DXO Mark Leica M10 Score

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pop quiz - when was the last point in history where paying for a Leica ever bought one cutting-edge camera technology (as opposed to lens technology)? Probably 1954 (multi-focal-length M3 viewfinder).

 

 

Using those parameters, a logical decision. I skipped the M240 upgrade from an M9 because the absolute ISO increase without banding was only 2/3rds stop.

 

But I'd say the M10 has at least a 1.5-stop advantage over the M240 in where shadow banding appears (ISO 12800 vs ISO 4000). Which, as I mentioned, DxOMark fails to measure.

 

 

I own both 240 and M10 and you have to be more careful with highlights with the M10 (agree with shadow recovery). I have no scientific data to back up this comment but my feeling is that the difference is not 1.5 stops.

[mhicks]

I've never shot a camera at Iso 10000 in my life. A test like that is meaningless and pointless, to me. I'm never going to buy a D850. I don't like the camera, regardless of the sensor, so comparisons are meaningless. To me. I had a well meaning fella last week, tell me I should be shooting Canon or Nikon because I'm limited in lenses compared to them. Really? Even if I don't need or want a 600f4?

 

The only test that matters is one an individual makes, under the conditions they are likely to shoot, for their own decide making process. Sharing is fun but hardly represents what someone else will need unless they shoot the same stuff the same way. If I shot test charts for a living then I'd compare DPReview charts. I test every camera and lens I own extensively. I don't, however, think my conclusions are valid for any one but me.

 

Maybe it's because I shot for years on transparencies. Maybe it's because I've spent hours making contrast negs when printing Cibachromes but when I see heated debate over a half a stop in a 11 stop sensor, I just shake my head and move on. Same when people think the 14 stops of an A7R3 are achievable outside lab conditions once you add optics and other things to the shooting equation. Back in the bad old days we were always hitting the limits of what a single frame could do. So we got real good at innovating and solving problems rather than blame the camera. Now we batch about 12 stops of DR, medium format resolution in a camera that fits into a pocket and fast AF and we make piles and piles of technically perfect drivel. Sad.

 

we've been seduced by the advertising that tells us that a better sensor makes better pictures. It doesn't. If you can't make great pictures it's because you lack the imagination to see the infinite opportunities in front of you. If a camera and a fixed 50 can have infinite opportunities adding gear doesn't make more opportunities. Sure nice gear makes it easier for some specific uses. You aren't shooting football for a living if all you own is a 20mm. But when we come hear and talk about how the M10 doesn't have the DR of an A7R3, you're putting yourself in the mindset to always see what you can't shoot. Do that and you'll not see all the things you can shoot.

 

The only tests I make are to see how far I can push a sensor in single shot at the ISOs I use under the conditions I shoot. That allows me to make informed decisions about playing with exposure and when I need to reach into my bag of tricks to expand the shooting envelope. My head Never looks at a scene and worries I have the wrong sensor. My head asks how I can get the shot I want with they gear I have with me.

 

At the same time it's a bit of fun looking at what others tests show and I appreciate the effort. But I don't rely on them for my own shooting. I am not a fan of the bitching, when someone puts stuff up, free of charge, in good spirit. Remember they will be influenced by their needs. If you can do a better job then maybe you should do it instead of belittling the effort of others by pointing out every little scientific flaw. And take them with the grain of salt they all come with.

 

Gordon

You don’t need me to say it but damn, what a great post. Best one I’ve seen since I’ve been a member. Thanks for the wisdom, Gordon.

[pgh]

Price is not an indicator of sensor performance. The most expensive Nikon and Canon bodies have sensors remarkably close to the M10 and with lower scores than mid priced models. Comparing on price alone the M10 does quite well and is within line of the 1DX2 and D5. If Leica's flagship has a sub par sensor then we need to say the same thing about the D5.

 

It's already been stated that Leica couldn't get the microlenses they needed from Sony. Does anyone besides Sony make a commercially available sensor above 25MP? Is it currently possible to make a 36MP sensor that works in the corners with M lenses? What are the impacts on camera shake and usability with a 42MP sensor (the M10 isn't exactly known as a tripod camera)? How many of us actually print M10 files bigger than 24"? Does a 42MP Sony sensor generate more or less heat than the one in the M10?

 

All cameras have compromises. The M10 has bigger issues than sensor performance. If the sensor is that important you can get the huge D850 or the complex A7R3.

