p.3 #1 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred Miranda wrote:
...
Yes, downsampling the native 60.3MP to 36.5MP using PS's bicubic will provide better results. That's with bicubic "smooth gradients". If you use Bicubic "sharper" or "automatic", it will provide even shaper results than using the resolution modes in-camera.
...
My intro to RGB imaging was creating and editing runtime images, graphics and photos, for pc based delivery (I started out with coin-op game conversions).
Graphics tended to be more problematic as there usually were edge issues, especially when dealing with corporate branding imagery (a slight tangent here...) There weren't any software libraries for scaling on the fly so resampling had to be done by hand and images sampled and sized to specific displays. Resampling down involved balancing aliasing and contrast/saturation at the least, that when done correctly usually produced a cleaner, sharper image than the original. Now, depending on the software, I should be able to get a smoother, cleaner, sharper RGB image down-sampled from say 48mp to 24mp than a native 24mp image..
How well an image resamples now is down to the automation, the resampling algorithms used (and the output size). The in-camera function is going to be hobbled somewhat by the camera's image processing pipeline which has to operate in real-time. Some software handles all this better than others... It's actually instructive to try doing this by hand.
p.3 #2 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
pmeheut wrote:
What I do not like:
- slow to power-on. I can live with that but I do not understand why digital Ms have been like this since day one when other manufacturer do not have the same problem
- the delay before I can shoot again in single picture mode. No big deal but it is bigger than the M10.
Quite frankly that would be an intolerable drawback in a camera for me. A classic case of "the camera gets in the way of taking a good image". My D700 and D750 can be switched on, taking an image, all in the split of a second. I dont even know how long the startup is, it feels instant.
p.3 #3 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Sauseschritt wrote:
Quite frankly that would be an intolerable drawback in a camera for me.
Yes but on the other hand, you spend your life criticizing, being negative, finding every way to be unhappy.
So has soon as I saw your name and even before I read the post, I knew what it would be like: nothing factual, no experience of the M11, just the usual whining.
And so far, I've been able to take images with the various digital M. It is not up to me to say if they are good but clearly, once I took the time of knowing my camera and getting used to it, it was not "in the way".
Of course, I could have spent that time complaining instead but then I would turn into you and this is the definition of hell itself
p.3 #4 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred, I hope you can test the M11 with a 75 or 90mm lens for shutter shock. The M11's lack of having the almost universally adopted EFCS with its new shutter design has me very suspicious.
Very few sources of photo testing hold serious weight with me, but you're one of them. I would not buy an M11 without knowing about shutter shock.
p.3 #5 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
I mean it is great to have choices. THe M 11 is just another choice. I can see why it might appeal to some. I am perfectly happy with my 2 M 10s and especially my M 10 Mono. I have no desire at all to go to the M 11. But thats me. I see that many are very happy with the upgraade. I say rock on. I would rather make photographs than argue about specs. Like Ernst Haas said "The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." Great to have all of these choices. I say make a choice that fits the way you see and work and do jsut that. Go out and make photographs.
p.3 #6 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Sauseschritt wrote:
Quite frankly that would be an intolerable drawback in a camera for me. A classic case of "the camera gets in the way of taking a good image". My D700 and D750 can be switched on, taking an image, all in the split of a second. I dont even know how long the startup is, it feels instant.
DSLRs are slow compared to my M4-P, but I don’t find the startup time on my digital cameras an issue — they are ready to fire by the time they are brought to your eye if you turn them on as you bring them up. Additionally, the M11 has a standby mode that is nearly as efficient as the camera being off. Turn on the M11 before shooting session starts, turn off when done. If using the rangefinder and with auto-review on the LCD set to off, the M11 battery is very close to DSLR level of efficiency.
And contrary to what was said, there is no noticeable delay between shots. I can’t even manage to take a single shot in continuous mode without accidentally firing off two shots in a row.
p.3 #7 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
mapgraphs wrote:
My intro to RGB imaging was creating and editing runtime images, graphics and photos, for pc based delivery (I started out with coin-op game conversions).
