Totally agree with Nick on this. Moved up from M10-P to M11 and almost always shooting handheld. Instead of relying on IBS, EFV and AUTO functions, you should consider taking your time to make tries, think about what you're doing every time and enjoy the process of "making" a picture. There are plenty of full auto, fail proof, cameras out there if you just leave behind the sensation of being the one in charge. Great work and point of view @Nick, you're the best in class. Also, tested it from APO as well as to Super Elmar, it's just about as perfect as you want it to be for a print. Also, if something looks really wrong, you still have the option of taking 36MP with just a button press (or even 18MP).
Personally I think resolution is maybe too emphasized by every camera maker in the world that pushes for an endless competition to the highest megapixels, and I say this as someone who shoots large format film cameras for my landscape work (which drum scans in at insanely high megapixel values). As for landscape photography, we've already had ultra-high megapixel functionality in full frame cameras via pixel shifting, and landscape photographers routinely use tripods anyways. While it's nice to have more resolution for specific shots that you want to print very large, I think more impressive are advancements in low light performance, improved dynamic range at all ISO settings, and something that gets drastically overlooked by most camera manufactures, nailing color science. Whatever gets me to edit less at the end of the day is strongly welcomed. I want photos that feel like there's life in them, that evoke emotion as they already look straight out of camera. That matters way more than the resolution of the file, to me at least.
Jesus the comment section on this video has a bit of an ego, specially when it comes to prints. Thanks for the video Nick, the shutter speed tip needs to be addressed more when it comes to the M11, I was really thinking about not getting the camera because of the amount of comments on regards to blurry images, this video makes things clear for me and I'll get the M11 as soon as I find one. I think it's an amazing update for the system and some people on this community should be more thankful to a brand that listens and take steps forward. Greetings from Chile.
A very informativ video. Thanks for that. Regarding print size. You state that you can print as big as the frame with the 60MP file of the M11. Don't get me wrong, but that size can be printed with a 12MP file size. I have done it and it looks great hanging on my wall. Sensor resolution is far to high these days.
One can print at any size - you just spread the captured pixels thinner and thinner. I have printed M9 images 4.5m wide. My print size comment is based on the idea that a print that can stand up to really close inspection should be no less than about 240ppi. The M11 files can be printed at 240ppi up to approx 40" and still maintain the critical sharpness of a smaller print.
First: Thanks for your great videos! Really enjoying all of them! But regarding "print size" Please just stop mentioning it. One can print a sharp 16mp image out of a old dslr comfortably on A0. In fact i have a picture right behind me at this moment. A0, captured with a Canon EOS600D with 16mp. It looks absolutely fine!
See my other comments on print size above. 'Perceived sharpness' depends on many factors, including subject matter. A silhouette will look sharp at any print size since there is no detail whilst a landscape with super-fine organic detail will look quite poor if printed at less than, say, 240ppi. The prints I am referring to are critically sharp in the finest details, even when closely examined. The M11 prints up to 40" at about 240ppi - this means that the print are resolving more detail than the naked eye can, even with close inspection.
No problem at all. All current and older M lenses (back to 1954) work on all M cameras. I have a 90mm Elmarit-R from 1965 with is still up to the resolution of the M11.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia Thanks for the quick reply... I just opened the box on my M11-P and haven't tested it yet. Still charging the battery. I planned on using the 28 Elmarit and 50 lux with it and will use my 35 cron and 50 APO cron with my M10 M. At least that's the plan till I figure out what works best for me. Been shooting for over 40 years and fell back in love with manual focus. The eyes aren't what they used to be, so it's definitely a challenge. I just subscribed. Love the content/knowledge you provide. Thank you
Pixel Binning will affect this because of the lower net resolution. But as I explain in the video you only need to put the shutter speed up a step or two to negate any minor shutter speed/resolution issues.