 

This incessant whinging is getting depressing. The M10 is what it is. It doesn't make worse pictures than  it did before the scores went up. Most of us will get no where near it's potential.

 

Gordon

It's not whining, it's acknowledging the traits of the camera for what they are, and acknowledging that they matter to some people, and acknowledging that it's not an over the top thing to question. No one here is blaming the M10 for making them miss a picture. I find the comparisons with flagship speed demons off the mark. In those camera you give up sensor performance for pure speed and processing power, 4k video, insane flexibility etc, and you know this. Leica offers none of this. It should be an IQ focused camera because it does not need to be fast, it does not need to shoot video etc etc. As a pure photographic tool, IQ is important, at least it seems to me. 

 

And yes, I own a camera with a better sensor, I know you can find those elsewhere in other types of bodies. But if we are going to compare Leica in the film days, then we can also acknowledge that in the 35mm film medium, Leica produced the highest quality negatives/slides. The combination of the portable and precise tool coupled with the amazing lenses is what got them to where they are. At this point, you have the tactile experience, but you lose any advantage in the image quality argument. It is not unreasonable for some people to wish it were like in the film days where a Leica got you both. It's not whining, but it's acknowledging the fact that when it comes to IQ, unfortunately you can't make the same argument anymore. Personally, for me, it would be a much better tool with a better sensor. I print large, I take advantage of what the files have to offer in terms of malleability, and I shoot handheld 42 mp all of the time with no tripod and no problem. So yea, to answer those questions, there is a very practical matter to this issue.

 

Again, Fancy car body, Honda civic engine. We don't have to whine about it, but let's not pretend it's a "fancy car engine" inside and let's not tell people that they shouldn't care about that, especially if they actually like to exploit the traits of the better engine.

 

The questions about whether or not that sort of sensor tech is even possible/available to Leica are valid. It would be nice if we could know a clear answer from Leica. If they're going to be using 24 mp sensors forever because that is the limit of the lenses, I would like to know. Wishful thinking I'm sure. 

[xiaubauu2009]

The question is whether it is lagging behind other cameras which can utilise Leica M mount wide-angles as well as the Leica can?

 

The answer isn't as simple as ascribing a score or indeed utilising various graphs, unless of course they take Leica's wide-angle lens requirements into account.

 

 

Comparing my A7R3 files with the M246 (even just resolution detail), the Sony's A7 camera perform rather poorly compared to Leica's own sensor when using ultra-wide. In this regard, yes, I think Leica's sensor is better than Sony's modern 42meg sensor.

 

I agree with you. Leica's M is for M lens, period....

[Chaemono]

I think some people should check with their doctor whether to switch blood pressure meds. I’ve heard that consuming cayenne pepper for breakfast should also help.

[jaapv]

It's not whining, it's acknowledging the traits of the camera for what they are, and acknowledging that they matter to some people, and acknowledging that it's not an over the top thing to question. No one here is blaming the M10 for making them miss a picture. I find the comparisons with flagship speed demons off the mark. In those camera you give up sensor performance for pure speed and processing power, 4k video, insane flexibility etc, and you know this. Leica offers none of this. It should be an IQ focused camera because it does not need to be fast, it does not need to shoot video etc etc. As a pure photographic tool, IQ is important, at least it seems to me. 

 

And yes, I own a camera with a better sensor, I know you can find those elsewhere in other types of bodies. But if we are going to compare Leica in the film days, then we can also acknowledge that in the 35mm film medium, Leica produced the highest quality negatives/slides. The combination of the portable and precise tool coupled with the amazing lenses is what got them to where they are. At this point, you have the tactile experience, but you lose any advantage in the image quality argument. It is not unreasonable for some people to wish it were like in the film days where a Leica got you both. It's not whining, but it's acknowledging the fact that when it comes to IQ, unfortunately you can't make the same argument anymore. Personally, for me, it would be a much better tool with a better sensor. I print large, I take advantage of what the files have to offer in terms of malleability, and I shoot handheld 42 mp all of the time with no tripod and no problem. So yea, to answer those questions, there is a very practical matter to this issue.

 

Again, Fancy car body, Honda civic engine. We don't have to whine about it, but let's not pretend it's a "fancy car engine" inside and let's not tell people that they shouldn't care about that, especially if they actually like to exploit the traits of the better engine.

 

The questions about whether or not that sort of sensor tech is even possible/available to Leica are valid. It would be nice if we could know a clear answer from Leica. If they're going to be using 24 mp sensors forever because that is the limit of the lenses, I would like to know. Wishful thinking I'm sure. 

