pmeheut wrote:
One think I like about the M11 is the weight difference. Even more with the right lens: M10 + 50/1.4 ASPH = around 1kg, M11black + 50/1.5 Voigt: slightly more than 700g.
I am actually not sure yet how I feel about that...
I eg. am certainly not happy with the (in my eyes excessive) combined weight of the SL and the native Leica glass.
But as M-lenses tend to be small and light I kind of like and am OK with the heft of the M...
Similarly I would also be OK with the body of a Leica CL (403g) being a bit more solid...
SlowDriver wrote:
But as M-lenses tend to be small and light I kind of like and am OK with the heft of the M...
I'll get more acquainted with the body but this morning, I shot a few pictures with both combinations and did not notice any difference in stability. More than 700g is heavy enough in my hands but every gram I can save on my shoulders or neck all day is welcome.
Jan 18, 2022 at 09:54 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
flash wrote:
The SL series has thin cover glass. Not as thin as the M but half of the Sony and three times than the older Nikon DSLRs. They also have a modified microlens array to improve M glass usage. They're the best besides a Kolari modified sensor.
Leica mention a new cover glass bonding process in the M11 release but don't specify thickness. From memory the SL was 1mm and Sony was 2mm. M's were about 0.6mm. I'd have to look it up to confirm exact numbers.
Gordon
As I understand it the M8 was .5mm (and really too thin), and all M cameras since then have been .8 to .9 mm but the effect of the glass can be different depending on the type of glass. I think the SL cameras are about 1.1 or 1.2 mm, and Sony is about 2.4mm, and Nikon Z cameras are close to Sony but a bit thinner something like 1.8 to 2.2. It seems Leica M sensors just have the glass glued directly on the sensor, and Sony and Nikon have glass in front of the sensor and glass glued to the sensor. I'm no sure about SL cameras whether they have glass in front of the sensor as well as glass glued to the sensor. Leica seems to be claiming that with the M11 they have thin glass (perhaps two types of glass--one for UV filtering and one for IR filtering) glued directly on the sensor. Whether it is thinner, thicker, or the same as previous M sensors doesn't seem to be clear.
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I understand it the M8 was .5mm (and really too thin), and all M cameras since then have been .8 to .9 mm but the effect of the glass can be different depending on the type of glass. I think the SL cameras are about 1.1 or 1.2 mm, and Sony is about 2.4mm, and Nikon Z cameras are close to Sony but a bit thinner something like 1.8 to 2.2. It seems Leica M sensors just have the glass glued directly on the sensor, and Sony and Nikon have glass in front of the sensor and glass glued to the sensor. I'm no sure about SL cameras whether they have glass in front of the sensor as well as glass glued to the sensor. Leica seems to be claiming that with the M11 they have thin glass (perhaps two types of glass--one for UV filtering and one for IR filtering) glued directly on the sensor. Whether it is thinner, thicker, or the same as previous M sensors doesn't seem to be clear. ...Show more →
That could be right. The M8 had no IR filter to keep the cover glass thin and that backfired for them as they didn't disclose the effects to customers until after cameras were shipped. Lenses need IR filters. M9 had a thin IR filter and still benifited from an IR cut filter although many were happy without them. It was still pretty thin though because lots of them cracked (I had two replaced for this reason. People forgot about the cracking once the delamination thing started. The M (240) essentially eliminated the need for IR filters but some argued that older lenses didn't perform as well (I agree). Things improved with the M10 for older lenses and were back a bit for the M10-R. Now the M11 is supposed to improve again.
I pick up my M11 this morning. I'll let you know.
Monochrom cameras have no CFA and so filter depth hasn't been an issue. They have noticably higher accutance especially at the corners. The M8 has surprisingly good mono conversions with lots of bite. The thinner coverglass would go some way to explaining why it's such a good mono camera.
I'm not too obsessed by the exact numbers but if my 'cron ASPH V1 and MATE improve on the M11 I'll be very pleased.