Great vid thank you! I currently own both M11 & M10 in hand & have been comparing them for about a week now. (I’ve been shooting with M10 for about 3yrs) But I’m thinking that the difference in improvement is relatively small for a casual shooters like me. I am thinking of selling off one of them. I can sell M10 for about 4000USD & M11 for about USD8500. Maybe it’s a personal thing, but I’m leaning to sell off the M11. In your opinion, what factors make the M11 worth that extra 4500 USD ? Much appreciated!
Well, your M10 is three years old so that reflects much of the difference. Better to compare price paid than what you might sell it for, IMO. The M11 has the advantage of more DR in the lower DNG sizes, faster shooting, bigger buffer, better accessory EVF, much longer battery life, more sophisticated metering, stabilised LiveView, lighter weight, oh, and if you can make use of it, more than double the pixel count. The cost of an M11 is not much different to what an an M10 cost when purchased new. And you get a lot more for your money.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia Thank you for your input, it was very helpful in making my decision. I ended up selling off the M11 & kept my M10. The difference is quite minimal to my daily use despite the price difference. Here are some reasons… 24mp plenty or actually prefers to 60mp, wifi transfer is good enough on M10, in low light actual results are very similar, lightmeter is more predictable on M10 & but M11 meter goes all over, I shoot like film camera so fast shooting or buffer does not affect me, I already own total three M10 battaries which is enough to get me through even a heavy day of shooting, I don’t have to baby my M10 like I need to with M11, dynamic range is hardly distinguishable as I only share photo or post online, I always turn off my lcd while shooting so new Menu does not affect me, I still sold M11 for retail after weeks of use as demand is high.
The Q2 has stabilising in the lens (OIS), not the body, so clearly M lenses cannot be stabilised. The sensor cannot be stabilised due to size constraints.
Not at all. As always, be aware of the shutter speed you are using and make sure it's short enough to counter any possible camera shake. In lower light situations, increase the ISO - noise is a far lesser evil than camera shake.
As much as I agree with your review, there is actually a wrong assumption regarding print size with the M11. You cannot print about 1m large or height without interpolation. I guess you are considering printing a native M11 file at 254dpi (which means 63.28x95.28cm) because printers will actually interpolate files to their native resolution which is 300 dpi for Canon printers and 360dpi for Epson printers. It is better to interpolate trough software than letting the printer do the job, for example if you print trough Lightroom or CaptureOne it is very easy hassle free you just have to set it in the software. For the more demanding photographer you can use Topaz (if you print larger than your native camera resolution of course). In this matter for larger prints Monochrom cameras have huge advantage because cleaner file and details interpolate way much better than Bayer files. My 2 cents.
Well that depends on what you mean by interpolation. Scaling up before printing or print driver interpolation? 254ppi does not need to be upscaled (pre-print interpolation) to 300ppi to see a visible improvement. In theory, sure, scaling it from 254pp to 300ppi in Topaz before printing *could* improve the results, but in practice it's just not visible. Printer-driver interpolation is a different kettle of fish. Whether it scales to 300ppi or not is irrelevant - the end result is that the driver rasterizes the available image data to 1200dpi (or 1440dpi or 2880dpi) and these dots are also overlapping so the relationship between image ppi and printer dpi is by no means obvious. Sharpening, paper surface, ink load, bi-directional and Fine Detail also play a role here. The upshot is that the original image dpi determines quality, clearly, but the visible difference between the 240ppi that I use and the theoretical 'sweetspot' of 300ppi is minimal or non-existent. Thus my claim of 1m prints without interpolation. I am not saying your claim is wrong, just that I judge the results by eyeballing the print. My colleague Christian Fletcher prints his huge images at 180ppi and, believe me, they look sensational even with your nose to the glass!
