It shouldn’t be related to where your subject located on the sensor but how many horizontal line the subject (you care) takes on sensor.
I believe most sensor if not all will scan horizontally line by line. For m11, 9528x6328.(roughly, the sensor may have more pixel than these) Each line will have about 1/63280 S roughly. This make 1/16000S exposure possible.
So for non moving subject, e shutter is very usable for 1/10S read out with decent care. For example: hand hood landscape.
The key for me is not if it is usable. It is more like if Leica will drop bit in this mode like early Sony did or how much shutter delay and black out before next capture.
I hope it is get less delay given no mechanical shutter movement related but may not the case in real implementation.
I guess I have to find out by myself when I get my hands on one. Hopefully soon
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is great. Thanks for your thoughts.
It makes sense that if your main subject is located towards the top, there is lower risk of skew distortion with the e-shutter engaged. In the case of environment portraits, that means the model's head should have less chance of skew distortion compared to the rest of the body.
Fred Miranda wrote:
For M10-P/R shooters, I think there is a way to simulate how the M11's new shutter behavior + metering.
Just turn the camera "on" and press the "LV" button and then turn the camera "off".
When you turn your camera back "on", that's similar to how the M11 sounds since it always opens the shutter.
Now, take a picture using the rangefinder. That should also be similar to how the M11 sounds and feels. However, it's likely the M11 has less shutter lag.
Metering works the same way since the M10 in LV mode will use multi (matrix) metering as well.
I believe shutter itself should be similar to m10p or R. However, as you said, Leica remove off sensor meter which require camera using on sensor meter full time. Means for each exposure, m11 require shuter close>shutter open>shutter close>shutter open instead of m10x shutter open>shutter close. I believe that is the reason for shutter sound change. I personally think this is a bold and silly move.
However, reviewers (confirm from Leica) claim the shutter delay will be the same. I know it will feel different given there are two extra step, one in front of exposure (shutter close adding delay) and one after (shutter open adding delay for next exposure). I believe 2nd delay is moot point given M11 only shoot 4.5fps. 1st one is the potential problem one. However, Leica claim there is no extra delay from their measurement. One thing for sure is M11 shutter will wear out twice as much as m10
I personally thinking there might be technical reasons Leica did this change. From engineer point of view, it doesnt make sense to change something it doesn't break.
My only hope treat this implementation as potential plus is it means LV or EVF shooting will be similar to regular RF shooting in term of delay because there are the same shutter steps involvements. So EVF shooting is more like shoot a regular EVF base camera for m11? if that is case, it will be nice having a tilt EVF.
Finger crossed. I no longer seek this information on internet and I will be relying on my personal evaluation as I know nobody can describe "your subjective feeling" on what is acceptable, what is not
zhangyue wrote:
It shouldn’t be related to where your subject located on the sensor but how many horizontal line the subject (you care) takes on sensor.
I believe most sensor if not all will scan horizontally line by line. For m11, 9528x6328.(roughly, the sensor may have more pixel than these) Each line will have about 1/63280 S roughly. This make 1/16000S exposure possible.
So for non moving subject, e shutter is very usable for 1/10S read out with decent care. For example: hand hood landscape.
The key for me is not if it is usable. It is more like if Leica will drop bit in this mode like early Sony did or how much shutter delay and black out before next capture.
I hope it is get less delay given no mechanical shutter movement related but may not the case in real implementation.
I guess I have to find out by myself when I get my hands on one. Hopefully soon
zhangyue wrote:
I believe shutter itself should be similar to m10p or R. However, as you said, Leica remove off sensor meter which require camera using on sensor meter full time. Means for each exposure, m11 require shuter close>shutter open>shutter close>shutter open instead of m10x shutter open>shutter close. I believe that is the reason for shutter sound change. I personally think this is a bold and silly move.
Just by simulating the M11's shutter behavior with my M10-R, I suspect many won't be happy with this change. It would feel weird to hear that shutter opening sound every time the camera is turned on. This only happens because the shutter closes when the camera is turned off. Perhaps Leica could add an option to allow the sensor to remain open when powered off. This would solve the start up noise/delay issue but allow more dust to reach the sensor.
With the M10 in classic rangefinder mode, you only hear the shutter when actually taking a picture.
