DXO Mark Leica M10 Score

[TrickyMrT]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And we should keep in mind:

 

Someone how does not go with the time.... goes with the time

 

We have seen large companies failing just by not moving.

A good example nowadays is H&M which take the decision not to go into the online-shopping marked. Now they had to close one of their main shops!

 

The sensor topic is everything but nothing trivial.

[M11 for me]

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?

Why do you not read thar whole thread. Such a lot has been said. Many pictures and comparisons with Sony have been posted and we saw links to other Web pages where we can see other test. And was not the finding up to now that whatever was shiwn as „test“ proved that the M10 sensor performs at least as good as the others. We have no indication that it is not the case. Yes we saw bad comparative examples at 25‘000 ISO. But nobody uses such a camera to shoot seriously at that high ISOs. And we saw that in lover ISO (e.g. 6400) the M10 performed fabulously. We saw examples here where the M10 was better than 850 or Sony.

 

So some continue claiming that the need more DR or resolution. Of course that might be valid when they need that. But generally we see that our sensor is excellent.

 

Why then can you write such a funny post as if all the other 219 posts did not exist?

 

By the way I did a lot of family pictures over christmas and NewYear. Ma son had the 35mm on a 5D MkIII or on a MkIV. I myself had the 50 lux on my M10. Snd I tried to analyse the results. I think the at around ISO 1000 to max 2000 I have more crisp sharp inages than the Canon and the colors and the whole impression I get from the images the M10 is simply better or as good. And both cameras took pictures at the same place withe same light at the same time at different locations.

 

My clear conclusion is that I can co tinue to be extremely satisfied with the M10. Just avoid 25000 ISO.

 

As a conclusion: Just start reading this thread.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Can't do anything about feelings, but be assured that there is nothing wrong with the sensor, it is the best available presently for this purpose.

[jaapv]

 

And we should keep in mind:

 

Someone how does not go with the time.... goes with the time

 

We have seen large companies failing just by not moving.

A good example nowadays is H&M which take the decision not to go into the online-shopping marked. Now they had to close one of their main shops!

 

The sensor topic is everything but nothing trivial.

 

I'm sorry, but that is a nonsense comparison.

[pgk]

Talking about the ingredients (technology) is important, eating the food (looking at pictures) is equally so.

 

Talking about the ingredients is relevant only if its relevant (for photography generally in specialist applications such as scientific photography or times when huge prints are required - relatively rarely for most). Looking at the pictures is of far greater importance. Believe me when I say that no amount of technical excellence can make up for bland content .

[Chaemono]

 

Thank you Chaemono for your great conversations!

You're welcome.

 

It seems you have a huge arsenal of cameras

You presume too much. Cameras are rented to compare and see what I want to keep. Lenses are mostly kept except the X1D ones. They hold their value better than camera bodies for obvious reasons. I end up keeping most of the Leica bodies because I love to use the lenses with them.  I did buy the α7R III and intend to keep it until the SL2 comes out. I suspect we’ll have some fun on this forum comparing α7R III + 55 Otus vs. SL2 + 50 Summilux-SL. 

 

As I wrote, I´m happy with my M10 in terms of the usage,...

 

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

 

Only you can answer this question but it sounds like you’re anxious to see more comparisons. I’ll do α7R III + Sonnar 35/2.8 FE vs. M10 + 35 Summicron-M next.

 

 

 

 

[TrickyMrT]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Only you can answer this question but it sounds like you’re anxious to see more comparisons. I’ll do α7R III + Sonnar 35/2.8 FE vs. M10 + 35 Summicron-M next.

 

Thank you for the reply. I can´t wait to see your next comparisons 

[TrickyMrT]

When there is the SL2 out i would like to see from Leica something innovative like the techartpro autofocus-adapter for M lense:

 

http://techartpro.com/product/techart-pro-leica-m-sony-e-autofocus-adapter/

 

This are products ( If they are made great ) how are game changer. 

 

I hope Leica does not stay to conversative and listen a bit to customers 

[pgk]

When there is the SL2 out I would like to see from Leica something innovative like the techartpro autofocus-adapter for M lenses

 

The problem with such adapters is not that they do not work but that they operate M lenses set at infinity. So as they focus closer the mechanical, close range correction optical adjustment built into them does not work and consequently optical performance at closer focus is not as good as it is when the lenses are manually focussed. If I was Leica this would not be an acceptable solution for M lenses.