@@LeicaCameraAustralia I am sure you prints are very pleasing. I am just saying that printers have a native resolution (300 dpi for Canon and 360 for Epson) that is why you have to choose between 1200 or 2400ppi for your Canon printer because they are a multiple of 300dpi…so if you want to avoid miscalculations it is better not to let the printer’s driver do the interpolation to the printer’s native resolution ; Photoshop, Lightroom or CaptureOne will do this job perfectly whether you print smaller or bigger than the native file resolution for example. You can actually see the difference on finest details ; if you don’t make scan of the print you should see the difference. By the way it is not a surprise if your friend makes beautiful large prints with 180dpi, because 180dpi (360/2) is a multiple of 1440 or 2880ppi on Epson printers…that is also the file resolution I use for my very large prints and this is where Topaz may help 😉 I totally understand that my message sounds too picky or too theoretical, but as a Leica professional user I know what those cameras and lenses can provide compared to the other, most of the time it is not much or at least not always obvious but the sum of this little things makes the difference, it is exactly the same here, and It is also the recommendation of my lab. But anyway, wether you consider it useful or not, for a 60Mpix file and 1m large print the image will be interpolated « worst case scenario » by the driver printer to 300 or 360dpi that’s the way it works. PS : For this reason softwares like Qimage or Mirage send directly the image to the native printer’s resolution without any action from the user.
Fair call, and not picky at all. :-) And one of my printing consultant colleagues suggests QImage too, especially for printing profiling targets. I used to use it way back in my Epson 9000 days but now I mostly print directly out of Lightroom (or from Photoshop for Topaz-scaled images). I think I will give it a try and see if I can see any improvements. As you say, good printing is indeed the sum of many small 'tweaks' but there is also the law of diminishing returns to consider. I had a long discussion with the Canon printing people a few years ago about the merits of 16-bit printing. The only difference they could clearly demonstrate was when printing artificially generated multi-colour gradients. For 99% of real world images, no visible difference.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia As a Mac user I never used Qimage but Mirage instead which is also great unless for B&W prints where Epson B&W advanced mode is much better especially in the deep shadows. Even if I process my file with C1 I love Lr print module unless when you want to print multiple image with different size on the same page or roll. For 16 bits printing I totally agree, I have never noticed any improvement over 8 bits but I have to say it is set by default with my Lr print settings (not on the driver) like the 360dpi output for my Epson P5000 printer. I would say it is also the same between 1440ppi over 2880ppi unless there is a special recommendation from the paper brand (all of Hahnemuehle Fine Art paper I use are recommended for 1440ppi), I remember I had once banding with smooth tonal gradations on very large prints on Hahnemuehle FineArt Baryta from an Epson 9900 and 2880dpi solved the issue (but I guessed Super Micro Weave could also solved this). PS : I just realized that I made confusion between ppi (the output resolution of the image) and dpi for printing resolution (1440 and 2880dpi for Epson and 1200 and 2400 for Canon). PS 2 : Here is an article that explains everything : www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/ I have learned that for small prints on glossy papers instead of downsampling to 300 or 360ppi it worths to upsample to 600 or 720ppi.
All good advice, thanks for sharing your experience. I agree with you on that last point too. FWIW I did try a small test today. I see no difference between sending a 10" wide, 240ppi image to print from Lightroom (therefore res-ed up in the driver) and forcing LR to upsample to 300ppi before printing. However, exporting the same 240ppi image as a TIFF and upsampling in Topaz to 600ppi did make an appreciable difference when also printed the same 10" size from LR (with Print Resolution off). PS QImage is available for Mac. www.binartem.com/qimageone/
You can print any file as big as you like in principle, but once the native resolution drops below 240ppi (or thereabouts) the finest details will start to degrade when inspected closely. I am talking about prints with very fine details that can be examined in closeup and still look perfectly sharp.
60 MP is the worst feature of this camera. Hasselblad X1D is a small high MP and a real digital medium format camera that was released years ago. M lenses can’t beat MF lenses. M photographers are not looking for more MP in a camera that doesn’t have IBS, doesn’t have EVF. I advise to stay away from this one. I use to think your channel is honest, now I kind think otherwise.
