Congrats, looks like a hell of a camera. Take a look at the reddotforum video going over the files from the Q3M and how it compares to the M11M....Q3M is the new low light champ, easily a stop or two better than the M11M. As crazy as it sounds, ISO 200K is usable
rsolti13 wrote:
Congrats, looks like a hell of a camera. Take a look at the reddotforum video going over the files from the Q3M and how it compares to the M11M....Q3M is the new low light champ, easily a stop or two better than the M11M. As crazy as it sounds, ISO 200K is usable
I'll check out Red Dot, thanks. I'd be happy if the Q3M sensor was as stellar as the M11M sensor, but I'm astounded if Red Dot is saying it's better!!!
the full technical talk on the Q3M is up on Red Dot. Apparently the Q3M is even better than the previous king of low light - M11M because the Q3M has the new Maestro 4 processor compared to the M11M which has the Maestro 3 processor. My Q3M arrives tomorrow - I’m excited
brick33308 wrote:
the full technical talk on the Q3M is up on Red Dot. Apparently the Q3M is even better than the previous king of low light - M11M because the Q3M has the new Maestro 4 processor compared to the M11M which has the Maestro 3 processor. My Q3M arrives tomorrow - I’m excited
They seem to compare images at the same ISO, instead of at the same exposure (1:41:32), and we know that it is not the ISO that determines the noise, but the exposure.
I compared M11 and Q3M at the same exposure, same brightness adjusted in LrC, with zero noise reduction (LrC default NR is 30 for M11M and 0 for Q3M), and zero sharpening: the noise looks very similar.
The main advantage of Q3M in low light is its OIS, which provides about three stops of advantage when subject motion allows.
SrMi wrote:
They seem to compare images at the same ISO, instead of at the same exposure (1:41:32), and we know that it is not the ISO that determines the noise, but the exposure.
I'm guessing the reported aperture for the M11M is incorrect, since it is only a "guess". I'd be hard pressed if they would have shot comps at f/8 for the Q and f/16 for the M (haven't watched the whole vid, which may speak to this earlier).
That said ... IF ... if they actually tested the M11M at f/16, then the visible differences being seen suggest the M11M is stronger than merely taken at face value in the comps. Again, I doubt this was f/16 ... and likely the only difference being the (negligible) SS difference and any T-Stop variance between lenses or physical aperture diff's due to opening vs. closing to reach aperture.
Short answer, I don't think the M11M was shot at f/16 in these comps, while the Q3M was shot at f/8.
RustyBug wrote:
I'm guessing the reported aperture for the M11M is incorrect, since it is only a "guess". I'd be hard pressed if they would have shot comps at f/8 for the Q and f/16 for the M (haven't watched the whole vid, which may speak to this earlier).
That said ... IF ... if they actually tested the M11M at f/16, then the visible differences being seen suggest the M11M is stronger than merely taken at face value in the comps. Again, I doubt this was f/16 ... and likely the only difference being the (negligible) SS difference and any T-Stop variance between lenses or physical aperture diff's due to opening vs. closing to reach aperture.
Short answer, I don't think the M11M was shot at f/16 in these comps, while the Q3M was shot at f/8.
SrMi wrote:
Yes, good point. Still, they should have equalized the shutter speed and aperture, not the ISO an aperture.
I suspect the aperture was both at f/8, and same ISO. Guessing they allowed the metering (Aperture Priority vs. Manual) to determine the SS ... variance in metering giving the different SS. The difference in 1/1500s vs. 1/1600s is roughly 7% (favoring the M11M, actually) difference in exposure (assuming exact same aperture physical opening) ... again, insignificant (imo) as it relates to the performance difference. Although, I should watch the entire video before speculating ...
The difference between the Maestro IV vs. Maestro III is likely the more significant variant for attribution. But, the form factor of the M is so different from the form factor of the Q ... imo, the form factor (ILC vs. Fixed Lens, etc.) is a far bigger difference than the "High ISO King" badge Olympics. Impressive new world record (of sorts), but ... I'd not make a purchasing decision between the M11M vs. Q3M based on the "new record" holder's margin of victory.
