Noise on the M11

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 19.10.2025 um 11:25 schrieb Chris W:

So far, my M11 images shot at ISO 6400/39° are quite badly noisy.

Mine are not. Sure—they are noisier than thosen taken at base ISO ... but definitely not 'badly.'

.

Am 19.10.2025 um 11:25 schrieb Chris W:

I presume this is a function of the larger sensor.

Larger than what?

.

Am 21.10.2025 um 09:22 schrieb Chris W:

The M10 is 24 MP while the M11 is 60 MP, so I DO think there is a difference.

Sure there is a difference: The M11 images have more detail.

.

Am 21.10.2025 um 09:22 schrieb Chris W:

At the normal (zoomed out) viewing distance I can see my M10 frames are clean and sharp, whereas my (noisy) M11 images already look fuzzy and slightly blotchy. I only zoomed in 100 % to confirm.

Maybe your M11 is defective. As a matter of fact, the Leica M11 images are much more detailed and—at ISO 6400/39°—slightly less noisy than those from the Leica M10.

For both cameras, the noise levels at ISO 6400/39° are significantly higher than at base ISO, yet low enough to be no problem for any practical intents and purposes.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgh]

8 hours ago, SrMi said:

I assume you can always switch the M11 to a low-resolution (18MP) mode with a slower shutter speed or use it as a high-resolution, faster-shutter-speed camera when the situation warrants it. I have never done that because the difference of one stop is not significant, especially after AI NR is applied.

You can also just resize in photoshop, because that "feature" is essentially just a baked in photoshop action of less sophistication, which doesn't get you the same effect as a lower resolution sensor. Or, for me it hasn't. I can say that. The M11 on 18 or 36 mode is still not as sharp or stable as an M10 at a given shutter speed in dynamic situations that require settings of say, 1/30 up to 1/180. Things level out around 1/250, but of course that isn't always possible or forcing it can lead to less than preferable IS0 settings. 

Admittedly this is sort of splitting hairs and applicable in marginal use cases, but then, the entire argument of upgrading to an M11 is essentially built on such examples, especially when considering prints as the end output...unless one is regularly printing larger than say, 35-40" and presenting such prints for viewing at close distances as opposed to taking it all in as a piece, sort of thing. 

[pgh]

3 hours ago, 01af said:

As a matter of fact, the Leica M11 images are much more detailed and—at ISO 6400/39°

The question is are they that much more detailed than an M10 shot at around ISO 2000 or so. At that point, it becomes a lot harder to split the difference imo, and that's the more applicable comparison given in any situation where you're cranking up the M11 ISO simply to get a faster shutter speed for a sharp image.

[John Black]

To clean up M10 files, try DXO's Pure Raw.  It can't fix a bum exposure, but it can clean up the noise quite nicely.  

[Chris W]

12 hours ago, 01af said:

Larger than what?

.

 

60mpx is larger than 24mpx.

My M11 isn't defective. It is actually a common agreement that 24mpx sensors often deliver cleaner files in low light than 60-100mpx sensors.

I'm just learning how to use my M11, best practice, compared the M240 and M10 I previously used.

[SrMi]

35 minutes ago, Chris W said:

60mpx is larger than 24mpx.

My M11 isn't defective. It is actually a common agreement that 24mpx sensors often deliver cleaner files in low light than 60-100mpx sensors.

That is true only when pixel peeping, which is irrelevant for comparison purposes.

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, SrMi said:

That is true only when pixel peeping, which is irrelevant for comparison purposes.

I can see noise with the image at normal size.

If you watch any review of a 50 to 100mpx camera the reviewer says high ISO can be particularly noisy.

They recommend the SL2-S over the SL2 or SL3 for that reason.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Chris W said:

I can see noise with the image at normal size.

If you watch any review of a 50 to 100mpx camera the reviewer says high ISO can be particularly noisy.

They recommend the SL2-S over the SL2 or SL3 for that reason.