I am sorry you feel that way. We have A0 prints on display in the Sydney and Melbourne stores, made by me direct from the camera. Maybe other stores around the world do too. If you could see these then maybe you might reconsider. Trust your eyes - prints are the final arbiter of image quality.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia Everyone is entitle to their own opinion & if a Hassy owner(or other) could be biased by that. I don't feel the true meaning of MF is all about pixels so much as the sensor size & the files you can get from a larger sensor. Like mentioned, the quality to size ratio of the package (particularly the lens size) always amazed me. Even before the higher mp sensors. I feel Leica hit a home run with this camera & like the Leica cameras before, produce beautiful images. What would worry me is being digital & at the price it cost, will it be repairable (parts available & goes for any camera being made today) 10-15-20 years down the road? I hope so. I see other manufactures dropping support for cameras made in 2010!
I have an X1DII and a 907x and an M11. Thay're all capable of stunning rsults. As much as I love my X1D I can't build a kit that's as portable as the M11 and lenses. The X1D lenses are spectacular but you can get close enough not to be an issue with M lenses, and not just the Leica ones. Many of the modern M lenses and several CV lenses are more than good enough for critical high resolution work. I find it hard to see any difference between my XCD 65mm and my APO 50mm Summicron except for the ratio differences and a slight resolution bump to the M. Plus the optional EVF for the M 11 matches the X1DII and it tilts.
Totally agree with Nick on this. Moved up from M10-P to M11 and almost always shooting handheld. Instead of relying on IBS, EFV and AUTO functions, you should consider taking your time to make tries, think about what you're doing every time and enjoy the process of "making" a picture. There are plenty of full auto, fail proof, cameras out there if you just leave behind the sensation of being the one in charge. Great work and point of view @Nick, you're the best in class. Also, tested it from APO as well as to Super Elmar, it's just about as perfect as you want it to be for a print. Also, if something looks really wrong, you still have the option of taking 36MP with just a button press (or even 18MP).
Personally I think resolution is maybe too emphasized by every camera maker in the world that pushes for an endless competition to the highest megapixels, and I say this as someone who shoots large format film cameras for my landscape work (which drum scans in at insanely high megapixel values). As for landscape photography, we've already had ultra-high megapixel functionality in full frame cameras via pixel shifting, and landscape photographers routinely use tripods anyways.
While it's nice to have more resolution for specific shots that you want to print very large, I think more impressive are advancements in low light performance, improved dynamic range at all ISO settings, and something that gets drastically overlooked by most camera manufactures, nailing color science.
Whatever gets me to edit less at the end of the day is strongly welcomed. I want photos that feel like there's life in them, that evoke emotion as they already look straight out of camera. That matters way more than the resolution of the file, to me at least.
Jesus the comment section on this video has a bit of an ego, specially when it comes to prints. Thanks for the video Nick, the shutter speed tip needs to be addressed more when it comes to the M11, I was really thinking about not getting the camera because of the amount of comments on regards to blurry images, this video makes things clear for me and I'll get the M11 as soon as I find one. I think it's an amazing update for the system and some people on this community should be more thankful to a brand that listens and take steps forward.
Greetings from Chile.
This video put my mind to rest! I can now with confidence, photograph my images using the recommended formula for 60mb sensor.
A very informativ video. Thanks for that. Regarding print size. You state that you can print as big as the frame with the 60MP file of the M11. Don't get me wrong, but that size can be printed with a 12MP file size. I have done it and it looks great hanging on my wall.
Sensor resolution is far to high these days.
One can print at any size - you just spread the captured pixels thinner and thinner. I have printed M9 images 4.5m wide. My print size comment is based on the idea that a print that can stand up to really close inspection should be no less than about 240ppi. The M11 files can be printed at 240ppi up to approx 40" and still maintain the critical sharpness of a smaller print.
First: Thanks for your great videos! Really enjoying all of them! But regarding "print size" Please just stop mentioning it. One can print a sharp 16mp image out of a old dslr comfortably on A0. In fact i have a picture right behind me at this moment. A0, captured with a Canon EOS600D with 16mp. It looks absolutely fine!
See my other comments on print size above. 'Perceived sharpness' depends on many factors, including subject matter. A silhouette will look sharp at any print size since there is no detail whilst a landscape with super-fine organic detail will look quite poor if printed at less than, say, 240ppi. The prints I am referring to are critically sharp in the finest details, even when closely examined. The M11 prints up to 40" at about 240ppi - this means that the print are resolving more detail than the naked eye can, even with close inspection.