I am running tests with my own M11M (28mm Summicron) and Q3M, with the same exposure, and M11M seems to produce slightly better results than Q3M.
It is hard to evaluate the noise visually, but I run AI Denoise and check how much detail can be recovered.
SrMi wrote:
I am running tests with my own M11M (28mm Summicron) and Q3M, with the same exposure, and M11M seems to produce slightly better results than Q3M.
It is hard to evaluate the noise visually, but I run AI Denoise and check how much detail can be recovered.
Red Dot with numerous examples and same settings without AI denoise concludes the opposite for one reason. Even though the sensor on both cameras appears to be the same (although slightly differently optimized based on lens design, etc.), what is different is that the Q3M has the Maestro 4 processor which gives slightly better results than the Maestro 3 processor in the M11M.
brick33308 wrote:
Red Dot with numerous examples and same settings without AI denoise concludes the opposite for one reason. Even though the sensor on both cameras appears to be the same (although slightly differently optimized based on lens design, etc.), what is different is that the Q3M has the Maestro 4 processor which gives slightly better results than the Maestro 3 processor in the M11M.
That does not match what I see with my M11M and Q3M (same exposure, ISO 50K and 100K, all LrC sliders reset), both before and after AI Denoise.
As I mentioned before, and if subject motion allows it, Q3M will be much better in low light thanks to OIS.
RustyBug wrote:
I suspect the aperture was both at f/8, and same ISO. Guessing they allowed the metering (Aperture Priority vs. Manual) to determine the SS ... variance in metering giving the different SS. The difference in 1/1500s vs. 1/1600s is roughly 7% (favoring the M11M, actually) difference in exposure (assuming exact same aperture physical opening) ... again, insignificant (imo) as it relates to the performance difference. Although, I should watch the entire video before speculating ...
The difference between the Maestro IV vs. Maestro III is likely the more significant variant for attribution. But, the form factor of the M is so different from the form factor of the Q ... imo, the form factor (ILC vs. Fixed Lens, etc.) is a far bigger difference than the "High ISO King" badge Olympics. Impressive new world record (of sorts), but ... I'd not make a purchasing decision between the M11M vs. Q3M based on the "new record" holder's margin of victory.
I still LOVE my M11M, it's very much in my arsenal that I use often. And it won't be dethroned by the Q3M (arriving tomorrow) because I love using it with a variety of Leica glass - especially 21SEM, 35 APO, 35 SRR and Lux 50 pre asph. But I do plan to use the Q3M, especially nights on the street when I'm just in the mood for shooting without thinking about focus and especially not having to think about shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Final thought: regardless what other people including Red Dot see when comparing images, I'm expecting that under similar (not even identical) lighting conditions and settings, images from both cameras will, to my untrained eyes, look pretty much the same - differing only based on perspective of different lenses. Whether or not the Q3M is capable of producing slightly better images based on it's Maestro 4 processor than the M11M with it's Maestro 3 processor was completely irrelevant in my decision to get the Q3M. Up to now the M11M is IMO the finest camera I've ever used, and no AF camera is going to change my love of rangefinder shooting with an array of spectacular M lenses.
brick33308 wrote:
I still LOVE my M11M, it's very much in my arsenal that I use often. And it won't be dethroned by the Q3M (arriving tomorrow) because I love using it with a variety of Leica glass - especially 21SEM, 35 APO, 35 SRR and Lux 50 pre asph. But I do plan to use the Q3M, especially nights on the street when I'm just in the mood for shooting without thinking about focus and especially not having to think about shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Final thought: regardless what other people including Red Dot see when comparing images, I'm expecting that under similar (not even identical) lighting conditions and settings, images from both cameras will, to my untrained eyes, look pretty much the same - differing only based on perspective of different lenses. Whether or not the Q3M is capable of producing slightly better images based on it's Maestro 4 processor than the M11M with it's Maestro 3 processor was completely irrelevant in my decision to get the Q3M. Up to now the M11M is IMO the finest camera I've ever used, and no AF camera is going to change my love of rangefinder shooting with an array of spectacular M lenses....Show more →
I love and use both cameras. As you wrote, they are for different use cases.
