Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'm10m'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Leica Forum

  • International User Forum
    • Leica M System
    • Leica L-Mount
    • Leica Q / Leica Q2
    • Leica X
    • Leica D-Lux / Digilux / V-Lux / C-Lux
    • Leica R System
    • Leica S System
    • Leica FOTOS App
    • Leica Collectors & Historica
    • Photo Forum
    • Leica & General Discussions
    • Leica Forum Discussions
    • LHSA Member Forum
    • Events & Member Meetings
  • Deutsches Leica Forum
    • Leica M-System
    • Leica L-Mount
    • Leica Q / Leica Q2
    • Leica X
    • Leica D-Lux / Digilux / V-Lux / C-Lux
    • Leica R System
    • Leica S System
    • Leica FOTOS App
    • Leica Sammler & Historica
    • Foto-Forum
    • Leica & Allgemeine Diskussionen
    • Leica Forum Diskussionen
  • Challenges / Wettbewerbe

Categories

  • Leica Q
  • Leica M (Typ 240)
  • Leica SL (Typ 601)

Categories

  • Leica Q
  • Leica M (Typ 240)
  • Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246)
  • Leica SL (Typ 601)

Categories

  • Leica M System
    • Leica M Cameras
    • Leica M Lenses
    • Leica M Accessories
    • Leica M Wanted
  • Leica L-Mount
  • Leica S System
  • Leica Q
  • Leica X
  • Leica D-LUX / V-LUX / DIGILUX
  • Historica
    • Leica R System
    • Screwmount Leica
  • Misc