If you want to make this sentence more modern you can substitute “fine” with “fire”. Millennials will love it.
M10R for me is still the best option for a new Leica M.
Great tip on the shutter speed
Glad it was helpful!
I have a new 28mm F2.8 elmarit, would that be an issue with the M11?
No problem at all. All current and older M lenses (back to 1954) work on all M cameras. I have a 90mm Elmarit-R from 1965 with is still up to the resolution of the M11.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia Thanks for the quick reply... I just opened the box on my M11-P and haven't tested it yet. Still charging the battery. I planned on using the 28 Elmarit and 50 lux with it and will use my 35 cron and 50 APO cron with my M10 M. At least that's the plan till I figure out what works best for me. Been shooting for over 40 years and fell back in love with manual focus. The eyes aren't what they used to be, so it's definitely a challenge. I just subscribed. Love the content/knowledge you provide. Thank you
If you eyes are causing you problems might I suggest looking at the Visoflex? It makes life a lot easier when using M cameras.
does pixel binning resolve some of the shutterspeed / high-res shacky "problems"? in theory it should?
Pixel Binning will affect this because of the lower net resolution. But as I explain in the video you only need to put the shutter speed up a step or two to negate any minor shutter speed/resolution issues.
Thanks for the reply and the great video
I have M11 and M11M. Many freezes with those cameras. No firmware yet since December 2023. What happened with respected company?
Great vid thank you! I currently own both M11 & M10 in hand & have been comparing them for about a week now. (I’ve been shooting with M10 for about 3yrs) But I’m thinking that the difference in improvement is relatively small for a casual shooters like me. I am thinking of selling off one of them. I can sell M10 for about 4000USD & M11 for about USD8500. Maybe it’s a personal thing, but I’m leaning to sell off the M11. In your opinion, what factors make the M11 worth that extra 4500 USD ? Much appreciated!
Well, your M10 is three years old so that reflects much of the difference. Better to compare price paid than what you might sell it for, IMO. The M11 has the advantage of more DR in the lower DNG sizes, faster shooting, bigger buffer, better accessory EVF, much longer battery life, more sophisticated metering, stabilised LiveView, lighter weight, oh, and if you can make use of it, more than double the pixel count. The cost of an M11 is not much different to what an an M10 cost when purchased new. And you get a lot more for your money.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia Thank you for your input, it was very helpful in making my decision. I ended up selling off the M11 & kept my M10. The difference is quite minimal to my daily use despite the price difference. Here are some reasons… 24mp plenty or actually prefers to 60mp, wifi transfer is good enough on M10, in low light actual results are very similar, lightmeter is more predictable on M10 & but M11 meter goes all over, I shoot like film camera so fast shooting or buffer does not affect me, I already own total three M10 battaries which is enough to get me through even a heavy day of shooting, I don’t have to baby my M10 like I need to with M11, dynamic range is hardly distinguishable as I only share photo or post online, I always turn off my lcd while shooting so new Menu does not affect me, I still sold M11 for retail after weeks of use as demand is high.
@@FriendsFan4ever What is it about the m11 that you needed to ‘baby?’
It is a great video! I still don’t understand why a camera of this class does not have an image stabilizer like the Q2.
The Q2 has stabilising in the lens (OIS), not the body, so clearly M lenses cannot be stabilised. The sensor cannot be stabilised due to size constraints.
Yes, it might well be the best M for color, but my M10 M is still the best M for b&w photography, at least for now.
...at least for now!
It's a beauty. That's for sure. Still, I await a weather sealed CL2.
With IBIS, maybe a USBC for charging
The M11 has a USB-C charging port in the base. Very handy. But no room for IBIS, sorry.
So you need to shoot in full daylight or use a tripod.
Not at all. As always, be aware of the shutter speed you are using and make sure it's short enough to counter any possible camera shake. In lower light situations, increase the ISO - noise is a far lesser evil than camera shake.
