Owners: M10R vs M11 - Pros and Cons

CameraQuest

CameraQuest

Head Bartender
Staff member
Local time
7:43 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
6,524
The M11 is a very different camera than the more traditionally designed M10R.

The M11 different design approach may be bothersome to some while others love the changes.

Putting cost aside, what are the owner's take on the two cameras?

Is the M11 worth the change, or is it a bridge going in the wrong direction ?

Was the M11 the better choice for you? Why ?
 
I've not even seen an M11 in person yet...

I have been over the Moon about the M10 Monochrom, to the point where I wanted essentially the same thing in a color camera. I chose to not consider the M11 and find a good used M10-R body instead because the batteries, charger, Visoflex, half case, and everything else I use with the M10 Monochrom is completely interchangeable with the M10-R. I don't need the M11's additional pixel resolution and features, and buying a second-hand M10-R body and having double use out of my accessories kit saved me a good bit of money.

Beyond that, perhaps one day I'll handle an M11 and see what I've been missing. LOL! ;)

G
 
The M11 is my first modern M camera. Can be used in both RF and LV modes without significant drawbacks. It lacks IBIS though, which drives me to use 1/(2f)s shutter speeds to avoid camera shake at 60mp. One of its major pros is its BSI sensor preventing red edges and other color shift issues with WA lenses like Heliar 15/4.5 v2, Super-Angulon 21/3.4, or Biogon 21/4.5.
 
Godfrey said:
There's this funny device called a "tripod" ... ;)
Click to expand...
OTOH I could opt for a 100 megapixel Fujifilm GFX medium format - with IBIS - AND A LENS for less money than either M body in question and still not need a tripod. Or, yea, I could lug around a tripod to get the full benefit of 40 (or 60) megapixels. The only option without IBIS is to keep your shutter speed at or above 500 (250 is pushing it) and use high ISO to compensate. No thank you.
 
Hmm. I don't seem to have any trouble holding my 50 Mpixel Hasselblad 907x or 40 Mpixel Leica M10-M still enough to get critically sharp prints, even at exposure times down into the 1/30 to 1/60 sec range*. If you cannot achieve that, then I understand your sentiments, but I suspect this is an issue that varies individual by individual.

*On inspection, I have several photos posted that were made at 1/15, 1/20, 1/25, and 1/30 second with the M10-M, and 1/30 to 1/50 second with the 907x. They're quite sharp, even at 100% on screen. I certainly wouldn't not buy a 40 or 60 Mpixel camera for reason of lack of IBIS, although image stabilization is a nice plus when needed. Image stabilization is particularly useful when working with a medium long focal length hand-held in marginal light, from my experience with it.

Oh yeah: I carry a tripod regularly, My field tripod is light and sturdy, and enables photographs that I could not otherwise achieve. I don't find it much of a burden.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Hmm. I don't seem to have any trouble holding my 50 Mpixel Hasselblad 907x or 40 Mpixel Leica M10-M still enough to get critically sharp prints, even at exposure times down into the 1/30 to 1/60 sec range*. If you cannot achieve that, then I understand your sentiments, but I suspect this is an issue that varies individual by individual.

*On inspection, I have several photos posted that were made at 1/15, 1/20, 1/25, and 1/30 second with the M10-M, and 1/30 to 1/50 second with the 907x. They're quite sharp, even at 100% on screen. I certainly wouldn't not buy a 40 or 60 Mpixel camera for reason of lack of IBIS, although image stabilization is a nice plus when needed. Image stabilization is particularly useful when working with a medium long focal length hand-held in marginal light, from my experience with it.

Oh yeah: I carry a tripod regularly, My field tripod is light and sturdy, and enables photographs that I could not otherwise achieve. I don't find it much of a burden.
Click to expand...
We're getting off-topic here and I certainly didn't intend to get into a debate. But if you're using a tripod, of course you can get these results. Regardless, I will yield to your experience and grant that using wider lenses will make the issue less critical. I do own a good tripod, but don't like lugging it around - so I rarely use it.
 
Bill Blackwell said:
We're getting off-topic here and I certainly didn't intend to get into a debate. But if you're using a tripod, of course you can get these results. Regardless, I will yield to your experience and grant that using wider lenses will make the issue less critical. I do own a good tripod, but don't like lugging it around - so I rarely use it.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to be sure it was clear that the photos I was referring to were made hand-held, NOT with the tripod. I can easily tell photos I make using the tripod: even at 1/1000 of a second, there is less camera motion blur in them than the best of exposures with any of my cameras, including the ones with image stabilization.

And yes, this has become a digression. :)

G

"My sharpest lens is a sturdy tripod."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top