The shutter sound will also feel/sound different because as you described, the exposure process is longer. Again, it likely sounds like my M10-R in LV mode.
However, reviewers (confirm from Leica) claim the shutter delay will be the same. I know it will feel different given there are two extra step, one in front of exposure (shutter close adding delay) and one after (shutter open adding delay for next exposure). I believe 2nd delay is moot point given M11 only shoot 4.5fps. 1st one is the potential problem one. However, Leica claim there is no extra delay from their measurement. One thing for sure is M11 shutter will wear out twice as much as m10
Definitely more wear for the m11 shutter. Regarding delay, it seems to be ~ 2 seconds at start up.
I personally thinking there might be technical reasons Leica did this change. From engineer point of view, it doesnt make sense to change something it doesn't break.
It looks like the main reason was for a more accurate metering in both rangefinder and liveview since the M11 meters off the sensor for both. With the M10 models, multi-field metering was only available in LV.
I think 2S delay at power up is not good but not really a biggest concern for me.
I mainly worried for regular shooting delay. The sound and feel definitely will be a step back but real test is when rubber meet road. If there is no extra delay in term of each exposure, I am fine with it.
I still hope eshutter can give me less delay and shutter wear. Remember sigma FP L has full time e shutter with the same read out. I kind like this trade off compare to m10 means having e shutter but extra shutter step and wear out.
If we really think about it, this has been the same for any mirrorless camera with mechanical shutter only Leica doesn’t have EFCS.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Just by simulating the M11's shutter behavior with my M10-R, I suspect many won't be happy with this change. It would feel weird to hear that shutter opening sound every time the camera is turned on. This only happens because the shutter closes when the camera is turned off. Perhaps Leica could add an option to allow the sensor to remain open when powered off. This would solve the start up noise/delay issue but allow more dust to reach the sensor.
With the M10 in classic rangefinder mode, you only hear the shutter when actually taking a picture.
The shutter sound will also feel/sound different because as you described, the exposure process is longer. Again, it likely sounds like my M10-R in LV mode.
Definitely more wear for the m11 shutter. Regarding delay, it seems to be ~ 2 seconds at start up.
It looks like the main reason was for a more accurate metering in both rangefinder and liveview since the M11 meters off the sensor for both. With the M10 models, multi-field metering was only available in LV....Show more →
Hopefully I'll have a camera and EVF in the next week or so. I'm not in a particular rush but the more I think about it the more I think it will shoot the way I want an M to be.
1. Resolution. I think the variable resolution is genius. Especially when you consider the M11 allows much longer exposures and optional LENR. So it's now a really viable landscape camera with super compact, high quality lenses. Then switch to a lower resolution for general shooting. I print bigger than most but sometimes I do not need it. Having a single camera that allows that option is great. This might be the way forward fo Leica. The SL3 could have the same sensor waffer and allow the same functionality. So no more R vairaints (M) or S (SL). Someone like a wedding photographer would love variable resolutions.
I've never had a particular issue with handholding higher resolutions but my technique is good. I'm more constrained by subject movement.
2. New shutter system and metering. I'm ambivalent about this. The 2 sec startup will annoy some and that's fair enough. I do think they should have left the option at least. But rarely with an M am I in a rush and the easy solution is to let the camera go to sleep. As for the shutter operation it's exactly the same as the SL2. Don't see anyone complaining about shutter life or operation for that camera.
3. Internal resolution. Genius. All cameras should have it although 64GB is too low. Look for the M11-P with 128GB.
4. Removable baseplate. A real downgrade for me. It's not the plate itself but the stupid location of the tripod socket. Anything other than the Leica baseplate is going to make removing the battery/card a PITA, and make the camera much taller. I think Leica missed an opportunity to have their own RRS style interchangeable base plate. A powerbank, even a small one isn't an option. Sometimes it's one camera two lenses and a spare battery. I like the USBC socket and I understand a removable baseplate and the socket are not compatible. I'll live with it. If I get close to the claimed shots on the new battery it might not be relevant.
5. Bigger battery. Nessecary for the new metering system and push to live view. Not a particular issue for me. Carrying a couple of spares was never an issue.
6. Programable function buttons. At last. What took you so long, Leica. That stupid redundant button on the M10 bugged me.
