Leica I Model A v Leica M10 Outputs Compared

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These are not scientific comparisons or tests. I just wanted to see how the output from a 91 year old Leica camera stood up against that from the 'latest and greatest' from the company.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/2017/10/23/a-tale-of-two-leicas-90-years-apart

 

I believe that the older camera shows up very well here. Comments are welcome, even from 'pixel peepers'.

 

William

[mikemgb]

Nice write-up. I don't pixel peep, I just look at the photo. Of the ones you have posted I prefer the black and white film version over the M10 image. The colour ones are more contrasty in the film with the highlights blown, my experience tells me this is more likely a scanning issue and the detail is probably there.

 

As for is one better that the other? Which is better, white bread or brown bread? The question should really be "which do you prefer?" Not "which is better?"

[Advertisement]

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

[Keith_W]

Interesting comparison. For the first set I suspected that there might be a difference in exposure, so I took the liberty of downloading your pictures and looking at the histogram. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

The first picture shows the histogram from the 1A, the second is from the M10. Looks like a pretty substantial difference in exposure. One thing I have found is that so-called ISO numbers on digital cameras may not be transferable to film. The exposure may be off by up to a few stops. 

 

Although I only showed the histogram for the first set of photos, all three sets look as if the film camera had better exposure and the M10 was underexposed. 

 

I am pretty amazed at how well the images from the 1A hold up to Leica's latest and greatest though! 

[romanus53]

If you compare an old Elmar vs say modern Elmar-M you will see differences, more towards the edges than in the center and more wide open than stopped down but you expected this. So it might be more that evil film vs digital thing. If you have some older lenses to change try them out. A classic Barnack-styled camera with some digital inside would be rally cool

[willeica]

Thanks Keith. I try to avoid histograms and, generally, never look at them. Having grown up with film photography, I feel that I know how to judge the exposure that I want. Even then, blown highlights are still a problem from time to time. In this case, the M10 was set for ISO 200 and, of course, the Portra film was ISO 160, so that was not a big difference. Although I had a Gossen Digisix meter in my bag, I used the exposure indicated by the M10 and transferred that to the I Model A as best I could. The earlier camera has different stop and speed settings, of course, and I just transferred the indicated settings from the M10 as near as I could to the I Model A.

 

As the film was processed and scanned commercially, other variables may have entered the 'exposure chain', so I am not sure how valid it is to compare the histograms. All that being said, I did notice that the digital images are noticeably duller than the film images. I believe that digital camera manufacturers are deliberately ensuring that images are slightly underexposed to ensure that highlights are not overexposed, as required by current photographic taste. You can, of course, boil up digital photos to taste, but I refrained from doing too much of that here in order to make any comparison valid.

 

As I said before this is not a scientific comparison. It just an attempt to show that old Leicas can, indeed, produce good images.

 

William

[sandro]

William, very interesting to read your text and see the photos. Amazing how good the old material works with film, but as keith said, there seems to be a difference in exposure. That seems to make the digital photos less attractive than they could have been. I only work with M Leica's on film, so I may be prejudiced.

Lex

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi William

What a fun thing to do, and, as others have said, the images out of the 1A look great. I am not sure i fully subscribe to your 'out of camera' for comparison notion for the digital images, as I think further processing is a legitimate part of the 'image to print' chain. But to repeat, the 1A with modern film does produce a lovely image.

Thanks for sharing.

[pgk]

I suspect that with careful scanning and the use of software the images from both cameras could be adjusted to look very similar indeed. I also suspect that when the older camera was bought, its first owner would never have dreamed that films as good as Kodak Portra 160 would ever exist, let alone how well its images would stand up against those from an entirely new technology. Anyone complaining about the perceived deficiencies of modern lenses should be pointed at your review as a reality check. Thanks.

[earleygallery]

I prefer the film images but then I prefer film over digital in general, albeit that I shoot more digital these days for convenience.

 

The quality that a Barnack Leica and Elmar lens can turn out was remarkable to photographers in the 1930's and your test shows that it's still remarkable today!

[Bateleur]

Interesting viewing, while I have my favorites the comparison is interesting and a bit of a sanity check in the race for more pixels. Oh and the GB Shaw quote made me smile, timeless. Thank you 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Bateleur

[jc_braconi]

I prefer the film images but then I prefer film over digital in general, albeit that I shoot more digital these days for convenience.

 

The quality that a Barnack Leica and Elmar lens can turn out was remarkable to photographers in the 1930's and your test shows that it's still remarkable today!

I always call the Elmar "The Kaiser"

[willeica]

I always call the Elmar "The Kaiser"

 

And this was one of the very first ones, just starting out on its career path. Some might even say that it started at the top and stayed there.

 

Every Leica owner should use one of these lenses at least once in their life. I can guarantee that they will then end up owning one. This was the lens that made Leica into what it has become today and until a Leica user has used this lens they will not understand that.

 

William

[schattenundlicht]

Although other 5 cm lenses are rarer and more prestigeous, I love the Elmar because a: it is THE lens that really made Leica, and b: the small form factor is ingenious and turns any early LTM into a true pocket camera. Although this statement is redundant, it is true, nonetheless.

 

(Exasperated:) every time I type a list item "b" with a bracket the forum software turns it into an emoji...

Edited October 31, 2017 by schattenundlicht

[mikemgb]

And this was one of the very first ones, just starting out on its career path. Some might even say that it started at the top and stayed there.

 

Every Leica owner should use one of these lenses at least once in their life. I can guarantee that they will then end up owning one. This was the lens that made Leica into what it has become today and until a Leica user has used this lens they will not understand that.

 

William

 

I have an Elmar red scale, it is a wonderful lens. I have used it and my III or IIIa when traveling light and want a truly pocketable camera.

[pebbles]

I also took my Leica 1A out to see how it well it works after 90 years, and was agreably surprised. the difficulty was focussing which takes time with the Long base rangefinder of the periodd

Edited December 10, 2017 by pebbles

[willeica]

I also took my Leica 1A out to see how it well it works after 90 years, and was agreably surprised. the difficulty was focussing which takes time with the Long base rangefinder of the periodd

 

Try zone focus with suitable depth of field. It is much more satisfying. I have some early separate rangefinders, but I rarely use them.

 

When you get used to it, the I Model A is the most liberating Leica of them all.

 

William