I've had mine a couple days now, first time leica owner so still getting used to her. Things I'm loving so far, the jpeg files, alot nicer than my riii, simplistic use, 36 and 60meg files and the menu system, you can tell its designed for photographers. Dynamic range seems to be similar to my riii but won't know how much shadow recovery is possible until I can get them into light room. The internal memory has already come in handy
Finding it hard to focus accurately, maybe with time and the fact I only have a cv 75 heliar till next week? I do wear plus 1 reading glasses so dont know if that isn't helping, have tried with and without? prefer without. The shutter release is quite hard, more than I anticipated.
Anyway am really enjoying it and I can understand what alot of people go on about the M's
Paul.S wrote:
Finding it hard to focus accurately, maybe with time and the fact I only have a cv 75 heliar till next week?
If this is your first rangefinder, learning how to focus accurately takes some time. And a 75 is not the easiest to start with.
Paul.S wrote:
I do wear plus 1 reading glasses so dont know if that isn't helping, have tried with and without? prefer without.
I shot without glasses too. For a long time, I did not need anything but now, I do no see perfectly at 2 meters which is the virtual distance of the patch in the M finder.
So I added a +1 diopter correction and it helped a lot. It cost too much and you must be careful to order the M10 version which is slightly bigger but maybe this is the solution for you.
P.S: I ordered several online, tested them and returned the one I did not need because it was hard to know the exact correction for my eyes.
Paul.S wrote:
Finding it hard to focus accurately, maybe with time and the fact I only have a cv 75 heliar till next week?
pmeheut wrote:
If this is your first rangefinder, learning how to focus accurately takes some time. And a 75 is not the easiest to start with.
+1
Also you should test whether the lens is correctly calibrated to the rangefinder. Easiest might be to put the camera on a tripod, use live view to focus on something detailed with good contrast, then check the rangefinder patch if it's aligned properly.
If it's not, then when shooting with the rangefinder you need to 'offset' the alignment by that amount. It sounds like a hassle but with practice it's pretty easy. Unfortunately rangefinder mis-calibration with non-Leica lenses is a bit trickier to fix because it's not something you can simply send to Leica, unless you're certain it's the camera that is causing the error.
Paul.S wrote:
I do wear plus 1 reading glasses so dont know if that isn't helping, have tried with and without? prefer without.
pmeheut wrote:
I shot without glasses too. For a long time, I did not need anything but now, I do no see perfectly at 2 meters which is the virtual distance of the patch in the M finder.
So I added a +1 diopter correction and it helped a lot. It cost too much and you must be careful to order the M10 version which is slightly bigger but maybe this is the solution for you.
P.S: I ordered several online, tested them and returned the one I did not need because it was hard to know the exact correction for my eyes.
Definitely buy the eyepiece correction lens. I'm slightly nearsighted and it helped with seeing the RF patch clearly (I don't remember which strength I bought, but maybe only -0.5 or -1).
There is sometimes the recommendation with longer lenses to use one of the viewfinder magnifiers, but at least my experience with these was not positive. It's such a hassle to screw it onto the viewfinder, and if a correction lens is installed on the viewfinder eyepiece, you have to remove it first. IMO too many fiddly steps that can result in dropping and losing the correction lens. But I also tend to change lenses frequently while out shooting. I also dislike how the magnifier sticks out and can kind of poke you in the eye because you can't push your face against the camera like in normal use.
The technical specs of the M11 shows the native viewfinder diopter is -0.5 (the same as other M cameras). If your glasses are +1, then you will need a +1.5 correction lens. And yes, make sure you buy the one for the M10. M240 and older are slightly smaller.
I have the 1.4x magnifier but cannot remember the last time I used it. I find it extremely uncomfortable because basically it is a short tube that can poke you in the eye!
flash wrote:
When I shot Canon (many eons ago), we'd use the mRAW settings at wedding receptions for dancing etc and then the full raw for the serious stuff. Even then it sped up the workflow after the event. Files moved and loaded quicker. It was a noticable benifit. It's a feature I've missed in other systems.