As much as I agree with your review, there is actually a wrong assumption regarding print size with the M11. You cannot print about 1m large or height without interpolation. I guess you are considering printing a native M11 file at 254dpi (which means 63.28x95.28cm) because printers will actually interpolate files to their native resolution which is 300 dpi for Canon printers and 360dpi for Epson printers. It is better to interpolate trough software than letting the printer do the job, for example if you print trough Lightroom or CaptureOne it is very easy hassle free you just have to set it in the software. For the more demanding photographer you can use Topaz (if you print larger than your native camera resolution of course). In this matter for larger prints Monochrom cameras have huge advantage because cleaner file and details interpolate way much better than Bayer files. My 2 cents.
Well that depends on what you mean by interpolation. Scaling up before printing or print driver interpolation? 254ppi does not need to be upscaled (pre-print interpolation) to 300ppi to see a visible improvement. In theory, sure, scaling it from 254pp to 300ppi in Topaz before printing *could* improve the results, but in practice it's just not visible. Printer-driver interpolation is a different kettle of fish. Whether it scales to 300ppi or not is irrelevant - the end result is that the driver rasterizes the available image data to 1200dpi (or 1440dpi or 2880dpi) and these dots are also overlapping so the relationship between image ppi and printer dpi is by no means obvious. Sharpening, paper surface, ink load, bi-directional and Fine Detail also play a role here. The upshot is that the original image dpi determines quality, clearly, but the visible difference between the 240ppi that I use and the theoretical 'sweetspot' of 300ppi is minimal or non-existent. Thus my claim of 1m prints without interpolation. I am not saying your claim is wrong, just that I judge the results by eyeballing the print. My colleague Christian Fletcher prints his huge images at 180ppi and, believe me, they look sensational even with your nose to the glass!
@@LeicaCameraAustralia I am sure you prints are very pleasing. I am just saying that printers have a native resolution (300 dpi for Canon and 360 for Epson) that is why you have to choose between 1200 or 2400ppi for your Canon printer because they are a multiple of 300dpi…so if you want to avoid miscalculations it is better not to let the printer’s driver do the interpolation to the printer’s native resolution ; Photoshop, Lightroom or CaptureOne will do this job perfectly whether you print smaller or bigger than the native file resolution for example. You can actually see the difference on finest details ; if you don’t make scan of the print you should see the difference. By the way it is not a surprise if your friend makes beautiful large prints with 180dpi, because 180dpi (360/2) is a multiple of 1440 or 2880ppi on Epson printers…that is also the file resolution I use for my very large prints and this is where Topaz may help 😉 I totally understand that my message sounds too picky or too theoretical, but as a Leica professional user I know what those cameras and lenses can provide compared to the other, most of the time it is not much or at least not always obvious but the sum of this little things makes the difference, it is exactly the same here, and It is also the recommendation of my lab. But anyway, wether you consider it useful or not, for a 60Mpix file and 1m large print the image will be interpolated « worst case scenario » by the driver printer to 300 or 360dpi that’s the way it works.
PS : For this reason softwares like Qimage or Mirage send directly the image to the native printer’s resolution without any action from the user.
Fair call, and not picky at all. :-) And one of my printing consultant colleagues suggests QImage too, especially for printing profiling targets. I used to use it way back in my Epson 9000 days but now I mostly print directly out of Lightroom (or from Photoshop for Topaz-scaled images). I think I will give it a try and see if I can see any improvements. As you say, good printing is indeed the sum of many small 'tweaks' but there is also the law of diminishing returns to consider. I had a long discussion with the Canon printing people a few years ago about the merits of 16-bit printing. The only difference they could clearly demonstrate was when printing artificially generated multi-colour gradients. For 99% of real world images, no visible difference.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia As a Mac user I never used Qimage but Mirage instead which is also great unless for B&W prints where Epson B&W advanced mode is much better especially in the deep shadows. Even if I process my file with C1 I love Lr print module unless when you want to print multiple image with different size on the same page or roll. For 16 bits printing I totally agree, I have never noticed any improvement over 8 bits but I have to say it is set by default with my Lr print settings (not on the driver) like the 360dpi output for my Epson P5000 printer. I would say it is also the same between 1440ppi over 2880ppi unless there is a special recommendation from the paper brand (all of Hahnemuehle Fine Art paper I use are recommended for 1440ppi), I remember I had once banding with smooth tonal gradations on very large prints on Hahnemuehle FineArt Baryta from an Epson 9900 and 2880dpi solved the issue (but I guessed Super Micro Weave could also solved this).