Graphics tended to be more problematic as there usually were edge issues, especially when dealing with corporate branding imagery (a slight tangent here...) There weren't any software libraries for scaling on the fly so resampling had to be done by hand and images sampled and sized to specific displays. Resampling down involved balancing aliasing and contrast/saturation at the least, that when done correctly usually produced a cleaner, sharper image than the original. Now, depending on the software, I should be able to get a smoother, cleaner, sharper RGB image down-sampled from say 48mp to 24mp than a native 24mp image..
How well an image resamples now is down to the automation, the resampling algorithms used (and the output size). The in-camera function is going to be hobbled somewhat by the camera's image processing pipeline which has to operate in real-time. Some software handles all this better than others... It's actually instructive to try doing this by hand....Show more →
This seems to make sense to me as you put it and like you suggested, when I see what I can do with these files in post, some apps better than others, even with the smallest 18MP+ file, it seems to backup your point. At least in my experience.
p.3 #8 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred's results got me scrutinizing for myself !
I like the M11's triple resolution feature very much. Even if I don't use it very often ☺️. I agree some of the triple resolution marketing might be a bit much, and there is what seems to be some disagreement among the various reviewers ( not sure they were all using the same firmware anyway), but in the end, it's all about what we see and what we need when creating, editing and presenting images. I see a clear and distinct advantage to having access to three lossless RAW/DNG file choices in-camera and of course if you need small file sizes plenty of editing apps can bring up the IQ substantially, even "only" 18MPs files as many of you know.
Personally, I don't think its practical to expect smaller in-camera binned files to supersede or be on par with the full resolution file from the same camera. But there are other practical applications to working with different file sizes, even if you have to give up some level of pixel level sharpness in the raw/unedited file out of camera.
1. 60+ MPs if you want/need maximum resolution for editing and use-case. *The M11 OTOH offers 64GB of internal memory + whatever size SD card used so in-camera storage is less of a concern for me. But external storage could be problematic. Personally, I want all as much data to work with as possible. If I need to downsample 60+ MP files in post, plenty of options there too. However, sometimes economizing on file size e.g., when traveling could be very helpful.
2. 36+ MPs maybe a good half-way point. Still very good resolution and plenty of data to edit w/ various editing apps as needed/wanted. *You can sharpen the hell out of these files if so needed, maybe an ISO advantage in some situations over the 60+MP files too.
3. 18+ MPs might be considered the every day, casual file size. Very good for editing and posting most places online/social media. As with the other files sizes the M11 lossless compressed DNG files can be edited to further enhance as needed to include sharpening up the pixels. The small file size can be helpful in more than a few practical situations to include possibly beneficial in some ISO situations. The ultimate in file size economy needs!
In my experience, I don't see much difference in IQ among these file sizes during normal viewing in LR. But Fred's results prompted me to look more critically. I think this is why many will not notice a difference either. But as with most files, zoom in and heavy pixel peeping begins to show differences and in some situations smaller files bring benefits too, to include in my experience maybe some slight ISO advantages to the smaller files in some scenarios e.g., higher ISO settings and lower light but less editing elasticity. So you could negate the small benefits if you go too heavy post processing/ editing on this smaller files/less data as well.
Based upon my own experience using and scrutinizing these files recently, I feel Sean Reid has put together a well balanced review on what you can expect from these M11 triple resolution files to include comparing with M10-R , M10 and M10-M and he has posted plenty of images to back up his conclusions along with what I feel are necessary caveats for such things or in my words... YMMV.
For my part and again, I see the triple resolution feature as a very practical advantage for many scenarios both in camera and out. I am very happy to see the Sony A1 also adopting similar recently. With both, if you need to go beyond normal viewing purposes, plenty of software to work your magic with the smaller less data rich files, but only so much.
"What a Farce! " as someone blurted out earlier in this thread...okay... . I'm going with whatever floats your boat, and as someone else posted ..."just take some pictures" 📸
P.S. I do wonder if there are any advantages against what some call "shutter shock" with mechanical shutter using the smaller files M-DNG and S-DNG files compared to the larger 60 MPs files. Leica claims they use the whole sensor to create the binned files too...just wondering if anyone has performed such a comparison test and has any results to report.
