DXO Mark Leica M10 Score

[coupdefoudre]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Chaemono:

 

The Leica image is 'livelier" to my eye - and a little sharper, as well (perhaps the Leica manual focus was spot on vs. the Sony image.)

 

In the absence of a side-by-side (or, rather, over-under) comparison I doubt 99% of viewers would care. But that little increase in 3-dimensionality is important to me.

 

Many Thanks for this work!

[Chaemono]

The 35 and 75 Summicrons stopped down a bit rock. Contrast increases so much anywhere between f/2.8 and f/5.6. I used them to do some test shots with the M10 and the X1D, which I had rented, here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/. I didn’t keep the X1D because I thought the Summicrons kicked butt.

[pgk]

Chaemono's last two images suggest to me that maybe Leica are correct in their belief that a 24 mp sensor is the optimum for a 35mm full frame camera and I suspect that Canon have similar views. Obviously Leica know more about sensors than all of the critics contributing to this forum, pixels aren't everything 

 

There is no way of determining image 'quality' or many of its attributes from web posted Jpegs! Optimum is a difficult thing to quantify when it comes to photographic images and as has been pointed out many times before, you need to add a whole load of caveats. 24MPixels is amply sufficient for the vast majority of photographer's requirements - some will require more but most don't/wont. 

[jaapv]

And those that require more are probably using the wrong tool. I am not convinced that high-megapixel full-frame cameras make much sense. In case one needs such resolutions, the medium format cameras offer vastly superior results.

[pgh]

And those that require more are probably using the wrong tool. I am not convinced that high-megapixel full-frame cameras make much sense. In case one needs such resolutions, the medium format cameras offer vastly superior results.

While the Leica sensor might be the best sensor for it's design, this is myopic way of thinking.

 

High MP 35mm cameras can make plenty of sense. Why should a camera be bigger if it doesn't have to be? We need to move on from comparing everything to film formats. As soon as I saw that my Sony A7RII matched at low ISO and easily beat at higher ISOs my Pentax 645D in print (an unwieldly and heavy kit with poor low light performance and low dynamic range) I sold it, because it made new things possible. For one, it made large, detailed prints possible without being tethered to a tripod most of the time. That alone was a game changer. I don't care what format it is related to, what you have is a tool that provides a foundation to make amazing prints and is more portable than cameras with a bigger sensor and more unwieldy form. Why would this not make sense? 

 

I won't use MF digital anymore because it's not substantially better than 35mm (and you pay more for it, it depreciates much more significantly, and the IQ gains, unless you're using a 100 mp camera - are not significant enough - at least in my opinion.) The IQ difference between the current high res sony and nikon offerings and the X1d and the GFX50S, for example, if I had to quantify, are about 10% improvement. The user needs to decide if that's worth all of the extra money and weight to carry. For some yes, but for many, no way. This is in no way vastly superior results. I print large, but not insanely large. A camera that can make good prints between 20x30" and 40"x60" and is portable is the sweet spot. The 100 mp versions are another thing entirely, and of course are the choice if IQ is everything, but they come with many costs that are only justified for a few. 

 

Everyone I know who has used and exploited the potential of high MP 35mm cameras generally agrees that they definitely do make sense for many purposes. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by pgh

[lucerne]

I have recently read the new report on the m10 by Thorsten Ovegaard. Its on his home page. He criticises Leica whenever he sees fit. I found it to be honest,and straight to the point. Of course he enjoys the Leica experience, but more to the point is that his M10 evaluation is based on nearly one years field experience. The images he has provided clearly show his image styling and the capabilities of the camera. He also gets a great amount of fun and revenue from his business model.

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You won't believe what happened to me this weekend. I'm walking around, taking pictures with my two favorite FF compact combos and thinking 'mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all.' And when I get back home and look at some of the files on my screen, I'm starting to think 'man, that M10 picture looks a bit crap, underexposed and flat. At the exact same settings the Sony looks much better. That's it, I've had it, I'm ditching the M10. Others are ditching it, I'm ditching it.' But then I start to play around with the sliders in LR, first doing all kinds of crazy stuff but then doing the exact same adjustments to the Leica file and the Sony file except for slightly different exposure and WB to try to match. And all of the sudden, the M10 picture starts to come to life. True story and raw files can be provided. But lets look at the pictures first.

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

 

First, from DNG and ARW opened in LR and only WB adjusted to try to match.

