and best one available, rather than any desire to have 60MP - that was just a side issue.

I’ll take your word for it that there are no downsides to the reduced resolution.  Makes no sense to me, but them I’m not a buyer …

Usually, a sensor with smaller resolution would have more aliasing than a sensor with higher resolution. However, the source of all three M11's resolutions is the same (60 MP), so aliasing should be the same. Using a smaller resolution is, in my opinion, like printing smaller rather than larger.

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

Still don’t see the point, I’m afraid, in putting a 60MP sensor into an M camera.  I see film in my future, when I’m not using my Hasselblad … 🙂

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

Usually, a sensor with smaller resolution would have more aliasing than a sensor with higher resolution. However, the source of all three M11's resolutions is the same (60 MP), so aliasing should be the same. Using a smaller resolution is, in my opinion, like printing smaller rather than larger.

 

 

Correct. It does not mitigate problems like aliasing, crosstalk, motion blur, OOF purple fringing, etc. which are related to pixel size rather than resolution per se. The only advantage I see is reducing file size. 

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

That does not make sense.

Are you saying that when you print smaller (lower resolution), you lose tonality?

Are you saying that the 24MP M10s lose tonality compared to the M10Rs?

That is exactly what I am saying. I think what people often don't realize is that megapixels are not just about resolution. You are not just recording more detail, you are recording more tonal information. A 24mp M10 has 17 million fewer tonal and chromatic samples, and therefore it literally has less tonal information than an M10R. That does not mean an M10 is a bad camera, but it does mean that the M10R has better tonality. Some of that information will be discarded in editing, but it is almost always better to start with more information and get rid of it than it is to start with less information to begin with. This is not just true in digital, it is true in film. 35mm film has dramatically less tonality than medium format, which has less than 4x5, which has less than 8x10 etc. It is especially obvious there, because the only difference is the size of the film used. 

In printing, it is less of a factor as the variations would be hard to notice until the prints were very small. But as a printer, I can tell you that clients perceive small test prints as being too dark. The reason they think this is because they are small and compress all the tones together and it makes the variations smaller and less visible. Think about it, reduce the size of a print enough, it just looks like a black dot. 

Edited July 10 by Stuart Richardson

[costa43]

I started experimenting with different resolutions when I first got the M11-P. I realised that it was just one more thing to consider and did not notice any difference on camera shake, DR or ISO performance so I just stick with the full beans now at 60mp for everything. 

[pgh]

I generally agree.

If I owned an M11 variant (I decided not to) I would only ever use 60mp.

The camera shake issue isn't really helped by the pixel binning. It strikes me a a sort of gimmick - the only advantage in saving space which is too cheap to sacrifice imo.

Upping the ISO to use a faster shutter speed to get a sharp picture also reduces tonality. While it's definitely a better sensor, in my prints I didn't find the overall end advantage compared to the M10 to be anything but marginal for my purposes. 

I don't have speed issues with 100 mp files from my x2d, so I wouldn't even downsize for help there. 

[SrMi]

32 minutes ago, pgh said:

The camera shake issue isn't really helped by the pixel binning.

A reduction in resolution reduces visible motion blur, either by the camera or the subject.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ne314satel]

On 7/9/2025 at 5:08 PM, Jan_t said:

is there any reason not to use the 36MP reduced mode? 

Yes. Two reasons.
The first is obvious - smaller files (although who cares)
The second is more serious - if you shoot with old lenses, then reducing the resolution will give a slightly different rendering. I use reduction for optics from the 40s.

 

Edited July 10 by Ne314satel

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

A reduction in resolution reduces visible motion blur, either by the camera or the subject.

Only because 100% is less magnification.