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


City


Hobbies


Job


Name


Your Leica Products / Deine Leica Produkte


Website


PLZ

Found 12 results

  1. Many of us have already noticed it, but shooting @ iso 25000 is now a non-issue 😊
  2. I obtained a customer-release—not pre-release/beta—M10-R and compared it side-by-side with the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as the M10-M) on a test scene at high ISO values. The firmware version for both was the latest firmware currently available to the public: 10.20.27.20 for the M10-R (upgraded from the initial released 10.20.23.49 firmware that was pre-installed in the new camera), and 2.12.8.0 for the M10-M. Methodology: all shots were taken on a tripod with a 2-second delay to minimize vibration. The same Leica 50 APO lens was used for all tests. The aperture was set to f/5.6 for all tests, at which the resolving power of the 50 APO is about as high as possible among commercially available 35-mm format lenses. The ISO value and shutter speeds were as follows: ISO 6400, 1/60 s ISO 12500, 1/125 s ISO 25000, 1/250 s ISO 50000, 1/500 s ISO 100000 (M10-M only), 1/1000 s To the best of my ability, the M10-R and the M10-M were treated equally. The test shots were taken in one sitting, with the same tripod position 2.2 m from the target, and under the same lighting. The images were focused by rangefinder and confirmed by live view for each camera. The subject distance (2.2 m) was farther from the test scene than my earlier M10-R tests (1.3 m) because I anticipated that the M10-M might have no trouble resolving all the details of the scene from 1.3 m, even at absurdly high ISOs. To keep the test as pure as possible, all the test shots were taken as DNG files, then transferred and opened in Adobe Photoshop 2020 with Camera Raw 12.3 (which has native M10-R support) with no corrections or adjustments to the default image settings, other than clicking “B&W” to convert the M10-R images to monochrome. Therefore, this test does not really answer the question of how the performance between the cameras compares if one were to bring the full power of modern post-processing, noise removal, AI-driven scaling and sharpening, etc. to bear on the images. It also does not exploit the important ability of adjusting the levels of different colors when converting color files to monochrome files—arguably the largest advantage of using the M10-R to generate monochrome photos instead of the M10-M. Instead, the purpose of this test is to compare the acuity and noise level of the two cameras at ISO 6400 to ISO 50000. Overall, both cameras take remarkably good monochrome photos, even at ISO levels such as 12500 that would previously be considered out-of-reach. Here are 100% crops from a small portion of the center region of both cameras (M10-R on the left, M10-M on the right). Click on the image below to view it at 100% to avoid scaling artifacts. I would have no hesitation using ISO 12500 monochrome images from either camera for virtually any application. But of course there are substantial performance differences. Finding #1: The M10-M captures higher acuity levels than the M10-R across the ISO range tested (6400 to 50000). As expected, given the lack of a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and no need to de-mosaic the red-, green-, or blue-filtered pixels, the M10-M offers significantly higher acuity than the M10-R. To my eye, the advantage persists even if you give the M10-R an advantage of one or two stops: compare the sharpness of the fine features of the scene as captured by the M10-M at ISO 25000 vs. the M10-R at ISO 6400, or the M10-R at ISO 25000 to the M10-M at ISO 100000—a remarkable testament to the M10-M’s ability to capture a scene down to the smallest details, even zooming in to 100%. Notice also that at the same ISO level, aperture, and shutter speed (chosen by each camera’s auto-shutter speed setting to be the same at all ISO levels!), the M10-M images are only modestly brighter than the M10-R; I was surprised that the Bayer CFA didn’t dim the M10-R images more strongly. Perhaps the M10-R firmware partially compensates for the loss of light due to the Bayer CFA. Finding #2: The M10-M offers about a 1- to 2-stop advantage in high-ISO noise levels over the M10-R. Compare the M10-M at ISO 50000 to the M10-R at ISO 12500, or the M10-M at ISO 25000 to the M10-R at ISO 6400. The M10-M continues to blow me away with its high-ISO performance. Indeed, Bill Claff’s measurements at https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm rank the M10-M’s high ISO performance as fourth among all cameras tested to date, behind the Phase One IQ4, the Phase One IQ3, and the Fuji GFX-100—three current or recent top-of-the-line medium format cameras. Overall, Leica has created in the M10-M and the M10-R two current-generation sister cameras with outstanding overall performance. If acuity or high-ISO performance is more important than color for your particular application, than the M10-M outperforms the M10-R and is among the very best cameras to my knowledge, even joining some medium-format monsters. And if color is needed, either in the final image or to enable creative conversion to black and white images that allows easy sky darkening, face lightening, etc. during post-processing, the M10-R remains an option worthy of its current flagship status among Leica M cameras.