P.S.S. I remember when Sony first introduced IBIS to FF mirrorless cameras and many on the Forums went mad claiming "nobody needs IBIS for photography"
p.3 #9 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
LBJ2 wrote:
Fred's results got me scrutinizing for myself !
I like the M11's triple resolution feature very much. Even if I don't use it very often ☺️. I agree some of the triple resolution marketing might be a bit much, and there is what seems to be some disagreement among the various reviewers ( not sure they were all using the same firmware anyway), but in the end, it's all about what we see and what we need when creating, editing and presenting images. I see a clear and distinct advantage to having access to three lossless RAW/DNG file choices in-camera and of course if you need small file sizes plenty of editing apps can bring up the IQ substantially, even "only" 18MPs files as many of you know.
Personally, I don't think its practical to expect smaller in-camera binned files to supersede or be on par with the full resolution file from the same camera. But there are other practical applications to working with different file sizes, even if you have to give up some level of pixel level sharpness in the raw/unedited file out of camera.
1. 60+ MPs if you want/need maximum resolution for editing and use-case. *The M11 OTOH offers 64GB of internal memory + whatever size SD card used so in-camera storage is less of a concern for me. But external storage could be problematic. Personally, I want all as much data to work with as possible. If I need to downsample 60+ MP files in post, plenty of options there too. However, sometimes economizing on file size e.g., when traveling could be very helpful.
2. 36+ MPs maybe a good half-way point. Still very good resolution and plenty of data to edit w/ various editing apps as needed/wanted. *You can sharpen the hell out of these files if so needed, maybe an ISO advantage in some situations over the 60+MP files too.
3. 18+ MPs might be considered the every day, casual file size. Very good for editing and posting most places online/social media. As with the other files sizes the M11 lossless compressed DNG files can be edited to further enhance as needed to include sharpening up the pixels. The small file size can be helpful in more than a few practical situations to include possibly beneficial in some ISO situations. The ultimate in file size economy needs!
In my experience, I don't see much difference in IQ among these file sizes during normal viewing in LR. But Fred's results prompted me to look more critically. I think this is why many will not notice a difference either. But as with most files, zoom in and heavy pixel peeping begins to show differences and in some situations smaller files bring benefits too, to include in my experience maybe some slight ISO advantages to the smaller files in some scenarios e.g., higher ISO settings and lower light but less editing elasticity. So you could negate the small benefits if you go too heavy post processing/ editing on this smaller files/less data as well.
Based upon my own experience using and scrutinizing these files recently, I feel Sean Reid has put together a well balanced review on what you can expect from these M11 triple resolution files to include comparing with M10-R , M10 and M10-M and he has posted plenty of images to back up his conclusions along with what I feel are necessary caveats for such things or in my words... YMMV.
For my part and again, I see the triple resolution feature as a very practical advantage for many scenarios both in camera and out. I am very happy to see the Sony A1 also adopting similar recently. With both, if you need to go beyond normal viewing purposes, plenty of software to work your magic with the smaller less data rich files, but only so much.
"What a Farce! " as someone blurted out earlier in this thread...okay... . I'm going with whatever floats your boat, and as someone else posted ..."just take some pictures" 📸
P.S. I do wonder if there are any advantages against what some call "shutter shock" with mechanical shutter using the smaller files M-DNG and S-DNG files compared to the larger 60 MPs files. Leica claims they use the whole sensor to create the binned files too...just wondering if anyone has performed such a comparison test and has any results to report.
P.S.S. I remember when Sony first introduced IBIS to FF mirrorless cameras and many on the Forums went mad claiming "nobody needs IBIS for photography" ...Show more →
Note that I didn't say that the triple resolution was not useful. For example, shooting at 18MP will make transferring raw files to your phone much easier. It's just another decision one needs to make before taking pictures.