7. Keeping the ISO dial. I like the ISO dial. Up for when your changing ISO on the fly. Just leave it up if you need to. Use your left thumb to cange on the fly Down to lock it in for a bit. Never been an issue for me. Option not to use it with programmable buttons. But for me I like to see my controls with the camera off.
8. Would prefer a SL style joystick rather than the M DPad.
9. Play button is in a better position although I still think the buttons should be moved to the right side of the LCD. Have ordered a couple of extra Thumbies although I really want the fake rewind lever to re-appear.
10. I like the change to the quick menu a lot.
11. New EVF. Extra resolution Good. Loss of GPS, bad. But assuming the live view operation of the M11 is quicker it'll be more usable. I get it's smaller to be able to stay on the camera but it's ugly.
12. Aluminium top plate. I'll let you know in 6 months. I doubt it'll have a mark on it. My 4 M10 variants (2 x M10, 1x M10R, 1x M10M) don't have a single mark on them, which is a shame. I nearly bought an M10-R black paint. If the M11-P comes out in brass and black paint it'll be a hard to resist for me. So if it isn't going to wear then I'll take the weight savings. I hope it still feels solid like an M though. But I do hope for a BP version in the future. I love the BP on my M-P. Brass only makes sense with black paint.
The combination of shutter, metering and EVF do look like Leica is preparing for an EVF-M. Drop the RF and put the EVF on the left side and you're done. I think the M11 is the testing ground for that camera. If the new EVF is well received then I expect an EVF only M11-E with the aluminium top plate. I don't see an end to the optical M. More that there will be an M and M-E (electronic) rather athan a R (resolution). I also expect a variant of this sensor in the next SL. Probably with a new or dual processors.
For my use the M11 is going to be a complimentary camera to my medium format systems. I'm thinking of combining it with a couple of APO's (CV or Leica. Undecided which yet) and a CV 50mm 1.0. I'm still more likely to use my GFX100S or X1D/907x systems for "photography" and my SL2 when I need something specialised (T/S or long lenses) with the M11 being in a sling bag with my M10M and a couple of APO's when I want to travel light.
My regualr M10's will go as the M11 at 18MP perfectly replaces them. M10M is a keeper. Not sure yet about the M10R. That'll depend on how to M11 goes.
flash wrote:
Hopefully I'll have a camera and EVF in the next week or so. I'm not in a particular rush but the more I think about it the more I think it will shoot the way I want an M to be.
1. Resolution. I think the variable resolution is genius. Especially when you consider the M11 allows much longer exposures and optional LENR. So it's now a really viable landscape camera with super compact, high quality lenses. Then switch to a lower resolution for general shooting. I print bigger than most but sometimes I do not need it. Having a single camera that allows that option is great. This might be the way forward fo Leica. The SL3 could have the same sensor waffer and allow the same functionality. So no more R vairaints (M) or S (SL). Someone like a wedding photographer would love variable resolutions....Show more →
Agree it's pretty cool but we still need to see the results.
I've never had a particular issue with handholding higher resolutions but my technique is good. I'm more constrained by subject movement.
I mostly use the M10-R (40MP) handheld and using the rangefinder. I have no problem nailing focus with the 50/1.4 lux, CV 75/1.5 Nokton and 90/2 APO.
2. New shutter system and metering. I'm ambivalent about this. The 2 sec startup will annoy some and that's fair enough. I do think they should have left the option at least. But rarely with an M am I in a rush and the easy solution is to let the camera go to sleep. As for the shutter operation it's exactly the same as the SL2. Don't see anyone complaining about shutter life or operation for that camera.
The SL2 is not quite like this because the shutter does not close when the camera is turned off. So, when you turn the camera on, there is no extra delay opening the shutter every time. I'm not a fan of the new shutter mechanism but in exchange we get more accurate metering when using the rangefinder. Perhaps Leica will improve this with with the M11-P.
3. Internal resolution. Genius. All cameras should have it although 64GB is too low. Look for the M11-P with 128GB.
It's a great feature for those who can't afford to loose images (wedding photography comes to mind). We now have some redundancy up to 64GB.