Likely though Leica need to appeal to the few who already think the M10R files are too big. There will be some marketing in there for sure. Plus we're all talking about it. Exactly what a camera release wants.
Finally it allows Leica to simplify their range. If this tech moves to the SL then we won't have a SL3-S. Just an SL3. Less stuff to make the easier it is, especially with the current supply chain issues.
I see the advantages. My question should've been... Why rely on a relatively archaic method of achieving the feature when it's something software handles just as efficiently? The sensor has to be clocked for three different reads, the camera has to understand three different bayer interpretations to produce accurate color, and it still has to do the same amount of averaging to smooth out the pixels a pure software implementation would have to accomplish. Pixel binning still has its place in smaller high-res sensors and some video implementation (though the Z6II and a7IV are clear indications that's changing), but it seems like an odd choice to me here. I guess you do get longer bursts with the binned files before filling the buffer. That should be handy for the action M-shooter.
Maybe Gordon can test if selecting M and S DNG options results in more images than 60MP before the buffer fills? IIRC the buffer allows ~15 60MP DNGs. I haven't heard/read reports of more images at the smaller sizes, but also could have missed it.
I assumed the downsizing would be done post capture in software by the camera from full 60MP exposures. To me that would seem slightly more processor intensive than working with 'normal' 60MP files.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe Gordon can test if selecting M and S DNG options results in more images than 60MP before the buffer fills? IIRC the buffer allows ~15 60MP DNGs. I haven't heard/read reports of more images at the smaller sizes, but also could have missed it.
I assumed the downsizing would be done post capture in software by the camera from full 60MP exposures. To me that would seem slightly more processor intensive than working with 'normal' 60MP files.
I'm pretty sure you get more images before the buffer is full in M-DNG and S-DNG modes. That along with smaller file sizes are the main advantages of doing this in-camera.
Desmolicious wrote:
I have the 1.4x magnifier but cannot remember the last time I used it. I find it extremely uncomfortable because basically it is a short tube that can poke you in the eye!
Part of the problem is the eye point or exit pupil or whatever it is that makes you have to line up just right, and get real close to maximize the view through the magnifier/viewfinder stack.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe Gordon can test if selecting M and S DNG options results in more images than 60MP before the buffer fills? IIRC the buffer allows ~15 60MP DNGs. I haven't heard/read reports of more images at the smaller sizes, but also could have missed it.
I assumed the downsizing would be done post capture in software by the camera from full 60MP exposures. To me that would seem slightly more processor intensive than working with 'normal' 60MP files.
I stopped at 80 sDNG raws in continuous high. Camera was happy to keep going. Probably the only time I'll use that.....
Had the camera about an hour. No new Visoflex yet. The older one does NOT work on the M11. I did get to play with one in the store. It looks fine but it fogged up because I was wearing a mask so I'll have to save my opinions until I get mine.
I like dense cameras. Any concerns about the black M11 feeling not as substantial are unfounded. It still feels incredibly solid. It's noticably lighter than my M10R but it's not a light camera. Nor does it feel so. Which lens you put on makes more difference. Light if I put on my CV 50mm 1.5. Less so with a 'lux BC. My 90 cron is in for calibration and I haven't yet tried my 135 APO but I don't think balance will be a problem.
The shutter sound. How is this even a thing? Yep. It's a bit different. It's not louder. Just a fraction of a second longer. Quieter than my M10 regular. If this is what people think is an issue I have lost faith in humans as an intelligent species.
Same for the start up speed. Less than two seconds. I can't tell much difference from my M10R. Mind you this is without a card in the M11 where it uses the internal storage, Reading an SD card may slow things down a fraction. And for the start up click? So what? It's a non event. Live view is instant on/off though.