  3. Anybody else running into issues using the Really Right Stuff Base plate ( BM10 B ) specifically on the M10 Monochrom? I'm attaching a photo (left: factory fit) showing the issue (only occurring on the side with the circular tab/retainer) where the base plate is pushing on the leatherette to the point where it's bubbling the material. I could certainly file the base plate down, but that's not ideal. According to RRS, they've heard vague rumors of concerns with the M10M. Also, I'm seeing that the rubber pad on the opposite side of the "problem spot" is slightly misaligned. Exchanging is complicated by the fact that the item appears to be on backorder and RRS indicated they are not going to do another production run (i.e. it's a discontinued item). I may consider a universal L-bracket, but these base plates are pretty sweet. Incidentally, the L-bracket and grip from my M240 RRS variant appear to line up perfectly with the M10 model. I've had great luck with RRS products in the past, but maybe I got a lemon. I imagine the tolerances are likely an issue on the Leica cutting/placement of the leatherette side of things, but that's going to get tricky to sort out. Thanks for your feedback! (Sorry for duplicating, I started this on the M10 side and wasn't clear on how to migrate to the monochrom world)
  4. With the important caveat that this post is largely speculation, let's anticipate the performance characteristics of the M10-R sensor. The Leica S3 sensor is 45x30 mm (1350 sq mm) and the DNG files are 9816 x 6512, for a total pixel count of 63,921,792 pixels, or 47,349 pixels per sq mm The Leica M10 Monochrom sensor is 36 x 24 mm (864 sq mm) and the DNG files are 7864 x 5200 = 40,892,800 pixels, or 47,330 pixels per sq mm. The pixel density of the two sensors is so similar that I assume the discrepancy comes from non-scaling edge usage factors, and/or small 0.01 mm-scale rounding errors in sensor size. So if we assume that the S3 sensor and the M10 Monochrom sensor come from the same process, differing only in size and the presence of the Bayer color filter array in the former, then it's reasonable to assume the M10-R sensor also comes from the same process, and is basically a 36 x 24 mm crop of the S3 sensor (as others have hypothesized in this forum previously). If this reasoning is correct, then you can expect the M10-R sensor to be the same as the M10M sensor, plus a Bayer CFA, and to perform more or less the same as the S3 sensor on a per-square-mm basis. Therefore, I would expect: - DNG files that are 7864 x 5200 = 40,892,800 pixels - Dual gain design - 4.6 µm pixel pitch - Base ISO = 100 - ISO range = 100-50,000 (basically one stop lower than the 160-100,000 ISO range of the M10 Monochrom, as one might predict from the lack of the Bayer CFA in the M10M) - 14 bits per pixel Good ISO 12,500 photos and decent ISO 25,000 photos would be terrific, and a significant improvement over the M10/M10-P, as noted here: https://photorumors.com/2019/01/20/mega-shootout-sony-leica-and-phase-one-comparison/
  5. Hey guys. Actually I still don't know which is better. Mono246 or m10m. I know 40mp is better, more detail, smaller, but i have mono246 + sl2. I have more details with SL2, and i can shoot with mono246. Actually i have both, details and really b&w. Do you consider having a m10m a necessity? If money doesn't matter what choice you make! Why? Thanks 🙏
  6. My initial reaction to the M10M was that I prefer to shoot B&W with the M10. In another thread, I posted a couple of M10 B&W pictures as an example of the tonality, gradation and resolution where I wanted to be in B&W, for which I thought the M10 was perfectly adequate. I wrote also that I prefer the greater flexibility of digital filters from post-processing to glass contrast filters. Indeed, I previously had the M-Monochrom and prefer the M10 in this respect. Some background Having published my book last November, I'm now thinking about another project. I've been posting a series of images in a (tentative) series called Empire of Signs, the title of Roland Barthes' book about Japan. I don't believe in jumping directly into defining a new project: rather i tend to take pictures and see how this leads me to a project; so, Empire of Signs may not lead anywhere. When I was in Tokyo at the end of November, I bought a new, 2019 edition of Moriyama Daido's Light and Shadow, which was published in 1982. The latter first edition came out ten years after his previous book and three years after he stopped photographing altogether. As I recall, he got back to photographing after looking at the first photograph ever made, the one by Niépce, which was an eight hour exposure of the view out of a window: it had a building and showed just light and shadow. Moriyama's book established a narrative between light and shadow. Some of the pictures in Light and Shadow are things at the verge: scruffy plants, for examine, at the edge of a store. Photographing in Thailand, often in the harsh, midday sun, I've been thinking about this type of image, and how it could be worked into the Empire of Signs.Today, I made the picture below. M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/11.0 | 1/250 sec Chiang Mai – The Empire of Signs Coming to the point To get the look that I wanted: the dark leaves in the shade and the much lighter tone of the leaves where the sun hits them, as well as getting the poster at the left