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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, elmars said:

I think this is a myth. Please look here:

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

It is the experience of dozens of forum members. In theory I agree with Olaf about magnification , reality is otherwise. One thing is overlooked though, due to the smaller sensel size, a smaller motion trajectory can be recorded.And yes, when a motion track crosses between two pixels, it will be recorded, but that is just a percentage; not all tracks cross between pixels, so the intensity of motion blur will be enhanced, plus smaller pixels will record even smaller tracks that cross, adding to the motion blur. 
if you would follow this reasoning, a higher resolution sensor would  not record more detail either. 

[Advertisement]

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

[M11 for me]

vor 24 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

It is the experience of dozens of forum members

Is that now the new science?

I never reported that ecperience here with my M11 or Q3. 

see here Q3 1/60s wide open: Not my image; I just saw it in the Q3 image thread.

 

Edited August 19 by M11 for me
Link added

[M11 for me]

Am 18.8.2025 um 17:20 schrieb NicoleMicole:

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?

Coming bach to the initial post:

I had the M10 and Q2 and at the moment I have the M11 and Q3. I must say that I work a lot in lightroom on my pictures and sometimes I might have done around 100 steps. To me the sensor of the M11 is the best full frame sensor I know and that I ever had. Plus it gives you full flexibility to crop strongly if needed. Regarding the large file sizes I see no issue on my Mac. Lightroom works as it worked with the M10 and with 4 or 6 TB drives there is no space issue either. 

For me there is no doubt that the M11 is clearly supperior over the M10.

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

Is that now the new science?

I never reported that ecperience here with my M11 or Q3. 

No, it is statistics, but it supports my argument that motion blur is nothing more than a specific detail. The two-pixel theory would be valid for any detail. As it is clear that a higher resolution sensor will render more detail this must be valid for motion blur too. This contradiction is caused by the fact that the crossing between two pixels happens on the smaller sensels as well. Ad infinitum.  Making the theory invalid. Of course, as Olaf points out, the effect is enhanced by people disregarding that 100% at a higher resolution leads to more magnification. But that is not the complete situation. As evidenced that if people use in-camera resolution reduction, the enhanced motion blur is still there. 

[M11 for me]

vor 22 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

No, but it supports my argument that motion blur is nothing more than a specific detail. The two-pixel theory would be valid for any detail. As it is clear that a higher resolution sensor will render more detail this must be valid for motion blur as well. This is caused by the fact that the crossing between two pixels happens on the smaller sensels as well. Ad infinitum.  Of course, as Olaf points out, the effect is enhanced by people disregarding that 100% at a higher resolution leads to more magnification. But that is not the complete situation. As evidenced that if people use in-camera resolution reduction, the enhanced motion blur is still there. 

That discussion is not very helpful.

The M11 sensor is still the best sensor on an M camera ever. Without any wink I would clearly go for the M11 and I never have experienced your problems in my practice. We can always speak badly about everything. The advantages outweigh by far.

And that is what the author of this thread asked. Is this correct?

Edited August 19 by M11 for me

[jaapv]

Undoubtedly But sensor quality does not stem from resolution, despite an Internal faction that fondly believes that more must be better. A decision is based on pluses and minuses. Both must be addressed. The author of the thread asked about resolution. So one should be aware of the drawbacks -and then decide. 

[BWColor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Amazing.. Leica lied to us when it promoted the M11 whereas they should never have exceeded 24MP.  That said, 24MP is sufficient for a great majority of what I shoot.  I used a Sony A9 as my primary digital camera over many years.

My M11M allows for me to carry few lenses and crop in post where needed.  It also supplies quite presentable images at high ISO.  I do think that the cost of processing and storage are higher in that you need a faster computer and more/faster storage. Also, some Biogon lenses look great on the M11 and less so on previous generation of cameras.   I don’t have a color M11, but would make the same argument for my A7CR.  Downsizing 60MP and modern noise reduction provide helpful tools when shooting at higher ISO on high MP sensors, but a good argument could be made regarding both extra time in post and expense of high MP files.

Edited August 19 by BWColor

[250swb]

3 hours ago, elmars said:

I think this is a myth. Please look here:

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

I haven't read through the entire thread but something strikes me immediately as an half-assed argument from the contributor @Harout62 but it applies to the whole idea. If you are focusing on something close up, maybe 400mm away, the effect of camera movement on the image may be a fraction in deviation, call it 0.01mm for the sake of argument, but anyway something that's not really noticeable. Now extrapolate that same angel of deviation over half a kilometre and what do you get? It's a frightening 500mm or half a metre in absolutely resolvable M11 blur at 60mp, but the blur doesn't show in a lower pixel camera because the pixels are bigger. If your hand is less steady, or the wind is blowing, or you are in a moving crowd than forces more than a 0.01mm shake magnify that figure again.

[JNK100]

On 8/18/2025 at 4:20 PM, NicoleMicole said:

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!