PS : I just realized that I made confusion between ppi (the output resolution of the image) and dpi for printing resolution (1440 and 2880dpi for Epson and 1200 and 2400 for Canon).
PS 2 : Here is an article that explains everything : www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/
I have learned that for small prints on glossy papers instead of downsampling to 300 or 360ppi it worths to upsample to 600 or 720ppi.
All good advice, thanks for sharing your experience. I agree with you on that last point too.
FWIW I did try a small test today. I see no difference between sending a 10" wide, 240ppi image to print from Lightroom (therefore res-ed up in the driver) and forcing LR to upsample to 300ppi before printing. However, exporting the same 240ppi image as a TIFF and upsampling in Topaz to 600ppi did make an appreciable difference when also printed the same 10" size from LR (with Print Resolution off).
PS QImage is available for Mac.
www.binartem.com/qimageone/
Its a classic for sure
A future classic!
It’s been released but orders are being fulfilled at a snails pace.
It's very popular and they can only be made so fast. It takes time to make an M camera but the wait is worth it.
We need to address the elephant in the room: Nick, your watch is stopped. No time lapses during the entire recording.
Someone is observant! Yes, I forgot to wind it, I wear other watches sometimes and that one had been 'resting' for a few days.
Yes! Someone else who also shoots auto-ISO!
Auto-ISO, done right, is very useful.
Me too
I have print bigger print with 24 mp.
You can print any file as big as you like in principle, but once the native resolution drops below 240ppi (or thereabouts) the finest details will start to degrade when inspected closely. I am talking about prints with very fine details that can be examined in closeup and still look perfectly sharp.
60 MP is the worst feature of this camera. Hasselblad X1D is a small high MP and a real digital medium format camera that was released years ago.
M lenses can’t beat MF lenses. M photographers are not looking for more MP in a camera that doesn’t have IBS, doesn’t have EVF. I advise to stay away from this one.
I use to think your channel is honest, now I kind think otherwise.
I am sorry you feel that way. We have A0 prints on display in the Sydney and Melbourne stores, made by me direct from the camera. Maybe other stores around the world do too. If you could see these then maybe you might reconsider. Trust your eyes - prints are the final arbiter of image quality.
@@LeicaCameraAustralia Everyone is entitle to their own opinion & if a Hassy owner(or other) could be biased by that. I don't feel the true meaning of MF is all about pixels so much as the sensor size & the files you can get from a larger sensor. Like mentioned, the quality to size ratio of the package (particularly the lens size) always amazed me. Even before the higher mp sensors. I feel Leica hit a home run with this camera & like the Leica cameras before, produce beautiful images. What would worry me is being digital & at the price it cost, will it be repairable (parts available & goes for any camera being made today) 10-15-20 years down the road? I hope so. I see other manufactures dropping support for cameras made in 2010!
@@LeicaCameraAustralia Can't please 100% of everyone! No-one can.
I have an X1DII and a 907x and an M11. Thay're all capable of stunning rsults. As much as I love my X1D I can't build a kit that's as portable as the M11 and lenses. The X1D lenses are spectacular but you can get close enough not to be an issue with M lenses, and not just the Leica ones. Many of the modern M lenses and several CV lenses are more than good enough for critical high resolution work. I find it hard to see any difference between my XCD 65mm and my APO 50mm Summicron except for the ratio differences and a slight resolution bump to the M.
Plus the optional EVF for the M 11 matches the X1DII and it tilts.