Thoughts on M10 after six months

[albertknappmd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A major improvement over the 240...

Love it!

Albert     

[6bit]

This is the first I have heard of this, care to shed more light on it?

Seconded. How can one make that statement with no reference.

[jaapv]

I think it is true but in very limited circumstances.  Think about it this way:  when a camera shakes, it doesn't know how many megapixels its sensor has.  The amount of blur is exactly the same whether the camera has 10, 24 or 50 megapixels.  So the question is whether you can better see the blur with more megapixels.  That is, whether the motion blur is more "apparent".  

 

I think the answer depends on how much you enlarge the resulting picture.  Generally, the greater the enlargement, the more the blur becomes apparent.  Conversely, the lesser the enlargement, the less the blur becomes apparent.  A larger version of an image will tend to show more blur, while a smaller version of the same image will tend to look sharper.  

 

At typical print sizes and screen sizes of, say, 10 to 30 inches, I suspect that the degree of apparent motion blur between a 24mp camera and a 50mp camera is pretty much the same.  For each camera at those print/screen sizes, the image is showing more pixels than our eyes can resolve anyway.  In order to see a difference, you have to get to larger print sizes, or greater enlargements on screen.  So the question is really how large will the viewer be viewing the final image?  Greater megapixel images tend to get viewed at a greater enlargement, on screen at least, in which case we tend to see more apparent motion blur.  But if our prints don't get any larger, and if we view them on the same size screens (without going to 100%), then it doesn't really matter.

 

 

At normal viewing sizes, we don't see an individual pixel or even two or three.  So whether a motion blur falls within one pixel or within two or three pixels (because of greater pixel density) makes no difference by itself.  The point at which it makes a difference is if the image with greater pixel density is enlarged to a correspondingly greater degree.  In other words, if both images are viewed at 100% pixels, then, yes, you will see more apparent motion blur in the higher megapixel image, but only because you are viewing a larger image (not because there is more motion blur).  In normal viewing of finished photographs, we see an image, not individual pixels.  So motion blur described by one pixel or by two or three (because of greater pixel density) will look exactly the same, and will literally be the same size if both images are viewed at the same output size (e.g. a 30-inch print).

Err.. No. Because motion blur that falls within the size of one pixel will not be motion blur at all, as it is not recorded.

[otto.f]

Seconded. How can one make that statement with no reference.

these flaws, stars and stripes, banding, etc. above 1600ISO are always possible in individual camera’s from M8 to M10 and have been described here.

[antigallican]

Err.. No. Because motion blur that falls within the size of one pixel will not be motion blur at all, as it is not recorded.

ROFL

[6bit]

these flaws, stars and stripes, banding, etc. above 1600ISO are always possible in individual camera’s from M8 to M10 and have been described here.

 

 

Sure some cameras are going to have issues. The statement read as the image sensor has a flaw above 1600 in general. 

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know that lens designs can be dependent upon in-camera manipulations and perhaps at least one late Leica lens depends upon such changes, but at this time (2017-11-23), Leica M compatible lenses remain in both the film and digital domains.

 

I have have had no difficulty with no lens selected in the M9 menus for 35mm pre-asph, 50mm Summilux (any version) or 75mm Summilux while storing as DNG. Further, pushing to the extreme I've done well with CV 10mm and 15mm V3 with no in-camera setting. Any adjustments were easily made in PP presets.

 

The reason I mention this might be to emphasize this moment when Leica's mainstream lenses are medium agnostic; a wonderful moment in the history of lens technology.

 

If camera-lens settings becomes so important then lens design is diminished. I will remain with the difficult products: lenses which work with film and digital. I do no want my optics to exist in camera firmware.

[JohnnySeven]

M9 was good enough.

I love my M9, but after spending a day shooting with an M10 I cant wait to get my own M10.  The size and controls are great. I found the 240 to be a let down. 

[otto.f]

Sure some cameras are going to have issues. The statement read as the image sensor has a flaw above 1600 in general.

 

Pgh wrote one sentence further: “3 significant flaws dealing with quality control is a big issue.” which points to individual flaws having passed QC

[Havamal]

Does anyone ells want a knob with click stops (placed at the front as on Leica III) for quick adjustment of the white balance?