4. Removable baseplate. A real downgrade for me. It's not the plate itself but the stupid location of the tripod socket. Anything other than the Leica baseplate is going to make removing the battery/card a PITA, and make the camera much taller. I think Leica missed an opportunity to have their own RRS style interchangeable base plate. A powerbank, even a small one isn't an option. Sometimes it's one camera two lenses and a spare battery. I like the USBC socket and I understand a removable baseplate and the socket are not compatible. I'll live with it. If I get close to the claimed shots on the new battery it might not be relevant....Show more →
I don't see it as a plus either but would learn to live with it.
5. Bigger battery. Nessecary for the new metering system and push to live view. Not a particular issue for me. Carrying a couple of spares was never an issue.
I'm sure Leica realized they could not use the older battery with LV always on. They had to do it.
6. Programable function buttons. At last. What took you so long, Leica. That stupid redundant button on the M10 bugged me.
It's a plus having custom buttons but honestly it never bothered me.
7. Keeping the ISO dial. I like the ISO dial. Up for when your changing ISO on the fly. Just leave it up if you need to. Use your left thumb to cange on the fly Down to lock it in for a bit. Never been an issue for me. Option not to use it with programmable buttons. But for me I like to see my controls with the camera off.
Same here. Keep the ISO dial. I use it all the time.
8. Would prefer a SL style joystick rather than the M DPad.
Not sure how I feel about this one.
11. New EVF. Extra resolution Good. Loss of GPS, bad. But assuming the live view operation of the M11 is quicker it'll be more usable. I get it's smaller to be able to stay on the camera but it's ugly.
I have the Visoflex but never use it. The M11 will do GPS using their new bluetooth specs and the fotos app. (no need to GPS in camera like the M10 did)
12. Aluminium top plate. I'll let you know in 6 months. I doubt it'll have a mark on it. My 4 M10 variants (2 x M10, 1x M10R, 1x M10M) don't have a single mark on them, which is a shame. I nearly bought an M10-R black paint. If the M11-P comes out in brass and black paint it'll be a hard to resist for me. So if it isn't going to wear then I'll take the weight savings. I hope it still feels solid like an M though. But I do hope for a BP version in the future. I love the BP on my M-P. Brass only makes sense with black paint....Show more →
I prefer the silver model so lucky this is a non-issue for me.
The combination of shutter, metering and EVF do look like Leica is preparing for an EVF-M. Drop the RF and put the EVF on the left side and you're done. I think the M11 is the testing ground for that camera. If the new EVF is well received then I expect an EVF only M11-E with the aluminium top plate. I don't see an end to the optical M. More that there will be an M and M-E (electronic) rather athan a R (resolution). I also expect a variant of this sensor in the next SL. Probably with a new or dual processors....Show more →
If you think about most updates are electronic, so yes Leica is moving away from mechanical to electronic.
For my use the M11 is going to be a complimentary camera to my medium format systems. I'm thinking of combining it with a couple of APO's (CV or Leica. Undecided which yet) and a CV 50mm 1.0. I'm still more likely to use my GFX100S or X1D/907x systems for "photography" and my SL2 when I need something specialised (T/S or long lenses) with the M11 being in a sling bag with my M10M and a couple of APO's when I want to travel light.
I highly recommend the CV 50/2 APO and will review the new CV 50/1 in a couple weeks.
My regualr M10's will go as the M11 at 18MP perfectly replaces them. M10M is a keeper. Not sure yet about the M10R. That'll depend on how to M11 goes.
I only buy used M bodies at FM. So for me, it will be a long time because I can afford one. The good news is that I'm super happy with the M10-R for now.
I’m curious to how the Electronic Shutter will perform. People give it a bad rep assuming it will be as bad as an 8-year old Hasselblad but considering this is the A7R IV’s sensor matched with a current gen processor it shouldn’t perform that badly, should it? I was very content shooting with the electronic shutter for most general purpose shooting that didn’t involve fast moving objects on the A7R IV and the Sigma FP didn’t even give me the option of using a mechanical shutter, and people have taken some great shots with that camera.
derKoekje wrote:
I’m curious to how the Electronic Shutter will perform. People give it a bad rep assuming it will be as bad as an 8-year old Hasselblad but considering this is the A7R IV’s sensor matched with a current gen processor it shouldn’t perform that badly, should it? I was very content shooting with the electronic shutter for most general purpose shooting that didn’t involve fast moving objects on the A7R IV and the Sigma FP didn’t even give me the option of using a mechanical shutter, and people have taken some great shots with that camera.