 

It appears to me that the problem we have here is that many assume that pure optical excellence in a legacy system can be adapted to and compete with camera/lens systems designed to interact and support each other, and which use a combination of purpose designed optics in conjunction with software and optimised sensors, which 'know' the characteristics of the lens currently in use and adjust files to optimise them accordingly. Its quite an accolade for the Leica M system that it stands up as well as it does against much current technology and it will probably continue to do so up to a point. But hoping that pure optical excellence with the constraints of a legacy system can constantly be updated to compete against current technology without similar constraints is naive I'm afraid. Leica are doing a great job with the digital M system but thinking that a small company can solve all the complex technical problems involved with legacy equipment and compete against far bigger organisations (their 'competitors' with no legacy constraints, quickly, is simply unrealistic IMO.

[jaapv]

And I may add that this problem occurs at normal focusing distances, no specifically close-up. Modern floating elements M lenses are particularly useless on such adapters.

[TrickyMrT]

And I may add that this problem occurs at normal focusing distances, no specifically close-up. Modern floating elements M lenses are particularly useless on such adapters.

Yes you are right! You can´t get the optimal results.

[TrickyMrT]

Of course, you probably find always someone how is not sleeping   

 

https://leicarumors.com/2016/08/09/techart-pro-leica-m-lens-to-leica-sl-mount-autofocus-adaptor-is-being-developed.aspx/ 

 

If this comes, i´m sure there are a lot of people how would use it, also if the results are not "optimal"

[pgk]

If this comes, i´m sure there are a lot of people how would use it, also if the results are not "optimal"

 

I'm sure that you are right - but I don't see Leica purposely producing a sub-optimal accessory themselves.

[Chaemono]

And unlikely Techart will invest the R&D to develop one for CDAF. It doesn’t make commercial sense. It’s fake news from August 2016.

[pgh]

Ok, yes, I understand that there are technical limitations. That's fine. I feel that this should be more widely publicized/available information since as a photographer who is not in to science but who makes large prints regularly - I just care about the results, not the tech that goes in to it, or the excuses for why it can't work. However, I can understand why Leica wouldn't go around talking about how their sensors will never/very slowly match up due to inherent design limitations. 

 

So we should leave the consensus opinion as follows no?

 

The sensor in the M10 is the best that Leica can conceivably do given the constraints of their designs, corporate size, and the user and company insistence on backwards compatibility with M Mount lenses. In order to have a digital M, we as users need to accept that the rules for the sensor are different due to the rangefinder body design, unlike in the days of 35mm film when the same film could go in all cameras of the same format.

 

The end results is generally decent, but noticeably deficient in practical use for many, when compared to the imaging properties of competing cameras released around the same time. The M user accepts certain imaging compromises due to their preference for legacy design principles. The M used to be about the highest quality imaging in a small package. Now, the M is about reasonably functional quality imaging in the same packaging and stellar user experience. We should also acknowledge that the M's digital images yield unique sharpness, color rendering, and that Leica lenses are still unique, and as far as image rendering goes. However, would a user be willing to use a camera of a different tactile nature (but similar size) released around the same time (such as the X pro 2, Rx1RII, etc), they would likely be using a camera with a sensor that will, in practical use, yield equal or better prints at a given size and provide a raw file that is more malleable and will retain highlight and shadow detail better for much, much less financial outlay. This marks a shift in the reasons for using a Leica, where it is now primarily driven by the user experience, with image quality a more muddy point to argue and now only on the merits of intangible qualities. When all is said and done, you buy the Leica for how it feels to work with. 

___

 

One must understand that I personally come to this as a user who walks miles with my equipment, I shoot intuitively and quickly (my least favorite part about photography is the fact that I have to have a camera at all) I shoot while I walk, I use available light, and I make big prints. I also do not need the camera to do anything automatically in any way, so features beyond what a mechanical camera had are generally beside the point. I am always looking for the best solution for this way of working. To this point, if I were able to limit myself to 35mm, the Rx1RII would be the best answer by far because the size/IQ combination there remains unbeaten, but I prefer 50mm for most purposes. 

Edited January 12, 2018 by pgh

[pgk]

The end results is generally decent, but noticeably deficient in practical use for many, when compared to the imaging properties of competing cameras released around the same time.

 

I would say that you summarised things fairly well except that I would suggest that this bit is incorrect. My experience is that many people who use cameras are not utilising them to anywhere near their full potential already.

 

The problem being that many buy cameras based on 'scores' and internet chatter. If you accept that there will be progress and that cameras like the M series are highly capable within their constraints, then this is fine. But suggesting that they have to always 'compete' is not. Because the ramifications are such that they are no longer seen for what they actually are - highly capable cameras - but for what they are not - the pinnacle of current innovation/design. So the idea of them being 'inferior' creeps in.

 

In the past camera systems were far easier to separate - medium format would have been a requirement when 35mm would not suffice - so Leica M did not compete against Hasselblad because they we seen as having quite different attributes. Today the 'full frame' format appears to have to be all things to all men and so comparisons which may not be sound are still made. We would not have though about putting a Leica M lens on a Hasselbad 500 series camera because it wouldn't work, but we do think of putting them on A7 series and other cameras because it is possible to do so and the technical characteristics which cause problems are not so easily appreciated.

