Real world differences between M lenses on SL and M lenses on M10

[blacksinner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The light changed a little between shots, which is annoying - but it was a quick demonstration - these are imported into Lightroom then exported out with no adjustments

 

35mm 1.4, ISO 100, 1/4000th on both M10 and SL

 

M10 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

SL by dancook1982, on Flickr

it looks like you don't use the embedded profile in lightroom. if you change both files to embedded profile, SL file will looks like leica color. this embedded profile is very common miss on every lightroom user. i hope lightroom can change the default to embedded profile.

[blacksinner]

it looks like you don't use the embedded profile in lightroom. if you change both files to embedded profile, SL file will looks like leica color. this embedded profile is very common miss on every lightroom user. i hope lightroom can change the default to embedded profile.

sorry but looks like someone else already said this. i just read it. cheers =)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dancook]

it looks like you don't use the embedded profile in lightroom. if you change both files to embedded profile, SL file will looks like leica color. this embedded profile is very common miss on every lightroom user. i hope lightroom can change the default to embedded profile.

 

My Lightroom needed updating, it was not clear to me as the software didn't prompt me - only when I checked creative cloud app that it showed an update.. doh! now it defaults to Adobe

[Irakly Shanidze]

M10 sensor is better than SL in low light, it is just of a more modern design. That, however, is inconsequential in most cases, unless it is really dark and you need to crank ISO to 6400 and above. For anything of 3200 and below, finding differences on a 11x17" print will be a very difficult task indeed, regardless of the lens and camera used.

Compared to M9, SL wins hands down in wide open shots with fast lenses. I was amazed at the amount of CA that 1/50 Noctilux produced against the light in a situation where an M9 shot would have been unusable.

[PeterGA]

M10 sensor is better than SL in low light, it is just of a more modern design. That, however, is inconsequential in most cases, unless it is really dark and you need to crank ISO to 6400 and above. For anything of 3200 and below, finding differences on a 11x17" print will be a very difficult task indeed, regardless of the lens and camera used.

Compared to M9, SL wins hands down in wide open shots with fast lenses. I was amazed at the amount of CA that 1/50 Noctilux produced against the light in a situation where an M9 shot would have been unusable.

 

Irakly - wonderful website.

Pete

[Donzo98]

Irakly - wonderful website.

Pete

 

WOW!!! I just looked... that is AMAZING MAN!!

 

So cool...

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

The default LR or similar processing will always be different (*) so there will inevitably be observable image differences even in 'identical' images ..... but I have found a few tweaks usually makes them so similar that differentiation is almost impossible between the various 24mpx Leica cameras. 

 

 

With talk of needing two cameras, or which one is 'best' because they each do something slightly different, finally we get some common sense. 

[pmendelson]

Original poster here....I have just traded my M10 and the 21mm SEM and 50 Summilux M lenses for the SL plus the 24-90 and the 90-280... I think I will get a lot more keepers using the zoom lenses, especially the 24-90, and I still have the Voigtlander 15mm III and 35mm f/1.7 (and the Q), so I will have most of my bases covered.  I was using the Visoflex on the M10 constantly, so the rangefinder experience was not a huge draw for me.  I did love the size and simplicity of the M10 though, but I still have the Q for when I want to travel light and small.  I am hoping I don't notice any differences in image quality, but doubt I will.  No regrets for me. 

[thighslapper]

Original poster here....I have just traded my M10 and the 21mm SEM and 50 Summilux M lenses for the SL plus the 24-90 and the 90-280... I think I will get a lot more keepers using the zoom lenses, especially the 24-90,   I am hoping I don't notice any differences in image quality, but doubt I will.  No regrets for me. 

