Leica M11 and film lenses

[Andprayforrain]

Does it make sense to use film-era M lenses on the M11?

The lenses I have in mind:

• 35 Summicron Asph
• 50 Summicron (1979)
• 50 Elmar II
• 90 Elmarit-M

I understand that because film emulsion has thickness, film can tolerate an image that isn’t perfectly flat, as long as the curvature of the image is less than the thickness of the emulsion. On the other hand, digital sensor arrays are practically flat and a high-performance array (such as the M11’s) demands images that are flat across the entire array.

Is the M11’s sensor array too flat for the lenses shown above? That is, do those lenses project images that are so curved they can noticeably degrade the M11’s performance?

 

[Ricoh]

Personally I would choose a lens with ‘character’ over one capable of clinical perfection. This probably means I’m not in the target audience for a high performance camera such as the M11, being more than happy with my M240.

 

[jsrockit]

I think this is so overblown. These lenses are not just going to be bad due to a relatively small increase in resolution.

 

[ranger9]

An explanation I like is Roger Cicala's on the LensRentals blog. The article is here; then you have to scroll to the end to read the appendix tactfully titled "Why Perceptual Megapixels are Stupid."

Quick summary of Roger's explanation: As long as neither your camera nor your lens is hopelessly abysmal, improving either camera resolution or lens resolution will always improve your system resolution. There's no such thing as a camera that's "too good" for a particular lens or vice-versa; improving either one improves your overall result, although maybe not as much as you hoped or expected. (Roger is also the coiner of the phrase, "Expectations are a downpayment on disappointment.")

 

[Andprayforrain]

Thanks, guys.

I should refine my overarching question: if I go digital M using the lenses shown in my opening post, would I waste my money by buying the M11 instead of the M10, ignoring improvements in ergonomics and concentrating solely on performance?

Ranger9's response seems to answer that question: the M11 would deliver better performance than the M10 would even using my lenses.

 

[gavinlg]

The whole thing about older lenses getting worse on high MP bodies is myth IMO.

 

[luuca]

Personally I would choose a lens with ‘character’ over one capable of clinical perfection. This probably means I’m not in the target audience for a high performance camera such as the M11, being more than happy with my M240.

I second that, I use my lux 50 v2 and tele-elmarit 90 fat on a m10-r without any problems

 

[luuca]

tele-elmarit 90 "fat" and m10-r

 

[boojum]

I second that, I use my lux 50 v2 and tele-elmarit 90 fat on a m10-r without any problems

A consideration is that if you have a lens which can resolve extremely accurately, even at the expense of "character," you may be able to tweak the image and inject "character" in your post edits. Some photographers do a lot of post image manipulation. Some to the extent of having artificial looking images. A lot of this is up to interpretation. Some labor extensively on an image while others, like myself, do little or nothing. The ability is there, the extent a matter of taste.

 

[mapgraphs]

Does it make sense to use film-era M lenses on the M11?
...

Is the M11’s sensor array too flat for the lenses shown above? That is, do those lenses project images that are so curved they can noticeably degrade the M11’s performance?

Somewhere out there is an article by Dante Stella that talks about film flatness and registration distance variances between Zeiss and Leica rangefinder cameras. There was something to the effect that Leica measured the registration distance to within the film emulsion. The Zeiss counterpart measuring something different... At any rate, Zeiss considered the film to be perfectly flat after advancement.

What film doesn't have that sensors do is lots of shiny reflective bits that let light bounce around, especially along the edges and in corners where the angle is more oblique. Leica adjusts their sensor designs, micro lens and well configuration to try and minimize the effects of these errant waves of photons. The short of this is that a high resolution sensor is going to show any rendering issues with a particular lens easier and in more detail (when viewed 1:1) than that lens will show on a lower resolution sensor. Rendering issues are inherent in a lens, not in the resolution of the sensor or film emulsion, it's mostly a question about whether it is easier to recognize them or not and whether they have any relevance to the final image.

Edit (see how close I got to recalling it correctly ; - ):
Link:
http://dantestella.com/technical/flange.html

 

[furcafe]

Does it make sense to use film-era M lenses on the M11?

The lenses I have in mind:

• 35 Summicron Asph
• 50 Summicron (1979)
• 50 Elmar II
• 90 Elmarit-M

I understand that because film emulsion has thickness, film can tolerate an image that isn’t perfectly flat, as long as the curvature of the image is less than the thickness of the emulsion. On the other hand, digital sensor arrays are practically flat and a high-performance array (such as the M11’s) demands images that are flat across the entire array.

