Leica M11: Is the 60MP Sensor Worth the Hype?

[NicoleMicole]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been eyeing the Leica M11 for a while now, especially with its impressive 60MP sensor and classic rangefinder design. But I'm curious—does the jump in resolution truly enhance image quality, or is it more about the Leica allure? I've read mixed reviews, with some praising the detail and others questioning the necessity.

For those who've used the M11, how does it compare to its predecessors like the M10 or M10-R in real-world shooting? Is the higher resolution noticeable in everyday photography, or does it mainly shine in controlled studio settings?

Also, any thoughts on the M11's handling and ergonomics? Does the added resolution affect its performance or user experience?

Looking forward to hearing your experiences and insights!

[jaapv]

Short answer: no. For the type of photography that an M is intended for 24 MP is more than ample and lacks the drawbacks of high-resolution sensors. 

[Topsy]

I'm plenty happy with the 18 that my M9s have.

[BruceRH]

I had an M10-R prior to my M11-P.

The larger sensor allows you to carry fewer lenses if you so desire because you can crop quite a bit. The M11 has a larger capacity battery. With the M10-R I always carried an extra battery, with the M11-P, I do not need to, battery life is much better. Then there is the USB C charging. For me, the M11-P was a much better option, YMMV.

[ApoVision]

Short answer: yes, absolutely, IQ is increased. The newer Leica lenses can deal with this sensor and resolve more detail. Question is whether you want/need such detail or not (to print in large size or to crop). I don't understand why anybody would want less resolution (i.e., less information) than the current 60MP, other than for cost reasons (camera body and storage/CPU/GPU requirements). If you have the money, don't buy an old camera.

[pedaes]

3 hours ago, NicoleMicole said:

Also, any thoughts on the M11's handling and ergonomics? Does the added resolution affect its performance or user experience?

The M11 handles just as M10 does, just like a digital M. The larger battery is great. For general use I leave output at mid mp's, but I know two others with M11's who feel max is best.See what works best for you. There are occasions when you will not want the 'power saving' because of the wake up delay, but I have a user profile to switch to for those times.

Edited August 18 by pedaes

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M11 is unique, to me, for other reasons than resolution. It is the first serious attempt at a modern M camera. The only one i can use easily as both a rangefinder and a mirrorless camera. Also the only one allowing me to use legacy lenses the same way as modern ones without red edge or other issues. Main milestone in Leica history since the M3. Not a perfectly modern camera yet, it lacks some basic refinements to work like a true Leica M, especially IBIS to shoot at slow shutter speeds the same way as i used to do with film, but it is another story.

[satijntje]

The M11 sensor is the main reason why I switched from M10-R to M11.
When I first saw the images out of the M11 I thought they were coming from a MF Hasselblad.
 

[costa43]

I don’t think you will notice the resolution bump in everyday shooting that much between an M11/M10R/M10 unless it involves printing fairly large. On a screen or small print, the differences are nuanced, those with a trained eye will see better colour tonality and detail at normal magnification but for the average person, I really think 24mp is sufficient. I was fine with my M9P at 18mp for the size of prints I tend to do. Some people just want the very best quality though even if it’s not necessarily needed for their use case and for that, the M11 at 60mp is as good a full frame sensor for stills photography as there has even been.

Megapixels are just one variable though and there is more to a sensor than its native resolution. In my experience with M cameras thus far, the M11 has the strongest sensor from a technical perspective. For me, Its biggest strengths are the base ISO of 64, the excellent dynamic range and the latitude you have in post. You can really beat it up before it falls apart. Not quite to a Monochrom sensor level but for a colour camera, it’s robust. I also like that I can take pictures at the beach in midday sun at f1.4 with that electronic shutter and low base ISO.

Other quality of life upgrades over the M10 generation are very strong battery life, USB C charging, internal memory and although I rarely use it, off sensor metering. 
 

 

 

[elmars]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb NicoleMicole:

I've been eyeing the Leica M11 for a while now, especially with its impressive 60MP sensor and classic rangefinder design. But I'm curious—does the jump in resolution truly enhance image quality, or is it more about the Leica allure? I've read mixed reviews, with some praising the detail and others questioning the necessity.

For those who've used the M11, how does it compare to its predecessors like the M10 or M10-R in real-world shooting? Is the higher resolution noticeable in everyday photography, or does it mainly shine in controlled studio settings?

Also, any thoughts on the M11's handling and ergonomics? Does the added resolution affect its performance or user experience?

Looking forward to hearing your experiences and insights!

My review of the M11 sensor ist perhaps helptful:

Summary:

... high resolution is not the most important thing to me. More important is, that the new sensor (rumor said it is built by Sony) gives extremely torturable data, the files are extremely good to handle. I very rarely had problems with highlight recovery. The files are a pleasure in post processing. Color is very good and pleasing to my eyes, especially skin tones - but that is a matter of taste. And the pictures have the right amount of “pop”. I guess Leica has given it a contrast curve similar to the M9.

 

Edited August 19 by elmars

[LocalHero1953]

16 hours ago, NicoleMicole said:

does the jump in resolution truly enhance image quality, or is it more about the Leica allure?

