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....Show more →
Thanks for these reports. They are helpful. Which version of the Voigt 15mm f/4.5 did you use? The third version works well even on a Sony camera, so isn't affected much at all by thick cover glass and the 28 summicron II (i.e., latest version) isn't affected much by cover glass either. I would love to see someone test the 21 SEM and 35 cron Asph, which are really affected by cover glass.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for these reports. They are helpful. Which version of the Voigt 15mm f/4.5 did you use? The third version works well even on a Sony camera, so isn't affected much at all by thick cover glass and the 28 summicron II (i.e., latest version) isn't affected much by cover glass either. I would love to see someone test the 21 SEM and 35 cron Asph, which are really affected by cover glass.
Both 21 SEM and 28 Lux are affect by the thicker coverglass. Never tested the latest 28/2 cron.
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.....
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..
Fred Miranda wrote:
Both 21 SEM and 28 Lux are affect by the thicker coverglass. Never tested the latest 28/2 cron.
Interesting, the R5 cover glass must be thinner – 28 Lux at f/5.6 corners look as good as they did on the M10-R and M10M – perhaps at 60mp the differences may be more noticeable.
Also using an adapter that is too short and allows the lens to hit infinity before the hard stop degrades corner performance dramatically. With a shorter adapter like that, the corners from all M lenses look pretty bad on the R5. It's a night and day difference with a perfectly shimmed adapter.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Interesting, the R5 cover glass must be thinner – 28 Lux at f/5.6 corners look as good as they did on the M10-R and M10M – perhaps at 60mp the differences may be more noticeable.
Also using an adapter that is too short and allows the lens to hit infinity before the hard stop degrades corner performance dramatically. With a shorter adapter like that, the corners from all M lenses look pretty bad on the R5. It's a night and day difference with a perfectly shimmed adapter.
It's interesting that the corners hold up more than the mid-zone, so if you only compare the extreme corners, it's not too bad on the Sony.
The 28/1.4 lux has great mid-zone performance wide open (way better than the 35/1.4 FLE and 50/1.4 Lux) but on the A7R IV, it greatly deteriorates.
Apologies for the lighting, it's been cloudy and rainy here but you may be able to see the difference. (focused at center)
highdesertmesa wrote:
Strange, the performance across the frame looks good on the R5 at infinity. I wonder if the adapter is a bit short on Sony that the mid frame suffers on some M lenses before the corners.
I can't answer that as I never tried the R5 before. Not sure if its sensor stack is thinner than the Sony.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Both 21 SEM and 28 Lux are affect by the thicker coverglass. Never tested the latest 28/2 cron.
Yeah, I have the 21 SEM and I had the 28 Lux, but I would love to see how these two and others do on the M11. I think the 21 SEM and the 35 cron Asph are the particularly stringent test for the new M11.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Sorry, I deleted my post since I didn't realize you shot these at f/1.4. I was shooting at f/5.6 with infinity landscape in mind.
I see. Yes, as the lens is stoped down to f/5.6, the induced curvature is masked by the broader DOF.
Here is a comparison at f/5.6. (Sony on the right)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I see. Yes, as the lens is stoped down to f/5.6, the induced curvature is masked by the broader DOF.
Here is a comparison at f/5.6. (Sony on the right)
Gotcha. I'll try it at f/1.4. Here's 5.6 on the R5 focused to center then tilted upward so that horizon was at the bottom of the frame. Left image is the bottom left corner, right image is the bottom center. I don't have an M currently to compare, but I think it's usable for landscape stopped down.
RustyBug wrote:
That's not to say that the "M" is the best camera ... many will debate that for valid reasons. BUT, it is hard to (knowledgably) debate it being the best camera for using M lenses. Others are acceptable to varying degree, no problem there. But, when talking about achieving the optimal from your M lenses, I think the light path to the sensor that Leica has constructed to accompany their lenses is likely the best you can find.
Not sure how I missed this but what a glorious ray of truth concerning a subject about which there are so many falsehoods. Thank you.
rscheffler wrote:
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.
As fast as my fat little fingers can press the button. About 2fps.
If it ever stops raining here (thanks La Nina!) I do intend to do a rough comparison between the lenses/cameras I own for landscape usage. I like the idea of a small lanscape kit but my standards are now pretty high after travelling with the SL2, X1D and GFX100S. I'll still reach for those cameras when it's seroious but it'd be nice to not to carry them when landcsapes aren't the goal. My GFX and X1D kits are about 5kg without bag, tripod or filters. I'm generally Ok with that limit. But it'll be nice to have something around 2.5kg, if possible. The big issue will be filters, which I may have to forego in favour of the ES. Maybe a polariser?
