Re: 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will probably start a new thread with my tests showing crops etc...
Summary so far in regards to image quality:
1) M11 and M10-R have identical highlight recovery. This is not so trivial to test because for the results to be accurate, both DNG files must have identical histogram for the overexposed images and the cameras have different base ISO. (64 vs 100). I was able to get this done with the help of exposure compensation. When the overexposed images (3 stop) have equal histograms and the 3 stops are recovered in Lightroom, the results are identical.
2) Read Noise: M11 at ISO 64 has around 2/3 stop lower read noise compared to the M10-R at ISO 100. Read noise level is similar when both are set to ISO 100 but still, the M11 does slightly better.
3) Vignetting level is the same. Leica likely adjusted this with newer firmware updates. When I tested this with firmware v1.0, vignetting was higher for the M11. Now they are equal. (FW 1.4.0)
4) Do not use M-DNG (36.5MP) or S-DNG (18.4MP) because it degrades IQ. The M10-R DNG file (40.9MP) is noticeably sharper compared to the M11 + M-DNG (36.5MP). The M11 60.3MP file downsampled to 36.5MP (using PS regular bicubic) is also noticeably better than the M11 + M-DNG.
5) Colors: The M11 color palette is very different compared to the M10-R's. The reds and blues have a magenta bias and the greens have less yellow. Personally I prefer the M10-R colors out of the camera. This is perhaps a moot point since the DNG files can be profiled in post.
So far, the main benefit for the Leica M11 compared to the M10-R in terms of IQ is the lower read noise at ISO 64. This could be significant for shadow recovery using a single image when shooting landscapes for example. When shooting multiple images for the same scene and averaging them in post or bracketing in camera, this becomes a moot point.
The 2/3 stop read noise difference – does that include scaling down the 60mp M11 file to 40mp?
Edited to add: P2P also shows an advantage to the M11 at ISO 200 due to the dual gain kicking in, then they come close to being equal again at ISO 400. (P2P footnotes say the read noise chart is not for comparing models, but putting these two specific models together seems to match up with how they compare in real life.) When shooting for critical shadow recovery for single shot images with the M11, I try to do ISO 64 and 200 exclusively, as long the light cooperates.
Re: 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will probably start a new thread with my tests showing crops etc...
Summary so far in regards to image quality:
1) M11 and M10-R have identical highlight recovery. This is not so trivial to test because for the results to be accurate, both DNG files must have identical histogram for the overexposed images and the cameras have different base ISO. (64 vs 100). I was able to get this done with the help of exposure compensation. When the overexposed images (3 stop) have equal histograms and the 3 stops are recovered in Lightroom, the results are identical.
2) Read Noise: M11 at ISO 64 has around 2/3 stop lower read noise compared to the M10-R at ISO 100. Read noise level is similar when both are set to ISO 100 but still, the M11 does slightly better.
3) Vignetting level is the same. Leica likely adjusted this with newer firmware updates. When I tested this with firmware v1.0, vignetting was higher for the M11. Now they are equal. (FW 1.4.0)
4) Do not use M-DNG (36.5MP) or S-DNG (18.4MP) because it degrades IQ. The M10-R DNG file (40.9MP) is noticeably sharper compared to the M11 + M-DNG (36.5MP). The M11 60.3MP file downsampled to 36.5MP (using PS regular bicubic) is also noticeably better than the M11 + M-DNG.
5) Colors: The M11 color palette is very different compared to the M10-R's. The reds and blues have a magenta bias and the greens have less yellow. Personally I prefer the M10-R colors out of the camera. This is perhaps a moot point since the DNG files can be profiled in post.
So far, the main benefit for the Leica M11 compared to the M10-R in terms of IQ is the lower read noise at ISO 64. This could be significant for shadow recovery using a single image when shooting landscapes for example. When shooting multiple images for the same scene and averaging them in post or bracketing in camera, this becomes a moot point.
The 2/3 stop read noise difference – does that include scaling down the 60mp M11 file to 40mp?
Edited to add: P2P also shows an advantage to the M11 at ISO 200 due to the dual gain kicking in, then they come close to being equal again at ISO 400. When shooting for critical shadow recovery for single shot images, I try to do ISO 64 and 200 exclusively, as long the light cooperates.