It's not just Leica that sells cameras with high MP sensors, and some have more. So this isn't a Leica allure question.
If you believe that higher resolution means higher image quality, then the more pixels the better. I don't.

High resolution has one significant advantage in allowing substantial cropping. I have the Q3 43, and occasionally crop substantially when I have no choice (I can't get closer, I have no time to get closer etc). It's not how I like to work, but it's handy. Of course this is nothing to do with image quality.

Edited August 19 by LocalHero1953

[250swb]

I need to print larger, blah, blah, blah. If it were so we'd have loads and loads of pictures showing living room walls filled by vast prints from floor to ceiling that even the cat and dog can appreciate and judge in their own way. Or we'd have 'look at my photos on billboards' showing in a town near you.

Size is something to brag about on a photo forum just as it is in a bar. And the size of the M11 sensor has now gone beyond the natural functionality of the camera in the ergonomics and user experience and towards a different type of camera. If you want that many pixels an SL-3 is the most logical choice given it has natural features that allows it to handle them. It has IBIS which the M11 desperately needs, it is also a camera more naturally suited to a tripod which M users can often be heard wailing about, and to bring it all together it has zoom lenses so we don't get the trinity of cropped photos, with megapixel softness, and unsteady motion blur. And an M10 with 24mp saves all the worry about those things, and with the money saved you could buy that lens you don't have, you know the one that's missing, the one that means you have to crop your photos.

[pgh]

No. It’s not. I wouldn’t trade my m10 for an m11 for free if I had the chance. It fixes things that aren’t broken and is just overall just overkill for the form factor.

if you need that level of resolution - ie if you are regularly printing larger than 30” - you will be better served by the SL3 or some other camera with in body stabilization. It’s more resolution than is suitable for an M style body and any gains in image quality are often offset by the fact that you need to use higher isos more often to achieve the shutter speeds fast enough to handhold the camera and get sharp images. In a lot of light you won’t need to do this, and you will get beautiful files, but for me it’s not worth it and not always what I shoot. It’s better thought of as a sort of slow landscape camera in my mind - which is great, but not really how I think of a Leica M and not catering to the form of it.

edit - different words to exactly agree with the above post. 

Edited August 19 by pgh

[Viv]

Better IQ, more scope for cropping so fewer lenses in the bag.

So I say "yes".

[lct]

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

[...] And an M10 with 24mp saves all the worry about those things, and with the money saved you could buy that lens you don't have [...]

Usure whom would pay Leica prices for such a camera. There is the 2nd hand market for that. Or Pixii perhaps?

[250swb]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Usure whom would pay Leica prices for such a camera. There is the 2nd hand market for that. Or Pixii perhaps?

Leica prices are Leica prices whether new or secondhand, and given the discontinued M10 was part of the OP's question I imagine they already know it would be secondhand. If you think the Pixii would be reliable then yes suggest that by all means but the price is very close between a new Pixii and a secondhand M10.

[jaapv]

22 hours ago, ApoVision said:

Short answer: yes, absolutely, IQ is increased. The newer Leica lenses can deal with this sensor and resolve more detail. Question is whether you want/need such detail or not (to print in large size or to crop). I don't understand why anybody would want less resolution (i.e., less information) than the current 60MP, other than for cost reasons (camera body and storage/CPU/GPU requirements). If you have the money, don't buy an old camera.

That is not quite how it works. Excerpt from Roger Cicala's (Lensrentals) blog.

Quote

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 reasons not to want 60 MP:  

Because of the enhanced motion blur you need to shoot at double the shutter speed, especially as M cameras do not have IBIS, purple fringing is considerably more prevalent, focussing is more critical and noise behaviour worse. 

Quite apart from larger files which demands more storage space and produces slower postprocessing times, especially in the AI bits. 

And you cannot even reproduce the larger amount of detail in print or on most screens. (Well, you could spend 4000 $ on the newest Dell 8K one) 

Apart from cropping and specialised applications, which are better done with an SL3 or medium format, rangefinder photography has its sweet spot in MP ranges between 16 and 30 MP. 24 is ideal, 18 nearly as good.

 

[masjah]

Reason for me not to buy an M11: I need image stabilisation because of a worsening tremor, so any digital M is now out for me.

I need a lightweight camera for when I don't/can't take my SL2 + R-L adapter + R lens portfolio. For this I need a Q3 + Leica Perspective Control - not a Q3 43 because I need to be able go wide to do architecture. Then 60MP is useful because it facilitates cropping for when I do want to use longer equivalent focal lengths on the Q3. 

As I see it therefore, for me, the logic for 60MP on a Q3 is inexorable.

What I would not need to do is to swap my SL2 for an SL3 for 60MP, since I've got the lenses to sort out the focal length without having to crop for this reason.

 

[elmars]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

Because of the enhanced motion blur you need to shoot at double the shutter speed

I think this is a myth. Please look here:

This fits also to my practical test in my review linked above.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

Theory and practice... Myths for some are reality to others.