I honestly don't understand why some are upset about the image quality from Leica thinking that since it's a $8K camera, the IQ must be really good but it's not the case obviously. I would just trust dpreview to conduct those tests to the best of their ability trying to extract more details and they can't compared to Sony, given the fact that Leica is using Sony's A7R sensor.

I always think that Leica is just a premium brand with its own craftsmanship demanding high cost for their labor, design, and materials and that's what people are paying for, not that IQ should be better than the rest.

When a 36mp sensor is out-resolving a 61mp sensor, we know there are issues with this test. Bad lens copy. Poor focus. Messed up processing. User error. This is so immensely obvious that I am surprised the test was even published.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6343025702/photos/4373203/img_1481

There is clearly something wrong here. If it isn't a focus issue it will be an issue with setup in the camera itself - image profile used, noise reduction, etc. Everything really should have been 'zeroed', but it sure doesn't look like it.

The focus seems off with the M11 shots

Take also the Fujifilm X-T5; does match with 3 of them!

The M11, for "the experience"

I'll stick to my Japanese cameras.

Simply looks like focus was not 100% spot on. Always a risk with a mechanical rangefinder camera, but this was not what I would expect from a 61Mp sensor behind Leica glass.

There is something not right here with test because even the RAW of M11 looks very soft.
And again Z7II looks the best of all.

The image comparison tool should have Sigma fp L instead of Leica M10/Canon R5.

Hmmm interesting results and a lot of people are pooping on the Leica M11. But I hope everyone realizes that’s it’s entirely possible that the lens they used just wasn’t “perfect”. Just because it’s a Leica lens doesn’t mean it’s perfect. It’s possible it’s a bad copy or just a lens that not designed for this type of picture as it’s specifically for portraits which look better with a soft falloff, not test charts. I think they should repeat the test with a new 35 or 50mm lens. In a perfect world they could use the same lens to test all full frame cameras to remove the variable of the lens.

This is an eye-opener. The M11 holy grail dream camera is in fact just ho-hum, good but not great. The Leica look is a bust as far as sharpness goes. I'm gonna save a ton of money by working with my much cheaper camera system.

Not a great lens and not a great JPEG engine (heavy-handed smoothing and sharpening). Really doing a little worse than the old A7RII. Still, that is quite good. My guess would be the sensor microlenses are tuned for ray angle from shorter focal length lenses since Leica tends to do that, so a 90mm might look worse than it really is...

Not very favourably I see, JPG engine is garbage that's for sure or those stupidly expensive lenses are actually rubbish. But even in RAW is way behind the Sony A7RV and Canon R5, Nikon Z7II/Z8/Z9

This seems like a very odd choice for a sharpness test......Why not a standard 50 or 35? A Leica 90 Summilux? Thats a portrait lens known for its incredible fall off and oof rendering not clinical sharpness and resolution across the frame. This is just odd all the way around IMO.

To me, it looks as if the Leica has an OLPF/Antialiasing-Filter in front of the sensor, while the Sony A7RV and Canon R5 don't. This would explain the difference of image crispness/fine detail resolution in Raw.

I don't understand the whole concept of these comparisons. The relative performance is dominated by the lens, not the camera (sensor). And the Leica M11 results are worse than my Panasonic GX9 -- which I assume is due to the difference in lenses used. Either that, or my $600 camera has better image quality than this $8,000 camera.

Slightly out of focus?

I demand a do-over. 😨

Wow. This looks atrocious. I know we all pick our specific spots to check details. I like to pick the center of the frame, where theoretically the lens is performing at its best. I look at the passages of text. Something definitely looks wrong, I don’t know if it’s the setup, the lens, or the camera, but there is so much less contrast and sharpness/detail…

At iso 100 RAW the A7RV wins. The R5 is a close second.
Comparing to a range of 24MP bodies in “comp” mode the M11 produces a little more sharpness (but still less contrast) but not much.
The higher res sensor of the M11 should be able to beat the lower res R5 with its ISO100 baked in NR, but it’s not even close. The R5 smokes the M11…

This is a pitiful showing…

(also. The A7RV pixel shift result is amazing. I guess when it works, it works really well and that lens is crazy sharp…)

Such a beautiful camera. If only I was locked into a genre that fitted the camera perfectly. Sadly, I'm not. I'd sell everything for it otherwise.

This looks very bad compared with the A7RV, also in RAW. So bad, that I wonder wether there is an issue with the lens. DXOmark rated the M11 sensor very high, at the same level as the Sony.

The Leica M11 is probably not being bought for its JPG image quality. Or image quality generally (though some people will argue about the nature of the bokeh of its lenses). Leica offers other virtues like the photography experience and simply the feeling of owning a product the buyer bought because he only deserves the best!

Probably the closest competitor is the Fuji F100V (made from purest unobtainium). This looks sharper. None of which is likely relevant to the ability of either camera to take good (or bad) photos (or be enjoyable in doing so).

Are the images soft, or is it me?

Raw files from same sensor should be close to identical even if they were produced by different bodies, no? Could there be something amiss with way Adobe processes Leica's DNG files? if not, and if the focus was spot on, using electronic shutter on tripod, I am really puzzled by the small but detectable difference. Assuming the 90mm lens used is indeed Leica's summilux and not some Chinese m-mount cheapie, it is hard to imagine that the lens could be the culprit.

On the jpeg side of things, I must say that I have always found Leica's jpeg engine shamefully inadequate, but often flattering to the untrained eye. To which Leicaphiles usually respond by saying "real photographers shoot raw", which is both untrue and besides the point.

All this would be even worse if focusing had been done done through the rangefinder which is really not suited for a 90mm lens.

This (and no IBIS) proves again that Leica M is nota good choice for high res digital. Better use Q3 for 60 MP captures.

I downloaded the raw file, and it really looks like the Sony 7Rv and Canon R5 are capturing more data than the Leica. Odd...

Strange, why this bluriness? Is it really only the algorithms or maybe the lens?

From 400 ISO onwards the Leica shows much more noise than my Nikon (I checked JPG and RAW)

Are you guys focussing with the back screen or EVF, or with the rangefinder? These aren't even in focus.

Select Leica M11 and Leica M10, Sony A7RV and Pentax ki Mark II pixel shift. Compare in different parts of the studio photo. Leicas are clearly not well focused. Sony and Pentax are correct.