Looking a bit more into the test shots, one might say that Q3M has slightly less noise (difficult to judge because the noise seems different), but M11M has more detail. Love to hear what you think once you get your Q3M.
brick33308 wrote:
I still LOVE my M11M, it's very much in my arsenal that I use often. And it won't be dethroned by the Q3M (arriving tomorrow) because I love using it with a variety of Leica glass - especially 21SEM, 35 APO, 35 SRR and Lux 50 pre asph. But I do plan to use the Q3M, especially nights on the street when I'm just in the mood for shooting without thinking about focus and especially not having to think about shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Final thought: regardless what other people including Red Dot see when comparing images, I'm expecting that under similar (not even identical) lighting conditions and settings, images from both cameras will, to my untrained eyes, look pretty much the same - differing only based on perspective of different lenses. Whether or not the Q3M is capable of producing slightly better images based on it's Maestro 4 processor than the M11M with it's Maestro 3 processor was completely irrelevant in my decision to get the Q3M. Up to now the M11M is IMO the finest camera I've ever used, and no AF camera is going to change my love of rangefinder shooting with an array of spectacular M lenses....Show more →
I was also thinking about the comp of say a Q3M, cropped into 50mm (similar high ISO), where the noise is also magnified along with the crop vs. an M11M with the ILC of a true 50mm. I'm (hypothesizing) that the magnification (of the 28mm) vs. native, unmagnified noise (50mm) lens might reveal the tradeoff ... cropping to 75 or 90 (vs. native) even more so, as the noise is magnified even more (iiuc).
RustyBug wrote:
I was also thinking about the comp of say a Q3M, cropped into 50mm (similar high ISO), where the noise is also magnified along with the crop vs. an M11M with the ILC of a true 50mm. I'm (hypothesizing) that the magnification (of the 28mm) vs. native, unmagnified noise (50mm) lens might reveal the tradeoff ... cropping to 75 or 90 (vs. native) even more so, as the noise is magnified even more (iiuc).
I routinely crop my M11M high ISO images, and have never been bothered by noise even in shadow areas. On rare occasions I may use AI noise reduction in ACR although I dial the slider back. But there's something about M11M (and I presume Q3M) noise if you can call it that. To me, the high ISO noise on the latest Leica monochrome sensors is gorgeous - evenly sized and spaced, looks filmic to me.
And to reiterate what I said earlier, my sole reason to get the Q3M is just for convenience when I'm in the mood (especially walking around at night after dinner) to be lazy and not have to use rangefinder focus. In other words, I didn't get the Q3M because I think it's images in any and all kinds of life will be any better than images in any and all kinds of light produced by my beloved M11M.
Can't wait to get it tomorrow and soon begin sharing images!
brick33308 wrote:
In other words, I didn't get the Q3M because I think it's images in any and all kinds of life will be any better than images in any and all kinds of light produced by my beloved M11M.
I reckon that's kinda my thoughts on the Low Light Olympics ... they're both dang good, and depending on which track, which day, in which conditions ... they'll still be so dang close to one another, it won't matter which horse you bring to the race.
I've now shot with the Q3M twice - Saturday night and then yesterday morning. And I'm here to report that I love love love love love the Q3M. So much fun to shoot especially when strolling the streets at night, enjoying an ice cream cone and snapping pics with perfect focus.
brick33308 wrote:
I've now shot with the Q3M twice - Saturday night and then yesterday morning. And I'm here to report that I love love love love love the Q3M. So much fun to shoot especially when strolling the streets at night, enjoying an ice cream cone and snapping pics with perfect focus.
I had a max ISO set at 12500 which was stupid, instead I could have easily used a cap of not less than 25000. And even worse I shot them at f5.6 and 1/250 shutter. So when I opened them in ACR they were literally black. By the time I lifted shadows/exposure at least 2 or more stops, I'm guessing the effective ISO was north of 50000. There was a bit more noise than I generally enjoy in my night b/w images, so yes I did use ACR's AI noise reduction, but I dialed it down to about 25%.