No comment on IQ. It's only been an hour. Calibration is perfect out of the box, which is nice. Charged in the car via USBC on the way home. Win there!. Battery looks like the same size as the M240. Have ordered one spare rather than the three I have for the M10R.
Click wheel custom button is great. Still working out my preference. No LENR option in the list which is a shame. Likely profile selection for the top button.
Other than that, it's a digital M, with all that entails. I've ordered a couple more Thumbies (I'm keeping my M10R and M) but strangely don't miss it too much. Maybe the weight is a thing after all..
Congrats! Gordon. Hopefully will get my camera, grip, EVF(decide give it a try for new LV implementation) this week. I default using grip on M. I prefer it to a thumb up. Have to go with black grip on silver camera for now.
I really hope this is a sigma FPL in e shutter mode. How is the delay/black out in E shutter?
zhangyue wrote:
Congrats! Gordon. Hopefully will get my camera, grip, EVF(decide give it a try for new LV implementation) this week. I default using grip on M. I prefer it to a thumb up. Have to go with black grip on silver camera for now.
I really hope this is a sigma FPL in e shutter mode. How is the delay/black out in E shutter?
Much, much shorter than the M10. Shutter sounds exactly the same. Image reappears pretty much straight after shutter finishes. Maybe 1/2 a second? Not as fast as the SL2 but I don't think it's an issue for an M camera.
Sounds that will do. m240/m10 didnt. This is a good platform suddenly for adapting glasses (with tilt EVF)
finger crossed.
flash wrote:
Much, much shorter than the M10. Shutter sounds exactly the same. Image reappears pretty much straight after shutter finishes. Maybe 1/2 a second? Not as fast as the SL2 but I don't think it's an issue for an M camera.
Leica Fotos is working much better. Transferring pictures to the iPhone/iPad is much easier and faster. While testing a few things on a tripod, I used them and then AirDropped them to the Mac. Compared to the M10, this was much better. Still some bugs but it is usable
GPS using the iPhone is marked as "not yet available" for the M11
I compared the resolutions: 60 Mpix shows really more than 36 Mpix upsized either with Photoshop or Gigapixel AI.
36Mpix does not seem to contain more informations than the M10 24 Mpix but the rendering is so different, the M10 having more micro-contrast that I cannot say for sure.
Sensor does not seem better than the M10 with wide-angle lenses in the corners. I would say a bit worse but nothing significant. I tried with the Voigt 15mm/4.5 and the current 28mm Summicron.
I lack time to prepare and post pictures but if someone wants the DNG files, let me know.
Another aspect to the shutter sound question is the immediacy or lack of delay that you got in the film Ms. Almost like a leaf shutter. I don't have mine yet, but I have to assume this is gone. Used to be played up as a feature in the Leica literature. I'm sure I will easily rationalize away the significance once I use the camera.
It will probably depend on if you can notice a difference between ~20 milliseconds (film M) and ~75 milliseconds. I'm using 75ms as a ballpark based on timing of my M240 in live view, which the M11 is always in due to the new metering system, even if the display is off.
Apparently Sean Reid has published lag times for the M11, for those with a subscription to his site.
My concern remains how quickly one can take another photo in single frame advance after the first one. The slightly drawn-out shutter sound, compared to previous cameras in 'classic' metering mode, is what it is and I'm sure most will get used to it.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe Gordon can test if selecting M and S DNG options results in more images than 60MP before the buffer fills? IIRC the buffer allows ~15 60MP DNGs. I haven't heard/read reports of more images at the smaller sizes, but also could have missed it.
I assumed the downsizing would be done post capture in software by the camera from full 60MP exposures. To me that would seem slightly more processor intensive than working with 'normal' 60MP files.
flash wrote:
I stopped at 80 sDNG raws in continuous high. Camera was happy to keep going. Probably the only time I'll use that.....
(with tilt EVF)