 

since using the SL the number of photos I have taken in a year has more than halved ..... although I have actually spent more time out taking images. Almost all are technically and compositionally fine at the first attempt. On a recent landscape workshop it was a case of set up, one or two shots maximum then move on to the next composition. Even with 4 minute exposures images were invariably spot on first time. On many occasions I was sufficiently confident that I moved and set up again whilst waiting for NR to finish. With a RF I always had a depressing % of images that had focus or other faults that were often only evident at processing and as a result often took several shots to cover this eventuality. I think you will find image quality is as good if not better than an M using the SL with its dedicated zooms. The M10 is the only Leica camera I have not been tempted to buy in 10 years ....... for now the SL has kept GAS at bay ....

Edited October 18, 2017 by thighslapper

[mls1483]

I did a side-by-side comparison of the following lenses (through all stops) on the M10 and the SL last time I was in Wetzlar. The optical performance and the image quality are virtually identical (sharpness, contrast, CA, flare, vignetting). Rendering also seems to be pretty much the same. Unfortunately, the Leitz park is mainly white, so colors were difficult to judge, I have to admit.

 

- Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 ZM

- Summilux 21mm f/1.4

- Super Elmar 21mm f/3.4

- Summilux 28mm f/1.4

- Summicron 28mm f/2 (11672)

- Ziess Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM

- APO-Summicron 50mm f/2

- Noctilux 50mm f/0.95

- APO Summicron 90mm f/2

 

I think it is splitting hairs. With post processing, the difference can be greater than OOC from those two cameras.

[mmradman]

I did a side-by-side comparison of the following lenses (through all stops) on the M10 and the SL last time I was in Wetzlar. The optical performance and the image quality are virtually identical (sharpness, contrast, CA, flare, vignetting). Rendering also seems to be pretty much the same. Unfortunately, the Leitz park is mainly white, so colors were difficult to judge, I have to admit.

 

- Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 ZM

- Summilux 21mm f/1.4

- Super Elmar 21mm f/3.4

- Summilux 28mm f/1.4

- Summicron 28mm f/2 (11672)

- Ziess Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM

- APO-Summicron 50mm f/2

- Noctilux 50mm f/0.95

- APO Summicron 90mm f/2

 

I think it is splitting hairs. With post processing, the difference can be greater than OOC from those two cameras.

p

 

Would you care to comment how Zeiss ZM 15mm f2.8 performs on SL, also M10, especially in corners.

Before anyone chips in, I know of lens performance on M9 and M240 and I am familiar with mitigating techniques to heal “Italian Flag” like white frame substraction in PhotoShop and Cornerfix (M9).

Edited October 25, 2017 by mmradman

[mls1483]

Mounted to the M10 the Zeiss Distagon 15mm ZM f/2.8 is a gorgeous lens e.g. for landscape. It is extremely sharp with a lot of details and high contrast. Moreover, it gives rich, saturated colors. In this kind it is really unique.

 

You have to stop it down to get sharp pictures form edge to edge. Zeiss explains this behaviour with field curvature, when asked. However, for landscape this is no issue anyway (because of the required DOF). For interior architecture photography, you should use a tripod, regardless of the fast aperture, I propose. 

 

Unfortunately I have to correct my former statement: All lenses performed pretty much the same on the M 10 and the SL, except for the Zeiss Distagon 15mm ZM. On the SL it showed lateral CA (purple/green fringing). Thuus, I would not recommend it for th SL.

 

Beware, these are OOC results. I did not apply a profile and I did not do any post processing. Morever, weather conditions were quite extreme (very bright sun, clear sky, lots of reflections in the white Leitz park).

 

 

 

M10:

- At f/2.8 edges and especially corners are very soft. They continuously imrpove throughout f/5.6 and are perfect at f/8.

- No purpe fringing. In fact, in extreme conditions (e.g. in very bright sun) some lateral CA opposite to the point light source when shot wide open. But actually no real issue.

 

SL:

- AS M10: At f/2.8 edges and especially corners are very soft. They continuously imrpove throughout f/5.6 and are perfect at f/8.

- Purpe fringing at all apertures, pronounced lateral CA