If that fabulous 42 MP sensor  would be fitted to the M10, the performance would be sub-par, as it is not designed for that type of camera. There is no sensor that would perform better on a rangefinder camera with retrocompatability.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally, for me, it would be a much better tool with a better sensor.

 

The problem is that it would not be unless the sensor was matched the Leica's lens' requirements AND the lenses were integrated into the camera's processing prior to RAW file production. The first is possible, the second difficult. If you cannot see that trying to compete with a pure, designed from the ground up camera/lens system with optical/software integration is always going to be difficult for a camera system with legacy design limitations, then its pointless going on with the discussion, and you had better look to different cameras than the M series for your photography if you require 'ultimate quality' (whatever it is).

[TrickyMrT]

If that fabulous 42 MP sensor  would be fitted to the M10, the performance would be sub-par, as it is not designed for that type of camera. There is no sensor that would perform better on a rangefinder camera with retrocompatability.

Maybe I miss something. A better sensor should give a lower performance in an M10 body?

 

To be honest, if you have a higher Resolution Sensor, you can capture images with more pixel.

 

The body of the M10 is fantastic and i love it. It´s so nice to hold it in hands... but the Sensor of the M10 is not state of the art!

 

What does the best lenses help, if the "Sensor" is not good?

[Rollin]

The DxO Database is nothing else than a database. It allows me to compare different sensors and the technical progress being made over time. . . .

Another resource I use to get a sense of the progress of sensors, and it does take into account banding and high ISO artifacts, is Imaging Resource's Camera Reviews where they actually make prints of their studio scene (what a concept!), and publish what is the maximum size at each ISO setting they feel it is still a "good" print. Yes, this is subjective, but I still have found interesting and helpful. And, yes, they have some inconsistencies such as "We normally print out-of-camera JPEGs but the Leica SL produced rather dull JPEGs, yet it produced very pleasing images from its .DNG files. So for this print quality analysis, we instead converted .DNG RAW files. . . ." Unfortunately, the SL is the only Leica they have fully reviewed, but since close to M10 high ISO performance I still found relevant.

 

In their current reviews the Print Quality results are on the Exposure tab (Leica SL linked here) and then at the very bottom. In a previous job this information was useful to compare new generations of camera, and being a bit of a nerd, I put it all on a spreadsheet. So spent some time last couple days updating it with their most recent reviews, tinted the highest ISO that at least an 8"x10" print can be done, and color coding it by sensor:

FF = Black, APS-C = Green, MFT = Blue, 1" = Orange, except did the Leica SL in Red as an easy reference point for this discussion. Sizes in () is where they said it was very, very close to making that size. Enjoy!

 

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!

[Chaemono]

I did some comparisons here α7R II with Sony primes vs. SL + 24-90 for online viewing: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-7Wx3DS/ (from ARWs and DNGs opened in LR and only WB adjusted to try to match).

[roblumba]

What does the best lenses help, if the "Sensor" is not good?

This is a false statement. The sensor is excellent and the lenses are excellent. There are better sensors, but that doesn't mean the Leica sensor is "not good". The photos it produces have special qualities and excellent color and detail.

[pgk]

What does the best lenses help, if the "Sensor" is not good?

 

Look, the best lenses optimally matched to a good sensor are better than the best lenses inappropriately matched to a 'better' sensor.

[jaapv]

 

Maybe I miss something. A better sensor should give a lower performance in an M10 body?

 

To be honest, if you have a higher Resolution Sensor, you can capture images with more pixel.

 

The body of the M10 is fantastic and i love it. It´s so nice to hold it in hands... but the Sensor of the M10 is not state of the art!

 

What does the best lenses help, if the "Sensor" is not good?

 

Yes, you read it correctly. There is no guarantee that the sensor and microlens/filter array will give a better result on a sensor that is excellent in another camera system. I fact, it is highly unlikely that it would be. Leica is not stupid, and they don't feel a price constraint when it comes to specifying parts that will improve image quality. They are as able to buy these sensors from Sony, Panasonic or whomever as any other manufacturer. But they don't as they don't meet the specifications.

Neither pixel count or any other parameter taken singly can be an indicator of the final image quality. It is always the combination of the sensor and the lenses that produces the final result. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can throw the finest ingredients together, but if they don't match, the result will be disappointing if not inedible.

