Fred Miranda wrote:
I'll definitely test this once I get the Visoflex. Honestly, I've been hesitant to buy one, since I already have the 020 for the M10 and basically never use it.
My hunch is the FL-based theory won't hold up, though. I suspect stabilization isn't tied to focal length at all, but works by capturing a wider sensor area, then cropping into a narrower window (it only kicks in when magnifying) and shifting that crop frame-by-frame to counteract motion, similar to how video apps stabilize footage. If so, it should work the same regardless of whether the lens is coded, since it wouldn't need focal length data at all.
This morning I gave the other 'vignetting' idea a proper test:
I previously wrote: My "off" for uncoded lenses is the "135/4 11851/11861" option. It's the correction profile for the 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar, a lens famous for having pretty much no vignetting, so it does almost nothing to the image, very similar to actual "Off."
This profile applies non-detectable vignetting correction, I don't see any at all, and I'm honestly not sure why Leica even added it to the list, maybe purely for EXIF purposes. So I can confirm: the "135/4 11851/11861" option functions as Off for vignetting concerns, and it's now my default setting on the M11-D, since I never have to touch it again. When I see "135 Elmar" in my EXIF, I know either to correct that name in post using Lenstagger, or leave it knowning I was actually shooting an uncoded lens....Show more →
Excellent. I’d say don’t bother with the Visoflex 2 then, especially since you have other options if you need live view. And the Visoflex 2 will wear off the black paint from the back edges of the hotshoe rails, not that that’s a big deal, though. And it’s insanely overpriced at the moment, what between tariffs and Leica’s usual price hikes. Maybe you could get a good deal on a used one.
stgrove wrote:
Heck Fred, they're just Leica accessories.
I was thinking about the Visoflex 2 again, and honestly, I'd probably only use it when testing lenses. But a real downside of using the Visoflex 2 on the M11-D is that you can't move the focus point around, it's center only. Magnification is possible with both. So it ends up being basically the same as streaming the image to my iPad in remote view, which likely gives me even better resolution anyway.
Fred Miranda wrote:
When I see "135 Elmar" in my EXIF, I know either to correct that name in post using Lenstagger, or leave it knowning I was actually shooting an uncoded lens.
Fred, thanks for the tip on Lenstagger—just the tool I was looking for. Do you know of a similar tool for Lightroom CC (not Classic)? Even better if it would work on iPad.
Erich6_ wrote:
Fred, thanks for the tip on Lenstagger—just the tool I was looking for. Do you know of a similar tool for Lightroom CC (not Classic)? Even better if it would work on iPad.
The app itself hasn't been updated in a while, but because it runs on ExifTool, simply keeping ExifTool up to date ensures your lens metadata workflow stays current.
I've been playing around with the M11-D (535g with battery) plus the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-ASPH v3 (275g). I don't think you can get this light in a Leica system for a 50mm Summilux with this level of performance and character.
Here are some samples. Warning: heavily stylized using Lightroom's own grain. Also it shows as Tele-Elmar 135 as it's my Lens-detection "Off" settings since there is virtually no change to vignetting.
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/12000s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/400s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/350s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/640s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/400s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/250s200 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/2000s64 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M11-DTele-Elmar 1:4/135 lens135mmf/4.01/320s160 ISO0.0 EV
Here's an in-progress charging dock (3D print) I'm designing for the M11-D in Blender. It holds the M11-D in the dock and charges it via built-in USB-C.
I made some progress on my M11-D dock today. It's custom-made for the M11-D and allows for a few things:
1) Transfers images to the computer
2) Charges the camera
3) Provides a stable dock for the camera
4) The added extension holds the camera steady even with an 800g lens
5) The design lets me see the indicator light color underneath the camera, so I know if it's transferring images, charging, connected to Wi-Fi, etc.