 

α7R III + Sonnar 35/2.8 FE

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!

ISO 640 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M 

ISO 640 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

[Chaemono]

And now with adjustments after adjusting WB already as mentioned above to try to match. Again, raw files can be provided.

 

α7R III: Exposure + 0.37, Highlights -10, Shadows +100, Blacks -50, Clarity +10, Vibrance +5, Saturation +5, Sharpening +40, NR +10

 

M10: Exposure + 1.05, Highlights -10, Shadows +100, Blacks -50, Clarity +10, Vibrance +5, Saturation +5, Sharpening +40, NR +10, Vignetting +30 (in LR applied profile does not include adjustment here unlike for the Sony) 

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

 

 

α7R III + Sonnar 35/2.8 FE

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!

ISO 640 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10 + (kick-@ss) 35 Summicron-M 

ISO 640 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Chaemono

[FlashGordonPhotography]

While the Leica sensor might be the best sensor for it's design, this is myopic way of thinking.

 

High MP 35mm cameras can make plenty of sense. Why should a camera be bigger if it doesn't have to be? We need to move on from comparing everything to film formats. As soon as I saw that my Sony A7RII matched at low ISO and easily beat at higher ISOs my Pentax 645D in print (an unwieldly and heavy kit with poor low light performance and low dynamic range) I sold it, because it made new things possible. For one, it made large, detailed prints possible without being tethered to a tripod most of the time. That alone was a game changer. I don't care what format it is related to, what you have is a tool that provides a foundation to make amazing prints and is more portable than cameras with a bigger sensor and more unwieldy form. Why would this not make sense? 

 

I won't use MF digital anymore because it's not substantially better than 35mm (and you pay more for it, it depreciates much more significantly, and the IQ gains, unless you're using a 100 mp camera - are not significant enough - at least in my opinion.) The IQ difference between the current high res sony and nikon offerings and the X1d and the GFX50S, for example, if I had to quantify, are about 10% improvement. The user needs to decide if that's worth all of the extra money and weight to carry. For some yes, but for many, no way. This is in no way vastly superior results. I print large, but not insanely large. A camera that can make good prints between 20x30" and 40"x60" and is portable is the sweet spot. The 100 mp versions are another thing entirely, and of course are the choice if IQ is everything, but they come with many costs that are only justified for a few. 

 

Everyone I know who has used and exploited the potential of high MP 35mm cameras generally agrees that they definitely do make sense for many purposes. 

 

Roger C recently wrote this:

 

"When you take a picture, you’re using the system (the camera and lens each add their limitations). Despite what many self-described experts say, it is very, very rare that just the lens or just the camera limit the output of the system. In practical terms, unless you have a really horrid lens, or a 4 megapixel camera, both camera and lens contribute to the final output. (If you have both a horrid lens and a 4 megapixel camera then you don’t need to be reading this.)"

 

on the lens rentals blog. 

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/01/finally-some-m43-mtf-testing-25mm-prime-lens-comparison/

 

Written in a test about m43 lenses but still relevant.

 

If higher resolution sensors could not produce better IQ in concert with the M lenses, as a system than the one that Leica chose then, Leica has chosen the best sensor available. I think it's been shown that many M lenses don't perform better on the 42MP Sony sensor than they do on the M10 sensor. It's been stated that Sony would not/could not modify that sensor to Leica's specifications. So Leica chose the best sensor available for the system.

 

And we're not just talking about current lenses. Leica has a commitment to the M range with lens designs spanning back 50 years. They don't have to but they choose to maintain the best performance possible with many generation old lenses on a modern digital camera body. I'm more than happy to get into Leica about some of the stupid stuff they do but in this case they did choose the best sensor possible for what they needed it to do. I don't think they compromised. I think they went hard and this is the best available sensor for the M system.

 

Would I like more MP. Sure! But not if the files look like my 50 'lux does on an A7R2. With that lens the M10 easily out resolves the Sony in parts of the frame.

 

I have, of course, chosen to got the other way. When I need more resolution or more DR I've bypassed 35mm and gone straight to miniMF. I have directly tested my A7R2 and X1D/S/645Z against each other and when I get to a situation where I need the extra DR.resolution over the M10 there isn't a single instance I'd choose the Sony. I'll take the measurable and obvious improvement to the medium format system every time. For my uses the A7Rx and D850 are in no mans land. I either want smaller (Sony is small in body only, lenses are often massive to get the max from the sensor) or I can go to an better sensor again and one with a 100MP on its road map.