Is the M11’s sensor array too flat for the lenses shown above? That is, do those lenses project images that are so curved they can noticeably degrade the M11’s performance?

Thanks, guys.

I should refine my overarching question: if I go digital M using the lenses shown in my opening post, would I waste my money by buying the M11 instead of the M10, ignoring improvements in ergonomics and concentrating solely on performance?

Ranger9's response seems to answer that question: the M11 would deliver better performance than the M10 would even using my lenses.

As others have already posted, your question(s) really apply to every digital M, not just the M11, and I don't have anything to really to add on the technical side. However, I am a user/collector w/a decent selection of film Ms and has used every digital M body from the RD-1 up to the M10 w/a sizable number of vintage lenses (going back to the 1930s in Contax RF mount but "only" back to the 1940s in LTM). Digital sensors, even those on the RD-1 and M8, are indeed less forgiving than film, so my view is close to Dante Stella's as paraphrased by mapgraphs, i.e., that compared to film, digital will magnify the qualities, good & bad, of your lenses. As a practical matter, my main (1st World) problem has been discovering that quite a few of my pre-1970s lenses are out of alignment w/the rangefinders on my digital Ms, i.e., they've always needed to be adjusted or re-calibrated, it just that the misalignment wasn't as visible when they were mounted on my film bodies. Since I don't have the time &/or money to send all my problematic lenses to an optical shop (not to mention the additional variables caused by adapters when mounting Contax & Nikon RF glass on LTM/M bodies), I simply reserve them for film bodies or Sonys.

Bottom line: if this is your 1st digital M, you won't waste money by buying the M11 instead of the M10, but you may be disappointed to find some of your lenses may need to be adjusted to the digital M's rangefinder. The good news is that if you do get a lens calibrated to the digital body, it should also be good to go w/your film Ms.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Leica's previous sensors were custom made with special microlens arrays and shallow pixel wells to address the step angles at which the light rays from some of its M mount wide angle lenses hit the periphery of the film/sensor. I read that the M11 uses a Sony 60MP sensor. I don't know if it is off the shelf or is custom made for Leica incorporating the same technology as its previous sensors.

 

[furcafe]

Leica's previous sensors were custom made with special microlens arrays and shallow pixel wells to address the step angles at which the light rays from some of its M mount wide angle lenses hit the edges of the film/sensor. I read that the M11 uses a Sony 60MP sensor. I don't know if it is off the shelf or is custom made for Leica incorporating the same technology.

From his list, it doesn't appear that OP/Andyprayforrain has any of the (mostly) old wide-angles that could present problems. It will be interesting to see if Leica confirms that they use a Sony sensor (about time I would say!).

 

[willie_901]

Does it make sense to use film-era M lenses on the M11?


The lenses I have in mind:

• 35 Summicron Asph
• 50 Summicron (1979)
• 50 Elmar II
• 90 Elmarit-M

...

Yes, it makes sense to use these lenses because there are two different ways the M11 lets you take advantage of a 60 MP sensor. More photo site density means more information is available to compute a rendered image. The issue is choosing how to take advantage of the increased information content.

1. The obvious advantage is to produce images with more resolution. This requires the MTF50 of the lens is equal or greater than the MTF50 for the sensor assembly.
2. When the MTF50 of the lens is equal or greater than the MTF50 for the sensor assembly, image artifacts due to aliasing will be lower than using the same lens on a sensor with less photosites. Both stair-stepping and moiré color distortion artifact levels will be lower. The former is important for only highly cropped images while the later is a distraction that affects perceived image quality.
3. If the lens MTF50 of the lens is less than the sensor assembly MTF50, then pixel binning is available to increase perceived image quality by increasing signal-to-noise. The higher photo-site density can be used in a very different way.

Pixel binning is a signal acquisition-based technique that increases analog signal-to-noise ratio at the expense of resolution. Pixel binning electronically combines pixels in during analog signal measurement. The result is similar to increasing the full-well capacity of an individual photo site. When four pixels are combined, the maximum possible signal level increases four fold. Pixel binning increases signal-to-noise ratio at the expense of resolution.

Pixel binning is used by other high MP cameras and in many smart phones. Pixel binning is also common in microscopy and astrophotography.

It is important to note pixel binning has nothing to do with downsampling. Downsampling averages digital data from a set of individual pixels after the shutter closes.

The Leica M11 is the first Leica camera to use pixel binning. (link) Leica chose to use the marketing phrase "Triple Resolution Technology" instead of pixel binning. The result is one can choose between three different sensor resolutions: 60 MP, 36 MP or 18 MP. The 18MP mode delivers the highest SNR.