There is no confirmation that this is the A7R4 sensor waffer. Just forum and YouTube speculation that will be taken as fact. I'll wait until there's proof over speculation on that one. Seems like a waste of PDAF pixels to me.... Not to mention different CFA, microlenses, cover glass and processor. More different than the same, I suspect.
What is known is the sensor read speed, which is 1/10th of a second. Three times faster than the sensor readout in the X1D. Not as fast as the SL2. I'm not actually sure what the speed of the A7R4 readout is. Does any one know, with a reliable source (ie: not some YouTuber)?
At 1/10th some things will end badly. Panning. Pulsing light sources (LEDs and flouro). Moving subjects. But outside with a reasonably still subject (likely above 1/4000th) then plenty of uses. Also good for slow exposures although I don't know the low limit. It's 1 second on the SL2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Agree it's pretty cool but we still need to see the results.
Canon have done it for 15 years. Not new tech so it should be fine. It's just what we can already do in PS but done in camera to save file sizes. Benifit of a bit less noise and a bit more usable DR.
Wish it was standard on all my high res cameras, actually. I used it a lot on my Canon's back in the day.
flash wrote:
There is no confirmation that this is the A7R4 sensor waffer. Just forum and YouTube speculation that will be taken as fact. I'll wait until there's proof over speculation on that one. Seems like a waste of PDAF pixels to me.... Not to mention different CFA, microlenses, cover glass and processor. More different than the same, I suspect.
What is known is the sensor read speed, which is 1/10th of a second. Three times faster than the sensor readout in the X1D. Not as fast as the SL2. I'm not actually sure what the speed of the A7R4 readout is. Does any one know, with a reliable source (ie: not some YouTuber)?
At 1/10th some things will end badly. Panning. Pulsing light sources (LEDs and flouro). Moving subjects. But outside with a reasonably still subject (likely above 1/4000th) then plenty of uses. Also good for slow exposures although I don't know the low limit. It's 1 second on the SL2.
No confirmation but many signs pointing towards it. Similar resolution, sudden BSI sensor, the fact that Leica has to source it somewhere. Another sign: https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/how-fast-is-the-sony-a7riv-silent-shutter/ Jim is mentioning the same readout speed. Interestingly shooting compressed seems to help so I’m curious whether shooting smaller DNGs will help on the M11. But 1/10th is really not as bad as you may expect of that really is the A7R IV number.
I went out again but without using the EVF this time and took my M10R along. I decided to shoot many images with both cameras. The M11 shutter sound is almost like the M10R, but perhaps with a slightly higher pitch. From what I could tell it makes just one click when taking a shot, not multiple clicks as many surmise. I do not focus on the sound so much, but instead the subject.
When setting the M11 to A ISO and A shutter it means I am only changing f stops to my liking. This makes my shooting experience actually faster than getting my exposure setting correct with the red dot on the M10R even though at times I am very close to correct and underexposures can easily be brought up a few stops. It is overexposures I worry about and thus set the exposure compensation to - 2/3's on both cameras. Each shot I hear one click on both cameras.
have not yet processed either of the cameras images. I will see if using the C1 profile for the M10R with M11 images improves the PP experience, but I am thinking it will not.
as a total aside and after viewing my images on the new MBP 16" Max versus my old 4K NEC monitor I have come to the realization that perhaps my NEC has been fading for some time. It has WAY less contrast than the MBP and its colors are different. It has developed some vertical green/yellow lines in places that are very irritating once noticed.
flash wrote:
There is no confirmation that this is the A7R4 sensor waffer. Just forum and YouTube speculation that will be taken as fact. I'll wait until there's proof over speculation on that one. Seems like a waste of PDAF pixels to me.... Not to mention different CFA, microlenses, cover glass and processor. More different than the same, I suspect.
What is known is the sensor read speed, which is 1/10th of a second. Three times faster than the sensor readout in the X1D. Not as fast as the SL2. I'm not actually sure what the speed of the A7R4 readout is. Does any one know, with a reliable source (ie: not some YouTuber)?