As part of that I will test my 28 'cron V1 and WATE on the M11 and M10R to see if they're different and against the same FOV lenses on the X1D. I was thinking of the following as a M11 kit. WATE, 28 ('cron?), 50 APO, 90 macro Elmar and APO135.
Forgot to mention I may have picked up a APO 50 Summicron with the M11.........
Finally, still just playing around in the house but starting to appreciate the weight difference. I fell of my mountain bike a couple of weeks ago and my right thumb is still very tender. The M11 without Thumbie is less painful to use than the M10R with Thumbie. Weight is biased to the bottom of the camera. Not noticing the weight difference so much as the distribution.
Really want the EVF now.... Can't arrive soon enough.
rscheffler wrote:
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.
flash wrote:
As fast as my fat little fingers can press the button. About 2fps.
Gordon
Thanks. Have you noticed the lag Chris of DPR TV mentioned? He said after making an exposure there was a slight but noticeable lag before the camera would let him make another one. Sounds like this wasn't noticeable for you, but just want to be sure. I believe he was using a preproduction camera, so it might have behaved slightly differently.
genji wrote:
Not sure how I missed this but what a glorious ray of truth concerning a subject about which there are so many falsehoods. Thank you.
Glad you liked it. Thanks.
Imo, lots of folks can make cover glass different thickness ... but, making those variable micro-lenses is a whole 'nother league, for me.
I know I wrote long ago about a future-istic "curved sensor". Well, the sensor may still be flat, but Leica has been making a "curved plane" (oxymoron, I know) out of those varying micro-lens heights. This, to me suggests that higher vector forces of energy are better retained than any uniform plane of micro-lenses could achieve. Alignment follows suit. Since the light exits from the lens IAW with ISL, the "matching" curve of of the micro-lens plane is optical engineering brilliance, imo.
rscheffler wrote:
Have you noticed the lag Chris of DPR TV mentioned? He said after making an exposure there was a slight but noticeable lag before the camera would let him make another one
I did not notice it when using the camera but when I press the shutter release all the time, there is sometimes such a lag. But not always. Also sometimes, the shutter sound is different.
I tried in auto and manual mode, single shot or continuous, reformatted the SD card and the internal memory... Nothing seems to have an impact.
This is not a big deal but we can hope this is the kind of quirks fixed by a future firmware update.
rscheffler wrote:
Another 50? You can never have enough 50s!
Thanks. Have you noticed the lag Chris of DPR TV mentioned? He said after making an exposure there was a slight but noticeable lag before the camera would let him make another one. Sounds like this wasn't noticeable for you, but just want to be sure. I believe he was using a preproduction camera, so it might have behaved slightly differently.
There is a very slight lag between shots. About 2 fps is the maximum I can get mashing the shutter. No different to the M10R/M except the M10R/M cameras slow up after about 7 exposures. The M11 does more than double that at full DNG and many more at lower DNG. Many many more. The M11 is a definite improvement over the M10/R if lots of fast sequential shooting is your thing. But it's not something that would concern me in the slightest, as an M shooter.
The SL2 is better in this regard and I amagine sports cameras don't have any lag at all.
Thanks. I use Canon 1DX series cameras to shoot sports. But I use Leica along with the Canons for events and there are times when I like to do two quick shots because I think someone blinked or their expression improved. And sometimes things can happen quickly at events too, so it's nice to be able to immediately expose another frame or two, without waiting on the camera.
But yeah, in >95% regular use, waiting a fraction of a second longer is fine.
It'll be something that I'll have to experience for myself to determine if it'll be a factor.
pmeheut wrote:
I did not notice it when using the camera but when I press the shutter release all the time, there is sometimes such a lag. But not always. Also sometimes, the shutter sound is different.
I tried in auto and manual mode, single shot or continuous, reformatted the SD card and the internal memory... Nothing seems to have an impact.
This is not a big deal but we can hope this is the kind of quirks fixed by a future firmware update.
I've long noticed with my M240 that it makes different shutter sounds. It's probably not so much the shutter but the gears/motor resetting the shutter. Sometimes it's a little longer, or sounds different. Every once in a while it will make a very different 'squishy' sound. When this happens, I immediately check that the image has been properly captured/exposed. In the past that sound usually signaled a strongly underexposed image. A few years ago the shutter malfunctioned and was replaced, which reduced the number of times that problem has since occurred, but it still occasionally does.
When I tried to determine the M240 release lag time in 'classic' metering mode, I also got inconsistent results. The shutter release makes a definite click sound when transitioning from partially to fully depressed for exposure, which I used as the starting point on the audio waveform timeline. Often the shutter would trip within ~25 milliseconds. But sometimes it would take ~65ms.