[Mark II]

Leica is not stupid, and they don't feel a price constraint when it comes to specifying parts that will improve image quality.

There may be no price constraint, but I suspect that there are certainly engineering resource constraints. If price was no object, then they would just get the best-in-class Sony 24/36/42 MP BSI silicon and arrange to use their own custom micro lenses and other “toppings”. Unfortunately, doing that inevitably means a huge resource for everything from mechanical/materials design, electronics, firmware and production.

 

Leica simply is not big enough to do this rapidly. After the earlier sensor IR, cracking and corrosion problems they are probably hyper conservative about changing anything, and that is probably a good thing.

[Al_OOF]

The discussion Is also interesting but it seems that sometimes there is in us almost a need for psychological reassurance: I have spent a large sum of money and I want someone to tell me that every component is the maximum...

But are we able to judge a final result ? Also comparing it with that of other brands. Without reading numbers or graphs.

If we go to a restaurant we are able (we should) to understand the quality of the dishes without asking the cook for a chemical analysis or an examination with the spectrometer. And in the same way we should understand if we ate better in one restaurant or in another. Technology can be a good thing and numbers can help but they can also spoil a little joy and airiness.

[Chaemono]

Talking about the ingredients (technology) is important, eating the food (looking at pictures) is equally so. Some 5DS R + 55 Otus/Sigma Art vs. SL + 50 Summilux-SL food here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

[xiaubauu2009]

 

Maybe I miss something. A better sensor should give a lower performance in an M10 body?

 

To be honest, if you have a higher Resolution Sensor, you can capture images with more pixel.

 

The body of the M10 is fantastic and i love it. It´s so nice to hold it in hands... but the Sensor of the M10 is not state of the art!

 

What does the best lenses help, if the "Sensor" is not good?

 

 

 

Well, I think Leica's sensor has a thinner filter glass and also specialized designed microns to cope with the characteristic of the rangefinder lens. Jaap's notion is correct, just simply put a better sensor in tech and resolution might not work as well as the purposefully built M10 24m sensor... But if Sony would entertaining Leica to purposed fit their specification onto their BSI 42m sensor that would work with rangefinder lens, then I think it will better what Leica M10 is offering right now....

 

Also have we thought about the capability of the lens pairing with the sensor? Even with high resolution, the lens might not work or be capable to resolve those pixel... remember the whole point of M is also about using those older lens on the digital body to capture some of those looks/glow/what-have-you that people are looking for.

 

It's either you get it or you don't kind of thing... don't really need to look at DxO remarks as I think it's completely useless as they have range a Phase IQ180 below a Nikon D800 a couple of years back, and I have stop even referring to it in my reading cause it's just utter nonsense...

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well, I think Leica's sensor has a thinner filter glass and also specialized designed microns to cope with the characteristic of the rangefinder lens. Jaap's notion is correct, just simply put a better sensor in tech and resolution might not work as well as the purposefully built M10 24m sensor... But if Sony would entertaining Leica to purposed fit their specification onto their BSI 42m sensor that would work with rangefinder lens, then I think it will better what Leica M10 is offering right now....

 

Also have we thought about the capability of the lens pairing with the sensor? Even with high resolution, the lens might not work or be capable to resolve those pixel... remember the whole point of M is also about using those older lens on the digital body to capture some of those looks/glow/what-have-you that people are looking for.

 

It's either you get it or you don't kind of thing... don't really need to look at DxO remarks as I think it's completely useless as they have range a Phase IQ180 below a Nikon D800 a couple of years back, and I have stop even referring to it in my reading cause it's just utter nonsense...

 

my bolding........

 

I think it's already been established that Leica did talk to Sony and was not happy that they would get the microlenses as they required them.

 

Gordon

[xiaubauu2009]

my bolding........

 

I think it's already been established that Leica did talk to Sony and was not happy that they would get the microlenses as they required them.

 

Gordon

 

 

Ok.

 

Sad....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TrickyMrT]

I did some comparisons here α7R II with Sony primes vs. SL + 24-90 for online viewing: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-7Wx3DS/ (from ARWs and DNGs opened in LR and only WB adjusted to try to match).

Thank you Chaemono for your great conversations! It helps us all to see the differences in detail.

 

It seems you have a huge arsenal of cameras  

 

Congratulations !!!

 

As I wrote, I´m happy with my M10 in terms of the usage, but getting the feeling the sensor is outdated makes concerns 

 

.... was my decision to go with Leica good?