At 1/10th some things will end badly. Panning. Pulsing light sources (LEDs and flouro). Moving subjects. But outside with a reasonably still subject (likely above 1/4000th) then plenty of uses. Also good for slow exposures although I don't know the low limit. It's 1 second on the SL2.
flash wrote:
There is no confirmation that this is the A7R4 sensor waffer. Just forum and YouTube speculation that will be taken as fact. I'll wait until there's proof over speculation on that one. Seems like a waste of PDAF pixels to me.... Not to mention different CFA, microlenses, cover glass and processor. More different than the same, I suspect.
What is known is the sensor read speed, which is 1/10th of a second. Three times faster than the sensor readout in the X1D. Not as fast as the SL2. I'm not actually sure what the speed of the A7R4 readout is. Does any one know, with a reliable source (ie: not some YouTuber)?
At 1/10th some things will end badly. Panning. Pulsing light sources (LEDs and flouro). Moving subjects. But outside with a reasonably still subject (likely above 1/4000th) then plenty of uses. Also good for slow exposures although I don't know the low limit. It's 1 second on the SL2.
The sensor stack is different regarding thickness, microlenses and all but it's clearly a Sony sensor. Leica always outsourced their sensors and I'm glad they transitioned from Israeli company TowerJazz to Sony with their recent SL2-S and M11 cameras.
The Sony A7R IV's sensor scan rate is:
1/10s when using uncompressed RAW.
1/10s when using compressed RAW.
1/20s when using compressed RAW + continuous shutter mode. (twice as fast)
------
1/15s in APS-C mode + uncompressed RAW.
1/15s in APS-C mode + compressed RAW.
1/30s in APS-C mode + compressed + continuous shutter mode. (very usable here)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's probably similar to the A7R III which is 1/15s. Same as A7R II (both with 42MP sensors)
Can go as fast as 1/30s when using continuous shutter mode.
Too bad the camera manufacturers don't list this spec particularly now that electronic sensor feature seems to be very popular.
derKoekje wrote:
No confirmation but many signs pointing towards it. Similar resolution, sudden BSI sensor, the fact that Leica has to source it somewhere. Another sign: https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/how-fast-is-the-sony-a7riv-silent-shutter/ Jim is mentioning the same readout speed. Interestingly shooting compressed seems to help so I’m curious whether shooting smaller DNGs will help on the M11. But 1/10th is really not as bad as you may expect of that really is the A7R IV number.
The same readout speed is the key anyway no matter who makes it. The camera to look at is the new Sigma FP that has a similar 61 MP sensor, the same readout speed, and only an electronic shutter. Anything you can do with the Sigma FP you should be able to do with the Leica M11 in electronic shutter mode. There are clear limitations, but you can still do a lot.
flash wrote:
There is no confirmation that this is the A7R4 sensor waffer. Just forum and YouTube speculation that will be taken as fact. I'll wait until there's proof over speculation on that one. Seems like a waste of PDAF pixels to me.... Not to mention different CFA, microlenses, cover glass and processor. More different than the same, I suspect.
...
I'd have to agree about the sensor. Since Leica went to CMOSIS with a specific design for the microlens and well configuration, why go with something stock, which I'd have to assume is not designed to Leica sensor needs or specifications... And if Sony is fabricating a Leica design, it still wouldn't be a Sony sensor... Ah, the interwebs...
Steve Spencer wrote:
The same readout speed is the key anyway no matter who makes it. The camera to look at is the new Sigma FP that has a similar 61 MP sensor, the same readout speed, and only an electronic shutter. Anything you can do with the Sigma FP you should be able to do with the Leica M11 in electronic shutter mode. There are clear limitations, but you can still do a lot.
All the discussion about the electronic shutter has left me about why not just use the Mechanical shutter, since it is good for 1/14,000s. Then, I went to verify this again in spec. Looks like I had read 1/14,000s as a typo somewhere. Looks like spec is 1/4,000s. not 1/14,000s.
Hey, it was a nice thought for a few deluded days.
about why not just use the Mechanical shutter, since it is good for 1/14,000s. Then, I went to verify this again in spec. Looks like I had read 1/14,000s as a typo somewhere. 
Looks like spec is 1/4,000s. not 1/14,000s.