I just mentioned that the downsampled 60MP files look better compared to the pixel-binned in camera resolutions. One can only see these differences when pixel peeping at high viewing magnifications. There should be no disagreement for reviewers if they know how to do this comparison.
p.3 #11 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
johnvanr wrote:
The slow start-up and wake-up times were what turned me off from trying a Leica when I read about it. I absolute hate cameras that are slow to be ready when I’m shooting in a city or anywhere else where a shot may suddenly present itself. Goes against the whole Leica core to me.
One workaround is to not turn the camera off and let it got to sleep. Startup is much faster under those circumstances (or at least they were with my M240).
That said, I don't understand why Leica can't fix this. Probably not enough to dissuade from getting one later this year, but for the money Leica is charging and the number of iterations we've seen for this camera, it's really annoying that my Canon 10D from 2002 could start up faster than a Leica camera two decades newer.
p.3 #12 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Arka wrote:
One workaround is to not turn the camera off and let it got to sleep. Startup is much faster under those circumstances (or at least they were with my M240).
That said, I don't understand why Leica can't fix this. Probably not enough to dissuade from getting one later this year, but for the money Leica is charging and the number of iterations we've seen for this camera, it's really annoying that my Canon 10D from 2002 could start up faster than a Leica camera two decades newer.
Leica can sometimes be accused of trading on a mystique while not addressing things that really aren't quirks, but pure and simple shortcomings.
p.3 #13 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
johnvanr wrote:
Leica can sometimes be accused of trading on a mystique while not addressing things that really aren't quirks, but pure and simple shortcomings.
Using my iPhone timer and less than scientific reaction time, I tested my M11 start up time to about 1.21 Seconds on average +/-. I guess 1.2 seconds is a nightmare for some? Not that I would throw a fit if the M11 started up almost instantaneously.
p.3 #14 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
LBJ2 wrote:
Using my iPhone timer and less than scientific reaction time, I tested my M11 start up time to about 1.21 Seconds on average +/-. I guess 1.2 seconds is a nightmare for some? Not that I would throw a fit if the M11 started up almost instantaneously.
No need to exaggerate - it's not a nightmare. But it's noticeable and annoying. And for a camera that costs $9000 and markets itself on the ability to capture the "decisive moment" and "get out of the way" in the shooting process, that startup time sticks in the craw. Like I said, it probably won't dissuade from buying one anyway, but like you said, I would not "throw a fit" if it started up instantaneously - like my 1D Mark II did in 2003!
p.3 #15 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Arka wrote:
No need to exaggerate - it's not a nightmare. But it's noticeable and annoying. And for a camera that costs $9000 and markets itself on the ability to capture the "decisive moment" and "get out of the way" in the shooting process, that startup time sticks in the craw. Like I said, it probably won't dissuade from buying one anyway, but like you said, I would not "throw a fit" if it started up instantaneously - like my 1D Mark II did in 2003!
FWIW. If I'm in "decisive moment" mode aka at the ready, my Rangefinder is probably not in the off mode.
p.3 #16 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
As you can see by my work I have absolutely no problems with my M 10s or my M 10 mono when it comes to strat up and missing shots. It's a non issue fro me.
p.3 #17 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred, seems you are keeping the M10R and selling M11. I would be interested in hearing a subjective summary as to why. It might be as simple as the upgrade is not worth the cost, or the M10R is harder to sell right now, or I hate the shutter. Just curious!
p.3 #18 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Sauseschritt wrote:
Quite frankly that would be an intolerable drawback in a camera for me. A classic case of "the camera gets in the way of taking a good image". My D700 and D750 can be switched on, taking an image, all in the split of a second. I dont even know how long the startup is, it feels instant.
The delay between shots was a bug in certain review modes. It's been fixed.
The startup is a workflow thing. Either leave it on and use the sleep function or develop the muscle memory to flip the switch as you bring the camera up from your hip. Either will result in a camera that's ready to shoot when you are. I've been doing the latter since the original A7R. And I find that a slower startup is common on mirrorless cameras. Some are slower. Some are faster. Once you get used to switching on and off raising and lowering the camera it's not really a thing you worry about.
p.3 #19 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
LBJ2 wrote:
Fred's results got me scrutinizing for myself !