Although 60mp may not be necessary, it is no real drawback. The IQ is stunning with a good lens if raw is used.

[FrozenInTime]

For many, the SL2-S or SL3-S sensor would have been a better fit than the sensor that landed in the M11.

One stop high ISO noise improvement  https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Leica M11_14,Leica SL3-S_14

Designing M series lenses to resolve high Mpixel counts pushes lens size ever upwards due to more complex optical formulas, with stricter opto-mechanical tolerances requiring bulkier and more robust lens housing and focus mechanisms needed to have a reliable service life.

Larger lenses always compromise the optical viewfinder frames.

Time has come to put in some effort on compact fast lenses; splitting the M system based on use case. 

• EVF + high pixel count + unrestricted lens size.
• EVF + moderate pixel count + computational imaging.
• optical RF + moderate pixel count + high ISO performance. 
• Film cameras.

[pgh]

4 hours ago, elmars said:

I think this is a myth. Please look here:

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

You’re right - it’s better to shoot at 3/4x focal length to be safe.
 

That thread didn’t debunk anything and the photographer who posted about the initial problem is a prolific and accomplished fellow with as strong a knowledge base in actual real applied use as just about anyone on the forum and yet he got sanctimonious and condescending replies. 

Camera shake is about a stop more evident on an m10r/m than on an m10, and about a stop more evident still on the m11. That means when I use an m11 that if I’m at the edge of enough light for an exposure I’m sticking to 1/180 or so and bumping the iso, instead of what I would do on an m10 which is go to 1/90 or even 1/60 and stay at a lower iso. Doing this negatively impacts the IQ gains on the m11 in practice often enough, and there’s a not insignificant amount of users who have recognized the need for IBIS at such resolution. 

[IkarusJohn]

On 8/19/2025 at 5:30 AM, ApoVision said:

I don't understand why anybody would want less resolution

That could take a while.  How much time do you have?

Perhaps the simple answer is it’s pointless.  For almost any print size, 18MP with my Monochrom and 24MP for my SL and M10-D is plenty.  It would be misleading to say there are no downsides to more MP - that is covered elsewhere.  I have a X2D 100C, which has the same pixel pitch as the 60MP M11, but it has IBIS.  An M camera with IBIS is just (another) step too far for me.

Otherwise, I’m relatively agnostic about MP as it isn’t a driver for me - more, less, doesn’t matter, provided there is no downside.  I’d happily look at a 24MP or 40MP M camera.  60P?  Not for me (along with everything else that’s wrong with the M11).

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

It is the experience of dozens of forum members. In theory I agree with Olaf about magnification , reality is otherwise. One thing is overlooked though, due to the smaller sensel size, a smaller motion trajectory can be recorded.And yes, when a motion track crosses between two pixels, it will be recorded, but that is just a percentage; not all tracks cross between pixels, so the intensity of motion blur will be enhanced, plus smaller pixels will record even smaller tracks that cross, adding to the motion blur. 
if you would follow this reasoning, a higher resolution sensor would  not record more detail either. 

Just to add to what Jaap says, and to counter 01af’s earlier post, sure if you print and view an image at “normal” distances, there’s no reason why movement from one pixel to another shoul dbe visible.  But, that’s rather the point of more pixels, isn’t it?  viewing on screen at 200%, large prints and … CROPPING!

Tah dah!

Edit - just to add to the experience data Jaap refers to above, with the Nikon D800E, motion blur was dreadful at ~1/125 shutter speeds due to shutter slap, and that sensor was “only” 37.5MP.  Thankfully, Leica has sorted shutter slap with the M cameras!

Edited August 19 by IkarusJohn

[PGJ]

Yes. In my opinion the 60 MP resolution is worth it. I'm using lenses with this camera that I used with my film Leicas since 1972. My main core: 35, and 50 Summicrons, and the 28 Elmarit are great. I got these in '73 and '74.   That was the same time I got a 200 telyt. (Some of the lenses I'm using are much older.)

The high resolution digital sensor is giving me sharper images than I could have gotten on film.  Even the old lenses are so sharp  that they can shine with this camera.

My normal setup with my M4 is the 35 Summicron. After reading some stories about the Q2, and the introduction of the Q3, with its 28 mm lens, I decided to try emulating that, and carried the M-11 with the 28m f/2.8 Elmarit.   I was very impressed. The Q2 and Q3 can "change focal lengths" by selecting different sections cropped from the full sensor image. The M-11 can do this also in 3 steps. In both cases the camera actually captures a full frame image, but it saves a Jpeg version of a crop of the center of the field.  You get magnification, but the images have fewer pixels in them. 

I can select the same effect from the menu on the M-11, but that doesn't change the frame lines in the optical rangefinder/viewfinder.  It does, however, show up on the rear screen, and also in the electronic Visoflex viewfinder (which I happen to really, really like!) Or, I can just use Photoshop or Lightroom and crop the images to tiny fragments. The lens sharpness holds up, and so does the image.  