to be dark enough, I used the color sliders in Lightroom, as well a strong contrast increase. I could have done this with a Monochrom camera, but the adjusting the M10 colors gives me more control. On the other hand, with the M10M, I might be able to show more detail in the leaves, which could also be interesting Perhaps a better example is the image below, shot in dappled sunlight. I've posted a couple of images of these three tourists taking a group selfie of themselves using an iPhone on a tripod stick. Here, I was speaking to them, saying I was taking unposed pictures when I got a thumbs up, a V-sign, and the flashing of my name card. In processing this I could get the skin tones in B&W that I wanted by adjusting the color sliders. As I recall, when I was shooting with the M-Monochrom, I was limited to selective dodging and burning — not as flexible M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/4.0 | 1/1000 sec Chiang Mai So what do you think about considering doing all this with the M10M rather than converting from color with the M10? ________________________Frog Leaping photobook
  7. Dear all, I am wondering how to optimize my workflow since I got the M10M. Right now, I have a - not so satisfactory - workflow with my SL / CL : I download some pictures (JPG) via Leica Fotos to my iPad Pro to share the best shots quickly after quick tweaking, and then (sometimes a very looong time later) download the whole SD card content (DNG) to my iMac and process them through LR 6 (and Tonality CK for B&W). I like the results, but it is long and somewhat tiresome, all the more so LR is a bit slow on my Mac. And work is done almost twice for the best pictures. I find my processing is easier with the M10M, than my former M(240), as (my opinion after a short time using it) I get BW results I like quite quickly on LR, and even with Photos on the iPad. So I am thinking about rationalising and getting complementary workflows with my Mac and my iPad, ie not doing things twice : downloading DNG pictures on the iPad and downloading the rest later through the computer, and join everything in the same catalogue. I could use a HDD/SSD with the iPad to copy the pictures : I don't really need/want to stock pictures on the cloud. It seems the paying iPad Fotos app is designed for such things, and I am thinking about it as results with the M10M seem to be easier to get (though I find abnormal Leica dare to ask for a paying app...) Has anybody tried the solution, and tell if he is satisfied with the results ? Or do you have another / better workflow ? thanks for your inputs on your optimal workflow on your M10M ! Didier
  8. Here are results from an initial side-by-side comparison of the M10-P vs. the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as M10P vs. M10M). M10P firmware = 2.7.5.0 M10M firmware = 2.12.8.0 Test conditions: Leica 75/1.25 Noctilux @ f/5.6, which together with the 50 APO @ f/5.6 offers the highest MTF performance of any Leica M lens at any aperture (according to Leica's data) M10P ISO: 100, 400, 1600, 6400, 12500, 25000, 50000 M10M ISO: 160, 400, 1600, 6400, 12500, 25000, 50000, 100000 Auto shutter speed 2-second delay before capture (to eliminate tripod shake) Both cameras were mounted to the same tripod and aimed at the same spot on the subject. Live view at 100% was used to confirm that the optimal focus setting of the lens was the same for both cameras. All DNG files were imported into Capture One 20, desaturated, processed with identical settings, then highest quality JPGs of each image were exported. You can download all the files (JPGs, DNGs, 100% enlargement matrixes) here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fcjvrupm9d2cl2s/AABvi7z2QJZ1sAWU9hwb24-7a?dl=0 Summary: as expected, for monochrome images the M10M handily beats the M10P in terms of much lower noise AND much more detail. In terms of background noise, after scaling the M10P or M10M images up or down to the same size (41 MP or 24 MP), I see about a 1.5-stop noise advantage for the M10M. In terms of "usable" high-ISO image quality for monochrome images, I would set my personal threshold around ISO 18,000 for the M10P, and around 50,000 for the M10M (also a 1.5-stop advantage for the M10M). But the surprise, for me, was that in terms of capturing subject detail, the combination of higher resolution, lack of a Bayer CFA, and (my guess) a better sensor even on a per-unit-area basis together resulted in the M10M at ISO 25,000 capturing as much or more detail in the subject than the M10P did at any ISO. Of course, if you are shooting street photography, kids running, dreamy portraits, etc. the subject detail capture level difference probably won't matter. But if your goal is to capture subject detail and black and white is acceptable, this is the most capable M body to date in my opinion. Attached to this post is a 100% crop matrix from ISO 400 to ISO 50,000 of the M10P. Click on the image to see it at approximately full size. I'll attach the analogous matrix for the M10M to the next post.