6) A USB-C output in the back allows any USB-C cable to connect
7) Weighs only 63 grams
8) Designed in Blender
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was thinking about the Visoflex 2 again, and honestly, I'd probably only use it when testing lenses. But a real downside of using the Visoflex 2 on the M11-D is that you can't move the focus point around, it's center only. Magnification is possible with both. So it ends up being basically the same as streaming the image to my iPad in remote view, which likely gives me even better resolution anyway.
Fred, first of all congrats on acquiring this beautiful piece. I also tried the Visoflex 2 on my M11D last year but it wasnt for me, Leica has also limited the focus peaking color to red only (last time I checked). As you have said, for testing purposes there may be a benefit but to use the “D” as it was intended to be used is simply glorious. I have been away for the majority of the year due to a big family move (selling one property and purchasing another one with a temp stay in between). This week, I took out my M11D for a quick stroll after several months of keeping it in its box. One could say the muscle memory was still there and it wash sort of like riding a bike again. Admiring the camera once more after so long made me appreciate it even more. My hope is that your new M11D brings you much joy. It has been flawless, and a stealthy companion for me during many travels. Cheers.
That would be awesome. As a film Leica shooter I find the screen and the buttons in the back annoying in how they get in the way compared to the film body or a -D. Monochrom would make much more sense for BW shooter like me. Guess the market may not support this niche combination enough for them to make the investment, but one can hope...
tommmi wrote:
Wish Leica makes M-DM (displayless monochrome) some day.
A potential M11-D Monochrom is a difficult proposition since highlight control via histogram, live view, or playback is critical to optimizing monochrome exposures. It's not so much an issue in low contrast lighting, but in difficult high contrast light, it's almost a necessity to confirm exposure. Already with the M11M in some high contrast scenes, the three stops of negative exposure comp is not enough and full manual is required while watching the histogram.
I waited for the M11-D Black Paint in brass top, but Leica only released it as a special edition. I don't think they'll make a standard version, so I went with the black paint matte in aluminum instead. Looking back, I think I actually prefer this matte look. It doesn't show fingerprints at all, and it's much lighter. I like this black paint more than the previous black chrome. Even if Leica does release a brass black paint version of the D down the line, I wouldn't trade this one for it now.
Here is the latest design. I simplified it while keeping the same functionality.
The dock fits inside the custom tray and includes a front extension for added stability. The recessed center cutout allows the M11 status light to remain visible from either the front or rear of the dock. It is now compatible with all M11 models.
I have some experience from shooting with the M-262 D so I wonder how the M11 version differs when it comes to getting the exposure right? I assume the newer sensor gives much more headroom for errors?
joakim wrote:
I have some experience from shooting with the M-262 D so I wonder how the M11 version differs when it comes to getting the exposure right? I assume the newer sensor gives much more headroom for errors?
That's the main difference. With the M11-D you can choose matrix metering, or even highlight-weighted metering, which preserves highlights for you automatically. With the M-D 262, you're stuck with center-weighted metering, so you have to think more, meter off a bright area, lock exposure, and recompose.
With digital, the real challenge is preserving highlights, the opposite of what you're managing with film.
How's Blender for CAD work these days? The last time I used it was more than a decade ago. At the time it was great for what I was using it for (creating 3-D models mostly for scientific illustration purposes) but it wasn't great for CAD. I'm sure a lot has changed since then, though.
joakim wrote:
I have some experience from shooting with the M-262 D so I wonder how the M11 version differs when it comes to getting the exposure right? I assume the newer sensor gives much more headroom for errors?
I would not say it gives more headroom, but with digital as has been said blown highlights is the issue whereas ok film is under exposure that’s the issue. So metering off the shutter as has been done since the film cameras works just fine with preventing under exposure but with a digital sensor you really are best metering directly off the sensor as on the m11, so the camera as really prevent blowing highlights and then recover shadows later. That is what the m11 direct metering does. The grey spot indirect metering is not really accurate enough to prevent blown highlights. With the m10 and before it’s not that it wills worse sensor blowing highlights but you have to really work it and put in compensation sometimes to prevent it.