The Q3 also has a 60 MP screen, and you can get up to the equivalent of using a 70 mm lens.  When I was using the M-11 with the 28 Elmarit, I would occasionally crop a frame that tight. Maybe even a bit more.

For a while I gave up even carrying a 90 mm lens as I could get very good pictures from cropped sections of shorter lenses.  In comparing shots cropped from a 50mm f/2 Summicron, and an older 90 mm f/4 Elmar, I gained two f/stops of lens speed and got sharper images from the 50. It turned out that the slower 90 required a longer shutter speed, and I was shaking too much during the exposure. It was pretty noticeable.

 

 

 

[elmars]

I don't want to take away anyone's faith here and everyone should deal with the problem of motion blur as they wish. But it's not just that @01af’s  theory makes sense to me, it also corresponds to my experience and my (unscientific) practical test. I described it in my linked review: The degree of camera shake/motion blur depends only on the shutter speed, not on the resolution of the sensor. The visibility of the blur depends on the magnification of the image, which of course becomes more visable if you crop the photo more.

Otherwise, as @M11 for me wrote, the sensor is the best that Leica had or has. That applies in every respect. The SL3-S sensor is only slightly better at high ISO. The sensor of the M10 was really good and I enjoyed shooting with the M10. But the behaviour of the M11 sensor with overexposure alone is a class above. This is a very practical advantage that I often use. As a rule, you don't need a new computer for the M11 either. I used an old MacMini for a long time. It wasn't the size of the files that was a problem, but the new AI functions of Lightroom.

Edited August 20 by elmars

[M11 for me]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

an Internal faction that fondly believes that more must be better

Here things start to get mixed up in a strange way 😅

Then @nicolemicole seems to be out anyway. 

Edited August 20 by M11 for me

[JNK100]

9 hours ago, pgh said:

You’re right - it’s better to shoot at 3/4x focal length to be safe.
 

That thread didn’t debunk anything and the photographer who posted about the initial problem is a prolific and accomplished fellow with as strong a knowledge base in actual real applied use as just about anyone on the forum and yet he got sanctimonious and condescending replies. 

Camera shake is about a stop more evident on an m10r/m than on an m10, and about a stop more evident still on the m11. That means when I use an m11 that if I’m at the edge of enough light for an exposure I’m sticking to 1/180 or so and bumping the iso, instead of what I would do on an m10 which is go to 1/90 or even 1/60 and stay at a lower iso. Doing this negatively impacts the IQ gains on the m11 in practice often enough, and there’s a not insignificant amount of users who have recognized the need for IBIS at such resolution. 

What lens do you feel you need 1/180 sec with an M11?

I am curious because I can use 1/60sec without issue at 50mm. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, JNK100 said:

What lens do you feel you need 1/180 sec with an M11?

I am curious because I can use 1/60sec without issue at 50mm. 

You must have rock solid hands then. Sincere congrats as i'm pretty proud of mine at 70+ but i must set my shutter speeds to 1/(2f)s with high res cameras including of course the M11. Just facts. Better photogs than me go up to 1/(3f)s or even 1/(4f)s on this forum. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgh]

4 hours ago, JNK100 said:

What lens do you feel you need 1/180 sec with an M11?

I am curious because I can use 1/60sec without issue at 50mm. 

50mm.

I have pretty good hands and am middle aged but often I do documentary work and often need to shoot quickly. 

If I only did more still portraiture/still life/landscape maybe I could get away with less. I probably could 1/125, but at 1/60 I would have a sharp image from time to time at best and would not do that as a matter of practice because it’s not worth the risk of the picture getting ruined. And I do consider it ruined, camera shake/softness on digital just doesn’t have the charm it can have on film. 

I’ve had 1/180 even show a little bit of camera shake on my monochrome (40mp) in certain situations. 

If 1/60 on the m11 works for you that’s fantastic, but I’d bet you’re in the minority or use the camera in a different way than M’s are traditionally used. 

Edited August 20 by pgh

[JNK100]

10 minutes ago, pgh said:

50mm.

I have pretty good hands and am middle aged but often I do documentary work and often need to shoot quickly. 

If I only did more still portraiture/still life/landscape maybe I could get away with less. I probably could 1/125, but at 1/60 I would have a sharp image from time to time at best and would not do that as a matter of practice because it’s not worth the risk of the picture getting ruined. And I do consider it ruined, camera shake/softness on digital just doesn’t have the charm it can have on film. 

I’ve had 1/180 even show a little bit of camera shake on my monochrome (40mp) in certain situations. 

If 1/60 on the m11 works for you that’s fantastic, but I’d bet you’re in the minority or use the camera in a different way than M’s are traditionally used. 

It sounds like we are of similar age but take different kind of shots.

I tend to take architecture and cityscape shots and cars so that may account for the discrepancy. 

Thanks for the clarification.