 

[LouK]

I progressed to the M10 from M6, M8, M9, M240-P and M246. While I agree with all that has been said here, the M10 is the first M where I've been having problems focusing with the rangefinder. Many of my shots are back-focused. Have done tests with LV vs. RF, using the focusing target...and I can't really see the camera being mis-calibrated. I will probably send the camera back to base for a check-up; shooting with the EVF in the meantime...but not so happy, overall. (and before anyone suggests the contrary, I know how to focus and RF and have done so for the past 15 years).

[LouK]

My M10 was not calibrated accurately and needed to have it fixed. I had it repaired locally and it now focuses fine.

[pedaes]

Does anyone ells want a knob with click stops (placed at the front as on Leica III) for quick adjustment of the white balance?

 

Nope. 

[otto.f]

Does anyone ells want a knob with click stops (placed at the front as on Leica III) for quick adjustment of the white balance?

Yes I’d really like that because indoors M10’s AWB is far from OK, my iPhone does better and my M9 probably too

[evikne]

I never trust any camera's AWB, so I do like Thorsten Overgaard above here, with either a WhiBal card or an ExpoDisc.

[Reciprocity]

I have no issues with the AWB and in being able to dial in K settings by memory at this point, it's all second nature. There is no tool more valuable than experience. 

[zlatkob]

Err.. No. Because motion blur that falls within the size of one pixel will not be motion blur at all, as it is not recorded.

 

 

Of course.  But that the question was whether a higher res camera shows more apparent motion blur in hand-held pictures.  My answer is yes, but only if you are viewing the higher res image at a correspondingly higher enlargement.  

[Guest]

Yes, but the M10 is slimmer, it has a better grip, a dedicated ISO wheel, and the shutter sound is nicer. And of course better dynamic range and higher resolution. Together these changes make the ultimate camera!

I need to try the M10 but I'm still finding preference for my M9 over my 240s, there's just something the CMOS lacks compared to the CCD. I think Leica have sacrificed something to give us live-view.  Now an M10 variant with a CCD (and so no live-view) might be something to behold!

[pgh]

Pgh wrote one sentence further: “3 significant flaws dealing with quality control is a big issue.” which points to individual flaws having passed QC

Correct - my camera is a combination of three flaws I have seen reported in other cameras with varying degrees of consistency. My sensor is flawed (actually, after looking more, it's flawed over 400, but it's hard to perceive at that sensitivity - at 800 is when it's more noticeable). The 6 bit coding sensor does not work. The Frame selector mechanism is faulty. I shot at ISO 200 with a 50 (non 6 bit) for the first 3 months of owning the camera, so none of these flaws came up. As soon as I changed a lens (to a 6 bit) and tried to shoot in dimished light all of the problems popped up. Very disheartening and frustrating. After searching all of these flaws have been reported. Not sure how consistently, but they're not unprecedented. The 2 of them are more of an inconvenience, but with the sensor flaw my heart sank. I do this for a living and had hoped for a professional level tool (I have a backup, I just enjoy using them less) This isn't some casual purchase for me. It's not up to where it needs to be. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Reciprocity]

Sorry to hear this, I know what you mean regarding not a casual but professional purchase. It’s pretty ridiculous to always hear just send it to Solms and they will take care of it when that tool is out of commission for 3-12 weeks.

 

Fingers crossed, my sensor seems fine across the entire range and I really punish it in the lowest of light at times. But then again, I have only had my M10 two months.

 

Thankful to have a faultless system like Nikon as my main one, I’d need 3 M10 bodies otherwise.

 

Correct - my camera is a combination of three flaws I have seen reported in other cameras with varying degrees of consistency. My sensor is flawed (actually, after looking more, it's flawed over 400, but it's hard to perceive at that sensitivity - at 800 is when it's more noticeable). The 6 bit coding sensor does not work. The Frame selector mechanism is faulty. I shot at ISO 200 with a 50 (non 6 bit) for the first 3 months of owning the camera, so none of these flaws came up. As soon as I changed a lens (to a 6 bit) and tried to shoot in dimished light all of the problems popped up. Very disheartening and frustrating. After searching all of these flaws have been reported. Not sure how consistently, but they're not unprecedented. The 2 of them are more of an inconvenience, but with the sensor flaw my heart sank. I do this for a living and had hoped for a professional level tool (I have a backup, I just enjoy using them less) This isn't some casual purchase for me. It's not up to where it needs to be.