SL2-S has a different sensor technology than SL2, that is why you see the difference. There is very little difference between SL2-S, SL3-S and SL3 (I own all of them).

[Chris W]

Well just about every camera reviewer reports better high ISO performance with 24mpx cameras than higher ISO.

I had a ton of not very nice noise on my X1D2 (50mpx).

Sigma FP-L:

'ISO Noise Performance - Noise is well controlled, and remains low, with good levels of detail, up to ISO3200, where detail starts to drop off. At ISO6400 detail drops off further, and noise/grain starts to appear. '

[01af]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Chris W:

vor 15 Stunden schrieb 01af:

Am 19.10.2025 um 11:25 schrieb Chris W:

I presume this is a function of the larger sensor.

Larger than what?

60 MP is larger than 24 MP.

No, it's not.

60 MP is more than 24 MP. But the 60-MP sensor is no larger than the 24-MP sensor. Both are the same size, hence basically same noise levels.

.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Chris W:

It is actually a common agreement that 24-MP sensors often deliver cleaner files in low light than 60-100-MP sensors.

This is no common agreement but a common misconception.

.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Chris W:

I'm just learning how to use my M11, best practice, compared the M (Typ 240) and M10 I previously used.

There is no difference in best practices ... well, except that due to higher noise levels, the M (Typ 240) shouldn't be used at ISO settings beyond ISO 3200/36°.

.

vor einer Stunde schrieb Chris W:

If you watch any review of a 50 to 100 MP camera the reviewer says high ISO can be particularly noisy.

That's correct—but not limited to 50 to 100 MP cameras. In fact, any digital camera will become pretty noisy at high ISO.

.

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Chris W:

Well, just about every camera reviewer reports better high-ISO performance with 24-MP cameras [at] higher ISO.

Not every reviewer, only those who either don't know how to conduct a proper comparison or just parrot other reviewers.

Let me report that at ISO 6400/39°, the 24-MP images from the Leica M10 and the 60-MP images from the Leica M11 have basically the same noise level (as expected due to the sensors being the same size). It's clearly higher than at base ISO but still acceptably low and easy to deal with in post-processing. When scrutinizing very carefully then the M11's noise appears even slightly less by a hair.

So I have no idea what you are complaining about.

[pgh]

18 minutes ago, 01af said:

So I have no idea what you are complaining about.

I’m not OP but given the marketing lingo and discussion around the sensor I was not impressed when I’ve used m11 in such circumstances. The sensor (as most do) shows off advantages more in optimal lighting conditions, but when used in the (for many) more common marginal lighting situations the advantages become rather academic and seriously beg the question of whether an upgrade is worth it.

If one is a pure landscape, still life and studio photographer always working with good light and shooting for large, large prints the m11 sensor will deliver more realizable and consistent benefits, but at the same time, it’s sort of hard for me understand buying the M if those are the primary uses, since other options do better still. On the other hand, the M is a decent enough “only one camera” camera solution and does save you a few grams while hiking over an SL or hassy X. But just a few. 
 

People can argue about it how they use the camera and if they are satisfied with it which is personal, but what’s clear is the diminished to nonexistent advantage in lower light scenarios. No need to defend the m11 here, the results don’t back it. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Chris W said:

Well just about every camera reviewer reports better high ISO performance with 24mpx cameras than higher ISO.

No serious reviewer would claim that. For a serious review site, subscribe to Sean Read's reviews.

You can also consult noise/DR measurement sites such as P2P.

The difference in noise is mainly determined by the sensor technology used and the sensor size, not by pixel size.

Edited October 23 by SrMi

[frame-it]

15 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The difference in noise is mainly determined by the sensor technology used and the sensor size, not by pixel size.

yes, and also people not exposing correctly  

[01af]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb pgh:

... but when used in the (for many) more common marginal lighting situations the advantages become rather academic and seriously beg the question of whether an upgrade is worth it.