[Chaemono]

However, would a user be willing to use a camera of a different tactile nature (but similar size) released around the same time (such as the X pro 2, Rx1RII, etc), they would likely be using a camera with a sensor that will, in practical use, yield equal or better prints at a given size and provide a raw file that is more malleable and will retain highlight and shadow detail better for much, much less financial outlay.

Yes, get over it. And try that cayenne pepper that was suggested.

[pgh]

Yes, get over it. And try that cayenne pepper that was suggested.

?? 

Are my assessments hostile to you?

 

If I were a reader of the forum thinking about spending my $7k I would appreciate constructive discussions of this nature. I don't need to get over anything. I'm simply trying to synthesize the relevant info here that some photographers do tend to care about for actual, practical purposes. Pixel peeping isn't theory for everyone, to some extent, these things can make a difference when printing at decent sizes and shooting in dynamic lighting situations - exactly the sorts of scenarios where I have noticed actual, practical differences. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. 

[adan]

This marks a shift in the reasons for using a Leica, where it is now primarily driven by the user experience, with image quality a more muddy point to argue and now only on the merits of intangible qualities. When all is said and done, you buy the Leica for how it feels to work with.

 

What shift in the reasons for buying a Leica? Leicas were always about the user experience, and rarely produced the best image quality.

 

Barnack designed the Leica because he wanted a smaller camera, not for better image quality (which was obviously going to suffer badly, compared to the other cameras of the time, with 4x-14x more square inches of film to work with.)

 

Cartier-Bresson (and those who followed through the 1950s) could easily have pursued higher image quality with 4x5 press cameras or even 6x6 Rolleis, throughout his career, but intentionally threw away IQ as a goal when he chose the "small-format" Leica, in exchange for "the user experience."

 

Nikon and Canon got their big break during the Korean War, when western journalists taking R&R in Japan discovered that the N/C screw-mount lenses were not only cheaper, but outperformed their Summitars and Summarons and Summarits. That, of course, was before my time, but I will guarantee that even in the early 1990s, a Nikkor ED telephoto would eat the hind legs off Leica's 180/250/280/400 lenses (except for the sainted 180 APO-Telyt, a standout).

 

When the Nikon F arrived, many photojournalists kept their Leicas for wide-angle work because the coupled RF was faster for focusing those than a ground-glass, and because they were less obtrusive (smaller and quieter) when up-close-and-personal, and because they were lighter if one carried multiple cameras to avoiding time and pictures lost to swapping lenses. And for a brief time, were optically better than the new retrofocus wideangles the SLR mirror required.

 

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7c/45/22/7c45224fde91096c3d46cba50f439436--saigon-vietnam-february-.jpg

 

When Leica Ms occasionally produced better image quality, it was mostly due to the absence of mirror shake at a handful of lower shutter speeds (1/30-1/8). Other than that, no one in their right minds bought Leica for better image quality. Because it is mostly a myth.

 

When I switched from Contax G to Leica in 2001, I knowingly threw away image quality, because the Contax G lenses easily outperformed the equivalent M lenses at that time. (But a Leica M4-2's manual focus was far more responsive than the Contax G's AF, and I preferred the Mandler color rendering) The original Cosina/Voigtlander 25mm Color-Skopar equalled or bettered the Leica 24mm f/2.8 ASPH (although it was a stop slower, and a bit long for the required scale-focusing). The Contax SLR 50mm f/1.4 outperformed the 50 Summilux, until the ASPH version just about caught up. If you really wanted sharp corners, you got a Contax RTS III - which had a vacuum back to ensure film flatness.

 

A 35mm Summilux-M ASPH does not, overall, outperform a 35mm Canon EOS 35 f/1.4 (a little CA here, a little lower contrast there). It does equal the Canon overall, in a smaller, better-built package, which improves the user experience.

 

Now, since about 1995, in order to save the company, Leica has put a great deal of effort into improving the quality of their lenses (As the CEO at the time said, "Leica lenses are always going to be the most expensive. All we can do is try to make them worth the price.") Not that they were horrible before, but Leica image quality was hardly the industry leader. And in some cases, by 2005 or so, succeeded in producing "the best" image quality - in certain focal lengths.

 

But that is a very recent development.

Edited January 12, 2018 by adan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Leicas were always about the user experience

 

Well put. The problem with user experience is that its difficult to quantify as a simple numerical indicator .....

 

My own attempt out of 10:

 

Leica M cameras: 10, Canon dSLRs: 7, Sony A7 Series: about 5ish ..... Feel free to fill in the gaps .