 

It's also interesting that this seems to be a 35mm format thing. Fuji shooters have only get one modern sensor so they have no choice but to go forth and shoot. Even m43 photographers are out there shooting awesome landscapes. While we sit here with a better sensor than both and argue over it.

 

Gordon

[xiaubauu2009]

I see great future for M as Ricoh will be announcing the new Ricoh GR with curve full frame sensor!!!!

Curved full frame sensor.... It will completely solved Leica's problem with the rangefinder lens design!! No more crazy thin filter glass that will crack at a drop of a hat, or over clever filter coating that will eat itself sitting still... 

Edited January 15, 2018 by xiaubauu2009

[xiaubauu2009]

I think the α7R III is a keeper.

 

 

Try pixel shift, make you want to throw away all your MF gear....

[lucerne]

And now with adjustments after adjusting WB already as mentioned above to try to match. Again, raw files can be provided.

 

α7R III: Exposure + 0.37, Highlights -10, Shadows +100, Blacks -50, Clarity +10, Vibrance +5, Saturation +5, Sharpening +40, NR +10

 

M10: Exposure + 1.05, Highlights -10, Shadows +100, Blacks -50, Clarity +10, Vibrance +5, Saturation +5, Sharpening +40, NR +10, Vignetting +30 (in LR applied profile does not include adjustment here unlike for the Sony) 

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

 

 

α7R III + Sonnar 35/2.8 FE

Sony Engine_pp_lufv.jpg

 

ISO 640 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10 + (kick-@ss) 35 Summicron-M 

M10 Engine_pp_lufv.jpg

ISO 640 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

Eureka!

You've discovered what to do with the RAW output from cameras.

[Chaemono]

Eureka!

You've discovered what to do with the RAW output from cameras.

Thanks. I have more.   

[pgk]

I have, of course, chosen to got the other way. When I need more resolution or more DR I've bypassed 35mm and gone straight to miniMF.

 

 

 

Either you are a real traditionalist or old truisms still apply .

[pgh]

I have, of course, chosen to got the other way. When I need more resolution or more DR I've bypassed 35mm and gone straight to miniMF. I have directly tested my A7R2 and X1D/S/645Z against each other and when I get to a situation where I need the extra DR.resolution over the M10 there isn't a single instance I'd choose the Sony. I'll take the measurable and obvious improvement to the medium format system every time. For my uses the A7Rx and D850 are in no mans land. I either want smaller (Sony is small in body only, lenses are often massive to get the max from the sensor) or I can go to an better sensor again and one with a 100MP on its road map.

 

It's also interesting that this seems to be a 35mm format thing. Fuji shooters have only get one modern sensor so they have no choice but to go forth and shoot. Even m43 photographers are out there shooting awesome landscapes. While we sit here with a better sensor than both and argue over it.

 

Gordon

You may have misunderstood the spirit of my post.

It acknowledges the systematic limitations of the M system (though, I am quite curious about the SL...and if this argument will be made for that sensor whenever the new one comes out. If the M system limitation argument is to hold practical water then the SL, designed from the ground up, should not be stuck in this regard).

It also acknowledges the advantages of MF - while also acknowledging that the size of it is a limitation, even the X1D. So, what is the solution for the photographer who wants the best IQ possible while there are certain size limitations? Where is that size/IQ sweet spot currently (with consideration to cost possibly for some)? That's the question that applies to some of my work personally, and the same is true for many I work with in the field. 

 

The point I made was that to say that high resolution 35mm is 'the wrong tool' only shows that one hasn't found the right use for it. 

 

For the purposes of many, it actually is the best tool. Sony gets large with some lenses, but not all, and at least for my circle of photographers, it all yields a good combination of the best possible IQ that doesn't become a schlepping problem over large distances, or, for some, present a large financial problem. No man's land for some, sweet spot for others - most professionals I know, actually.  And the whole menu/soulless camera argument is silly IMO. The menu isn't hard to learn for most photographers who don't need all of those functions, and all of these things are machines in the end. A leica has no more soul than a pumpkin, a lamp, or a sony. 

 

Outside of that work, I use my M for other purposes. The fact that they both use a 2:3 aspect ratio doesn't mean they're directly competing tools. Maybe in the film days they were but at this point, nope.  