That's right—the resolution advantage of the 60-MP sensor, compared to the M10's 24-MP sensor, effectively becomes smaller at higher ISO settings. But:

• The 60-MP sensor's effective detail resolution never gets lower than the 24-MP sensor's.
• The 60-MP sensor's noise level never gets higher than the 24-MP sensor's.
• There are way more shooting scenarios besides landscapes/still life in bright light and street/people in poor light where a rangefinder camera will shine.
• The Leica M11 has way more advantages over older digital M models than just a higher pixel count.

Edited October 23 by 01af

[marchyman]

7 hours ago, 01af said:

60 MP is more than 24 MP. But the 60-MP sensor is no larger than the 24-MP sensor. Both are the same size, hence basically same noise levels.

Not the same noise levels.  Each has the same size sensor but the sensels on the 24-MP camera are larger and will capture more photons at the same exposure value than the 60-MP camera. That makes for an increased the S/N ratio resulting in less noise.

It's the reason a full frame 24-MP camera typically does better than an APS-C 24-MP camera.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, marchyman said:

Not the same noise levels.  Each has the same size sensor but the sensels on the 24-MP camera are larger and will capture more photons at the same exposure value than the 60-MP camera. That makes for an increased the S/N ratio resulting in less noise.

It's the reason a full frame 24-MP camera typically does better than an APS-C 24-MP camera.

The reason an APS-C 24MP camera fares worse that the 24MP full frame is the larger sensor of full frame that collects more light. Pixel size does not matter for noise when looking at the same output size.

This is all basic knowledge.

[01af]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb marchyman:

Each has the same size sensor but the sensels on the 24-MP camera are larger and will capture more photons at the same exposure value than the 60-MP camera.

Right.

.

vor 15 Stunden schrieb marchyman:

That makes for an increased the S/N ratio resulting in less noise.

Wrong.

For some unintelligible reason you keep ignoring the fact that 60 mio pixels are more than 24 mio pixels. And more pixels for the same image result in less noise. This counteracts the effect of smaller pixels having more noise. The two effects of pixels being smaller and more numerous cancel each other out. With equal sensor sizes, the 24-MP camera will capture the same amount of photons at the same exposure value as the 60-MP camera.

.

vor 15 Stunden schrieb marchyman:

It's the reason a full-frame 24-MP camera typically does better than an APS-C 24-MP camera.

Wrong again.

As SrMi already pointed out, the reason for the full-frame camera typically doing better than an APS-C camera is the larger sensor size. It does not matter if the larger sensor's pixels are bigger or more numerous—it will do better in any case.

.

vor 14 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

This is all basic knowledge.

Indeed it is.

Edited October 24 by 01af

[Photoworks]

On 10/20/2025 at 3:34 AM, Chris W said:

Back to noise...

It's unfortunate because ISO 6400 is quite often needed for indoor photography and events.

The SL2-S doesn't look a lot better, but when it was launched a lot of Youtubers claimed it was a'low light monster'.

 

Do you expect? I grew up on film, and 6400 ISO to me looks ok.

On selected images, I use DxO PureRaw. It will clean up without changing the images like LrC or Topaz. You may want to try it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Chris W]

I used to regularly shoot Tri-X 400 at ISO800 in low light. I'm not big on grain and always remove it from digital film simulation presets.

Being berated by a lot of posters, but all I'm asking for is help with best practices. My M10 was intuitive, but the M11 is a bit more complex to get right IMO.

[marchyman]

Several comments saying my comment

That makes for an increased the S/N ratio resulting in less noise.

is incorrect.   Did my use of the word "sensel" (not sensor) instead of pixel cause confusion.

This article is about microscopy, but the science is the same: https://andor.oxinst.com/learning/view/article/when-bigger-pixels-rule-pixel-size-and-photon-collection-efficiency

About half way down the page you'll see the section on S/N comparisons where

Quote

Here we compare 2 cameras with all factors the same (QE, read noise, dark current) other than their pixel size and compare the effect of pixel size on relative the signal to noise performance as light of a given illumination falls on each sensor.

Larger pixels have a better S/N.