Leica M10 v Leica I Model A Outputs Compared

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have posted this in the Collectors and Historica Forum, but I felt that M10 users might also be interested, so I am posting here as well.

 

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/...-90-years-apart

 

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

 

William

[mdemeyer]

Great idea and fun read (and images).  Thanks for sharing!

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

You should put the lenses both on the digital and shoot the same frame to see the difference.  

 

That will put to bed the internet theories about uncoated lenses.

[friedeye]

Love this. 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!

Edited October 30, 2017 by earleygallery

[euston]

Thank you, William, for a worthwhile and revealing exercise! As you say, the older camera shows up well for its age but, on this showing, its output can’t stand comparison with the M10.

 

To my eye, the quality of the digital images is superior on every count, especially the clarity of the detail and the realism of the colours. I find the overdone sharpness of the film images uncomfortable to look at for more than a moment or two.

 

I would expect the choice of film, lens and the processing to account for most of the difference. To reach our screens the film images have passed through a hybrid process combining analogue and digital methods which create many opportunities for compromising quality along the way. The digital images, on the other hand, have been through a purely electronic process tailor-made to extract the best from what the sensor recorded. It’s no surprise to me that the digital camera comes off better as a result.

 

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you, William, for a worthwhile and revealing exercise! As you say, the older camera shows up well for its age but, on this showing, its output can’t stand comparison with the M10.

 

To my eye, the quality of the digital images is superior on every count, especially the clarity of the detail and the realism of the colours. I find the overdone sharpness of the film images uncomfortable to look at for more than a moment or two.

 

I would expect the choice of film, lens and the processing to account for most of the difference. To reach our screens the film images have passed through a hybrid process combining analogue and digital methods which create many opportunities for compromising quality along the way. The digital images, on the other hand, have been through a purely electronic process tailor-made to extract the best from what the sensor recorded. It’s no surprise to me that the digital camera comes off better as a result.

 

You are more or less repeating what I said in my article. There are two aspects to this. Objectively, the digital images are more detailed. However, subjectively, a lot of people, including myself, prefer the film images.

 

William

[Simon]

You’ve been very conservative in your choice of words William. The differences, albeit without trying to match the film shots, are significant. I absolutely adore the film shots, even with some loss of highlights. The film shots are what I imagine the “M9 look” to mean. The M10 shots look dull, flat and soft by comparison.

 

This made me realise how important post processing can be to the digital workflow.

[willeica]

You’ve been very conservative in your choice of words William. The differences, albeit without trying to match the film shots, are significant. I absolutely adore the film shots, even with some loss of highlights. The film shots are what I imagine the “M9 look” to mean. The M10 shots look dull, flat and soft by comparison.

 

This made me realise how important post processing can be to the digital workflow.

 

I would normally 'pimp up' digital images, but I did not do very much of that in this case for the purposes of the comparison.

 

William

[jmahto]

Excellent comparison. Loved reading the article. I preferred the film shots (viewing on iPhone) but that is not surprise. In good light outside film always comes out well balanced, whereas digital need appropriate PP.

 

The film looks closer to how we perceive reality vs digital shots labor towards trying to accurately represent reality by taking different PP route. This makes digital look "less natural" even if it can have more details.

 

And btw, I loved the size difference. I would really welcome a FF digital camera of that size. Maybe in next 10 years when Sony squeezes electronics further and someone makes smaller battery with higher capacity.

 

I would Leica to get there first.