I like the M11's triple resolution feature very much. Even if I don't use it very often ☺️. I agree some of the triple resolution marketing might be a bit much, and there is what seems to be some disagreement among the various reviewers ( not sure they were all using the same firmware anyway), but in the end, it's all about what we see and what we need when creating, editing and presenting images. I see a clear and distinct advantage to having access to three lossless RAW/DNG file choices in-camera and of course if you need small file sizes plenty of editing apps can bring up the IQ substantially, even "only" 18MPs files as many of you know.
Personally, I don't think its practical to expect smaller in-camera binned files to supersede or be on par with the full resolution file from the same camera. But there are other practical applications to working with different file sizes, even if you have to give up some level of pixel level sharpness in the raw/unedited file out of camera.
1. 60+ MPs if you want/need maximum resolution for editing and use-case. *The M11 OTOH offers 64GB of internal memory + whatever size SD card used so in-camera storage is less of a concern for me. But external storage could be problematic. Personally, I want all as much data to work with as possible. If I need to downsample 60+ MP files in post, plenty of options there too. However, sometimes economizing on file size e.g., when traveling could be very helpful.
2. 36+ MPs maybe a good half-way point. Still very good resolution and plenty of data to edit w/ various editing apps as needed/wanted. *You can sharpen the hell out of these files if so needed, maybe an ISO advantage in some situations over the 60+MP files too.
3. 18+ MPs might be considered the every day, casual file size. Very good for editing and posting most places online/social media. As with the other files sizes the M11 lossless compressed DNG files can be edited to further enhance as needed to include sharpening up the pixels. The small file size can be helpful in more than a few practical situations to include possibly beneficial in some ISO situations. The ultimate in file size economy needs!
In my experience, I don't see much difference in IQ among these file sizes during normal viewing in LR. But Fred's results prompted me to look more critically. I think this is why many will not notice a difference either. But as with most files, zoom in and heavy pixel peeping begins to show differences and in some situations smaller files bring benefits too, to include in my experience maybe some slight ISO advantages to the smaller files in some scenarios e.g., higher ISO settings and lower light but less editing elasticity. So you could negate the small benefits if you go too heavy post processing/ editing on this smaller files/less data as well.
Based upon my own experience using and scrutinizing these files recently, I feel Sean Reid has put together a well balanced review on what you can expect from these M11 triple resolution files to include comparing with M10-R , M10 and M10-M and he has posted plenty of images to back up his conclusions along with what I feel are necessary caveats for such things or in my words... YMMV.
For my part and again, I see the triple resolution feature as a very practical advantage for many scenarios both in camera and out. I am very happy to see the Sony A1 also adopting similar recently. With both, if you need to go beyond normal viewing purposes, plenty of software to work your magic with the smaller less data rich files, but only so much.
"What a Farce! " as someone blurted out earlier in this thread...okay... . I'm going with whatever floats your boat, and as someone else posted ..."just take some pictures" 📸
P.S. I do wonder if there are any advantages against what some call "shutter shock" with mechanical shutter using the smaller files M-DNG and S-DNG files compared to the larger 60 MPs files. Leica claims they use the whole sensor to create the binned files too...just wondering if anyone has performed such a comparison test and has any results to report.
P.S.S. I remember when Sony first introduced IBIS to FF mirrorless cameras and many on the Forums went mad claiming "nobody needs IBIS for photography" ...Show more →
Do you think Leica will offer a workshop or online course that teaches M11 owners how to quickly and accurately grade potential subjects into categories on the fly: Really Important (60mp), Kind of Important (36mp), Not That Important at All (18mp)? Asking for a friend.
p.3 #20 · 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
LBJ2 wrote:
FWIW. If I'm in "decisive moment" mode aka at the ready, my Rangefinder is probably not in the off mode.
That was my workaround for the M240 - just leave it on as waking up from sleep was much faster than coming to life from "off." With the M11 it's (probably?) less consequential to do that since the battery life is better.
. I'm going with whatever floats your boat, and as someone else posted ..."just take some pictures" 📸
It's just another decision one needs to make before taking pictures.