 

It's a little strange every time one posts specifically about the advantages and disadvantages of whatever camera or system that there are people basically saying that the tools are being used wrong, expectations are out of line, whatever. I would argue that anyone who knows their work and their needs well, and has used and experienced a wide array of tools over years probably knows.

 

I'd be curious to know how many people here use Leica exclusively and have for awhile. I would some of the comments more then (not yours, I know you own more camera gear than I ever will).

 

Also, the implication that talking about this means one isn't out shooting is a bit...i don't know...where do you get that impression? The comments here from many are borne from experience out shooting - which I do a lot because it is my livelihood.  

[pgk]

And the whole menu/***** camera argument is silly IMO. The menu isn't hard to learn for most photographers who don't need all of those functions, and all of these things are machines in the end.

 

Unintuitive menus are a problem when they are a problem. Its not about learning them, its about accessing and changing things quickly when you need to. An unintuitive, poorly thought out and overly complex menu system is in nobody's interest yet manufacturers persist in producing them. Why someone hasn't come up with a dual/triple/quadruple/versatile system which can be easily modified to a user's requirements puzzles me. It ca't be beyond the realms of technology. The Leica M remains relatively simplistic which is a delight to use most of the time.

[Chaemono]

I think one can be quite hopeful that the SL2 sensor will be very competitive to the α7R III sensor http://www.towerjazz.com/prs/2017/1030.html

 

Then we can do α7R III + Otus 55 vs. SL2 + 50 Summilux-SL side by side comparisons in another thread and repeat all the fun we are having here.

[jaapv]

The point I made was that to say that high resolution 35mm is 'the wrong tool' only shows that one hasn't found the right use for it.

This one really puzzles me. Do we really go out to look for the job that our tool can do? I would have thought that one picks the tool to suit the job.

[pgk]

This one really puzzles me. Do we really go out to look for the job that our tool can do? I would have thought that one picks the tool to suit the job.

 

Many years ago (~1980) I used Kodak Technical Pan film processed in (I think) HC110 continuous tone developer. Extreme fine grain. The camera needed to be used on a very heavy (Gitzo Studex) tripod and all sources of vibration eliminated (in fact Kodak released a macro shot taken with this combination on a micro Nikkor which had been shot using flash to still movement). I used it to test a lens which a press photographer claimed was soft (It wasn't). I'm sure that it had other uses but somehow this is what I ended up using it for - lens testing. It was a very good film/developer and had its adherents for other work, but it was far from mainstream. My point is that 35mm has been capable of very high quality  indeed, and for a long time, but it never succeeded in usurping medium format. You may draw parallels if you wish to do so.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

I'd be curious to know how many people here use Leica exclusively and have for awhile.

 

Hand raised. Over the past two years since having come to Leica, the rest of my gear sits and gathers dust. I simply prefer the entire process from start to finish when shooting with a Leica.  

 

I'm sure there are some folks who would argue that an A7/9 coupled with Zeiss/Voigtlander glass totally surpasses the M10 in every measurable respect.  If thats the argument, okay sure, but I fail to see how its all that relevant other than to those interested in elevating an average, seen it a hundred times before sort of photograph, by making more perfect than everyone else's version.  Leica Boston recently ran a show of Jim Marshall's work.  Despite the diminutive size of the photographs on display,  it was impossible not to be struck by just how noisy, grainy and technically imperfect by modern standards the prints were. But I'm fairly sure that a cleaner, sharper rendition of the beads of sweat on Mile's or Monk's forehead wouldn't add all that much impact to the images nor have altered the general arc of Marshall's career. 

 

When we're talking about cameras at this level of specification, it's seldom, if ever, that one can blame success or failure of the photograph on the resolution of the result. There are some whose brief may require that added edge, but for most, I suspect, sharper and sharper is more a matter of blind faith requiring that one worship at the altar of image fidelity.  In some ways, Leica itself, until recently, was chained to this dogma as well.  Regardless, I reject the quest for quantum-level pixel accuracy as a fundamental requirement for making a great photograph, but then I've alway been inclined to the heretical.   If some wish to bash Leica for its price/performance on the acuity front, its hard, if not impossible, to argue that there aren't alternatives that offer far more value for dollar.  But as I find the M10's capabilities in this arena more than sufficient, there are dozens of other reasons why I prefer it over any of the other options available.