The photographer can chose the appropriate aquisition resolution, SNR/DR and file size for the task at hand.

 

[Andprayforrain]

Thanks, all. Invaluable.

I have a Q2 Monochrom. I want to shoot in colour again. Upon mature reflection, too many of my negs are crap, thanks to lousy metering, lousy developing (of my BW negs), or both. An incompetent nitwit like me benefits from modern digital's Ferrari-like performance supported by full traction control and stay-in-your-lane steering. My Q2 M gives me BW tonality the likes of which I can't get from film. My original idea was to get the Q2, since I shoot almost exclusively at 28mm and it would be nice to use a camera identical in feel to the Monochrom. But the thought of full resolution performance at 35mm and 50mm makes the M11 very tempting, even if my eyes aren't good enough for reliable rangefinder focusing.

 

[cboy]

When one uses a higher MP camera one effectively magnifies whatever what flaws the lens inherently already had, which is why using higher resolving lenses makes sense if the purpose was to maximise detail say in landscape or printing big
But if one isnt printing at the largest printable limit then itd be no different from printing at lower print with the M10...
https://youtu.be/doNPO90YmFY

 

[jsrockit]

When one uses a higher MP camera one effectively magnifies whatever what flaws the lens inherently already had, which is why using higher resolving lenses makes sense if the purpose was to maximise detail say in landscape or printing big

I'm not so sure... if I'm using a 24mp sensor and printing at 100% at 300dpi and a 60mp sensor and printing at 300dpi, I am printing at a much lower percentage. It will certainly hide sensor noise and I would think some lens flaws too. However, like you said, this all only matters if printing big.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Film lens on digital body. I see these threads for decades now. But some are keep on rediscovering same bicycle.

 

[olakiril]

I should refine my overarching question: if I go digital M using the lenses shown in my opening post, would I waste my money by buying the M11 instead of the M10, ignoring improvements in ergonomics and concentrating solely on performance?

Ranger9's response seems to answer that question: the M11 would deliver better performance than the M10 would even using my lenses.

Old thread, not sure what you decided, but I agree with ranger9 as the final result depends on both the lens and the sensor. That being said from your post here:

I have a Q2 Monochrom. I want to shoot in colour again. Upon mature reflection, too many of my negs are crap, thanks to lousy metering, lousy developing (of my BW negs), or both. An incompetent nitwit like me benefits from modern digital's Ferrari-like performance supported by full traction control and stay-in-your-lane steering. My Q2 M gives me BW tonality the likes of which I can't get from film. My original idea was to get the Q2, since I shoot almost exclusively at 28mm and it would be nice to use a camera identical in feel to the Monochrom. But the thought of full resolution performance at 35mm and 50mm makes the M11 very tempting, even if my eyes aren't good enough for reliable rangefinder focusing.

it looks like a Q2 would be a better option for you if the only thing that you miss from your camera is color.

 

[olakiril]

Leica's previous sensors were custom made with special microlens arrays and shallow pixel wells to address the step angles at which the light rays from some of its M mount wide angle lenses hit the periphery of the film/sensor. I read that the M11 uses a Sony 60MP sensor. I don't know if it is off the shelf or is custom made for Leica incorporating the same technology as its previous sensors.

The micro-lens array only helped with the vignetting. The shallow angles of rays from many rangefinder lenses end up away from the photo sensors when normal micro arrays are used.


Leica with their older sensors used microlenses that were laterally displaced at different degrees as you moved to the periphery of the sensor to compensate for that (From the above picture you can imagine how the rays would focus on the photosensitive part if you move the top lens a bit further down). Modern sensors are much less prone to this issue as with BSI (M11/A7rIV are using the same BSI sensor by the way) the photosensitive sites are much closer to the microlenses. So there is no need for this correction any more.

The typical smearing that occurs when rangefinder lenses are used on other digital cameras is due to the extra glass that usually sits between the sensor and the lens (antialiasing/IR filters) which is causing different wavelengths to focus on different parts of the sensor. Leica had opted to get rid of the AA filter altogether and used a very thin IR filter for that reason. Modifications for other cameras in order to optimize the performance of these lenses are doing something similar.

Older glass in general is lacking coating which is supposed to help with contrast, color, flaring among other things. Using these lenses on high resolution sensors won't change much of their characteristics. For the same printed image size you would get the same "character". Resolution-wise, better sensors will give you better results with any lens. Of course better lenses are going to give you better results, that doesn't change 😉 , but if people are after "character" and not "clinical" results that's up to them.