Re: 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will probably start a new thread with my tests showing crops etc...
Summary so far in regards to image quality:
1) M11 and M10-R have identical highlight recovery. This is not so trivial to test because for the results to be accurate, both DNG files must have identical histogram for the overexposed images and the cameras have different base ISO. (64 vs 100). I was able to get this done with the help of exposure compensation. When the overexposed images (3 stop) have equal histograms and the 3 stops are recovered in Lightroom, the results are identical.
2) Read Noise: M11 at ISO 64 has around 2/3 stop lower read noise compared to the M10-R at ISO 100. Read noise level is similar when both are set to ISO 100 but still, the M11 does slightly better.
3) Vignetting level is the same. Leica likely adjusted this with newer firmware updates. When I tested this with firmware v1.0, vignetting was higher for the M11. Now they are equal. (FW 1.4.0)
4) Do not use M-DNG (36.5MP) or S-DNG (18.4MP) because it degrades IQ. The M10-R DNG file (40.9MP) is noticeably sharper compared to the M11 + M-DNG (36.5MP). The M11 60.3MP file downsampled to 36.5MP (using PS regular bicubic) is also noticeably better than the M11 + M-DNG.
5) Colors: The M11 color palette is very different compared to the M10-R's. The reds and blues have a magenta bias and the greens have less yellow. Personally I prefer the M10-R colors out of the camera. This is perhaps a moot point since the DNG files can be profiled in post.
So far, the main benefit for the Leica M11 compared to the M10-R in terms of IQ is the lower read noise at ISO 64. This could be significant for shadow recovery using a single image when shooting landscapes for example. When shooting multiple images for the same scene and averaging them in post or bracketing in camera, this becomes a moot point.
The 2/3 stop read noise difference – does that include scaling down the 60mp M11 file to 40mp?
Edited to add: P2P also shows an advantage to the M11 at ISO 200 due to the dual gain kicking in, then they come close to being equal again at ISO 400. When shooting for critical shadow recover for single shot images, I try to do ISO 64 and 200 exclusively, as long the light cooperates.
Re: 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will probably start a new thread with my tests showing crops etc...
Summary so far in regards to image quality:
1) M11 and M10-R have identical highlight recovery. This is not so trivial to test because for the results to be accurate, both DNG files must have identical histogram for the overexposed images and the cameras have different base ISO. (64 vs 100). I was able to get this done with the help of exposure compensation. When the overexposed images (3 stop) have equal histograms and the 3 stops are recovered in Lightroom, the results are identical.
2) Read Noise: M11 at ISO 64 has around 2/3 stop lower read noise compared to the M10-R at ISO 100. Read noise level is similar when both are set to ISO 100 but still, the M11 does slightly better.
3) Vignetting level is the same. Leica likely adjusted this with newer firmware updates. When I tested this with firmware v1.0, vignetting was higher for the M11. Now they are equal. (FW 1.4.0)
4) Do not use M-DNG (36.5MP) or S-DNG (18.4MP) because it degrades IQ. The M10-R DNG file (40.9MP) is noticeably sharper compared to the M11 + M-DNG (36.5MP). The M11 60.3MP file downsampled to 36.5MP (using PS regular bicubic) is also noticeably better than the M11 + M-DNG.
5) Colors: The M11 color palette is very different compared to the M10-R's. The reds and blues have a magenta bias and the greens have less yellow. Personally I prefer the M10-R colors out of the camera. This is perhaps a moot point since the DNG files can be profiled in post.
So far, the main benefit for the Leica M11 compared to the M10-R in terms of IQ is the lower read noise at ISO 64. This could be significant for shadow recovery using a single image when shooting landscapes for example. When shooting multiple images for the same scene and averaging them in post or bracketing in camera, this becomes a moot point.
The 2/3 stop read noise difference – does that include scaling down the 60mp M11 file to 40mp?
Jul 17, 2022 at 04:27 PM
Previous versions of highdesertmesa's message #15993947 « 8 reasons why I love the M11 compared to the M10 »