  9. Leica’s new M10 Monochrom (M10M) has been touted by multiple reviewers as offering image quality rivaling that of medium-format film. And Sony explicitly claims that its a7riv camera rivals medium-format cameras. In this test, I compare side-by-side the Leica M10P (24 MP, color) with the M10M (41 MP, monochrome), the Sony a7riv (61 MP, color), and the “full-frame medium format” (54 x 40 mm sensor) Phase One IQ4 (151 MP, color), currently the largest and highest-resolution imaging sensor available to most photographers. (Note that the 102-MP Fuji GFX-100 has a cropped (44 x 33 mm) version of the Sony-manufactured sensor In the IQ4.) For each camera, I used the very best available lens at the best-quality aperture and at base ISO. Test conditions: Leica M10P + Leica APO 50 Summicron at f/5.6, ISO 100 Leica M10M + Leica APO 50 Summicron at f/5.6, ISO 160 Sony a7riv + Sony 85/1.4 GM at f/5.6, ISO 100 Phase One IQ4 + Rodenstock HR90 at f/9, ISO 100 (yes, the base ISO of the IQ4 is 100, not 50). Shooting the IQ4 at f/9 gives a comparable depth of focus as shooting the other cameras at f/5.6. I know from my other tests, and from discussions with Phase One dealers, that at f/9 diffraction is not limiting in practice for the IQ4 sensor (though it can be limiting at apertures smaller than f/9). Everything was shot on a tripod with 2-3-second release delay to avoid shake, at subject distances to give similar subject size and position. Note that the aspect ratio of the IQ4 sensor is 4:3, rather than 3:2 like the other sensors, so I used frame width to match framing. Since I was shooting the IQ4 on a technical camera, all four cameras were mirrorless, with no risk of mirror slap vibrations spoiling sharpness. Raw files were exposure-matched and converted to monochrome using Capture One 20. Then each converted max-quality JPEG was auto-bicubic-scaled in Photoshop to either 7864 pixels wide (the width of native M10M images) or to 14204 pixels wide (the width of native IQ4 images). You can download all the raw files and full-resolution max-quality JPEG files here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/scvrfg8h41naux4/AADw8Cfm37db2BWkGTbie3M2a?dl=0 A tiny 100% crop from near the center of the 14204 pixel-wide images was composited into a matrix for comparison, attached to this post. Click on the image to see the comparison full-size. I choose to use the scaled-up 14204-pixel-wide images since one goal of this test is to determine if any of these imaging systems can approach medium format quality, not to test if they can approach down-sized medium format quality. You can build analogous matrices from the smaller images as well using the files in the above link if you would like. Summary of findings: 1) As expected, all of these four imaging systems with optimum glass, ISO, and aperture produce excellent images at their native sizes. 2) The Bayer CFA-less M10M does indeed punch above its megapixel weight. With respect to capturing subject details, I found the M10M (41 MP) and Sony a7riv (61 MP) to be virtually identical. In fact, to my eye the M10M+50 APO was able to capture slightly more details than the a7riv+85 GM—compare the lint on the upper grey band of the vessel in the attached matrix. 3) The Phase One IQ4 eats all the competitors for lunch if you compare image quality at 100%. But a 14,204-pixel-wide image printed at 200 dpi is 6 feet wide (!). At any practical viewing distance (assuming you don’t need to crop heavily), I would say that the IQ4, M10M, and a7riv are actually quite similar, even when scaling up the latter two images to the 14,204 pixel width of the IQ4 image. Which is pretty cool. 4) The M10P, as you might expect for a 24-MP camera thrown into a resolution and sharpness gunfight, lags well behind the others, but even so, once I view the M10P image at about 50% magnification it begins to look quite similar to the other images. 5) In terms of bang for the buck, Sony offers outstanding value, as usual. The Sony a7riv + 85 GM lens costs ~$5,200. Either Leica body + the 50 APO costs ~$17,000. And the Phase One IQ4 + Rodenstock HR90 costs around $55,000. And the Sony is the only one of the four tested systems that offers autofocus. So can the Leica M10M or the Sony a7riv offer image quality rivaling that of state-of-the-art digital medium format systems? Yes, at practical viewing sizes and distances, when using optimal glass. But if pixel peeping or (very) large prints are your target application, then medium format, for now, has no peer.
  10. M10 Monochrome with Summilux 1,4/ 35
  11. Anybody else running into issues using the Really Right Stuff Base plate ( BM10 B ) specifically on the M10 Monochrom? I'm attaching a photo (left: factory fit) showing the issue (only occurring on the side with the circular tab/retainer) where the base plate is pushing on the leatherette to the point where it's bubbling the material. I could certainly file the base plate down, but that's not ideal. According to RRS, they've heard vague rumors of concerns with the M10M. Also, I'm seeing that the rubber pad on the opposite side of the "problem spot" is slightly misaligned. Exchanging is complicated by the fact that the item appears to be on backorder and RRS indicated they are not going to do another production run (i.e. it's a discontinued item). I may consider a universal L-bracket, but these base plates are pretty sweet. Incidentally, the L-bracket and grip from my M240 RRS variant appear to line up perfectly with the M10 model. I've had great luck with RRS products in the past, but maybe I got a lemon. I imagine the tolerances are likely an issue on the Leica cutting/placement of the leatherette side of things, but that's going to get tricky to sort out. Thanks for your feedback!
×
×
  • Create New...