DXO Mark Leica M10 Score

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

- I read the test and I continued to sleep peacefully.

 

I envy you, too. I don't get nearly as much sleep as you do.

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

[M11 for me]

I think that with DxO score you just have to look at the data of "Measurements" and in there the "SNR 18%" then the "Dynamic range". Thats it. And take it in and sleep well, of course. I wish you nothing else.

[ralph]

Are you aware what funny (if not fake) news you are distributing? In your post we see Fuji. What more can I say?

My post is not about any brand. It is about DxO being a company that receives money from the manufacturers that they also test. A reasonable person should question the independece of their tests. Would you give your best customer a bad rating?

 

What exactly is fake about the customer list that I posted directly from DxOs website? Please elaborate!

[M11 for me]

What exactly is fake about the customer list that I posted directly from DxOs website? Please elaborate!

 

Well, I see there Fuji on the list. But no Fuji sensor is valuated in the database. That is why I think it is maybe not that easy. And frankly outside this LUF I never heard about DxO results being faked. On the contrary: Often that data base is prised for its free accessibility . . . And there are others collecting data from new cameras. So there is some control after all or some cross checking if you like. Don't get me wrong: By no means I want to defend DxO. But just being too critical in order to be critical is not my thing either. Seen like that no newspaper could write good articles when they have to always mind their advertising customers. And IF (iffff) we sould ever find out that things were not properly measured at DxO then they will most probably be out. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Alex U.

[ralph]

Well, I see there Fuji on the list. But no Fuji sensor is valuated in the database. That is why I think it is maybe not that easy. And frankly outside this LUF I never heard about DxO results being faked. On the contrary: Often that data base is prised for its free accessibility . . . And there are others collecting data from new cameras. So there is some control after all or some cross checking if you like. Don't get me wrong: By no means I want to defend DxO. But just being too critical in order to be critical is not my thing either. Seen like that no newspaper could write good articles when they have to always mind their advertising customers. And IF (iffff) we sould ever find out that things were not properly measured at DxO then they will most probably be out.

 

Your statement is wrong, they also have several Fuji cameras in the database. I am still looking for the „fake news“ that I am supposed to be „distributing“ and obviously you cannot explain your statement.

 

My point is, treat reviews very carefully from a company that has the manufacturers that they test on their client list at the same time... because they are just not truly independent.

 

Maybe you should research why for example company auditors may not provide other paid services for the same company at the same time... to ensure the independence of their reports (e.g. look what happened to the auditor of Enron :-))

[Chaemono]

Read it carefully - they have not tested lenses (measuring specific lens qualities) on the M10. I.E. testing a lens for MTF, resolution in lppm, contrast, etc. DxO can't, for example, tell us how a 50 Summicron APO performs on the M10, or any other camera.

 

That is not the same as testing the M10 (measuring specific camera/sensor quality) without a lens. I.E. testing a sensor for s/n ratio, accuracy of ISO settings, DR, etc. DxO can and has told us how the M10's sensor performs.

 

Although it is perfectly easy to test a sensor's properties without a lens. Film companies do a lot of film testing in the chemistry lab, without lenses. And then practical tests WITH a lens, as well.

_____________________

 

Interesting to see DxO's results (or comments) for several things discussed at length on our forum already.

 

Base ISO - there is a small real difference between ISO 100 and 200 on the M10, whereas the M240 is the same true ISO at either setting (flat-lined - ISO 100 is just a full-stop "pull").

 

DR - the M10 does have slightly better DR at 100 than at 200. Just a question of which one prefers in recovery to get best DR - blown highlights (100) or noisy shadows (200).

 

A bit disappointing to see Leica labels the M10's ISOs a full stop below (or above, depending on how you think about it) nominal except at 100 - explains why I need ISO 10000/12500 in light where I'd expect to rate Tri-X at 5000/6400-ish. Nevertheless, a real 1.5-stop gain over my M9 in available-light - with less noise.

 

Several sources have remarked that the M10 firmware seems a bit "rushed" (including someone at Leica - Herr Daniel?). Which DxO also seems to have noticed in some specific comments.

 

To paraphrase Andy, interesting to continue to see comments on DxO's results about things discussed at length in this thread already.

 

Nevertheless, there is no existing camera that I would rather use than the M10.

 

Especially not with those compact FF M mount lenses. To paraphrase James Carville, the lead strategist of the 1992 Democratic presidential campaign, "it's the lenses, stupid."

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

Edited January 20, 2018 by Chaemono

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DXO test scores aside, I think this got attention because it just quantified what some had experienced already. You don't need a score to tell you the files aren't as robust as others.

 

Just like in any other area of life, subscribing to dogma necessarily limits one's worldview and perception of what a tool can be used for. Experimentation and tinkering with new technology is what leads to interesting new approaches - if one is fine doing the same thing the same way that's fine, but there are those who like to poke at the edges of current limitations. High resolution digital 35mm is justified by the sales of pretty much every other camera company that utilizes the full frame sensor in their product line (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sony) - to disregard this as unnecessary or argue that it's superfluous is all fine and good if it's true for one's own purposes - but to justify Leica's current inferior offering (even with consideration to the technical limitations) as of no consequence disregards the reality for many users, even if it doesn't matter for one's own purposes.

 

If we are going to consider all 35mm format digital sensors as comparable to 35mm film in terms of shooting experience etc, then we can recognize that in 35mm Leica always offered competitive, and often, the best image quality. Much harder to argue this now. 

 

If we are going to consider 35mm digital as a new format with new possibilities (as I think we should), then we can recognize and accept the technical limitations for the current M system as the best that the designers of this beautiful form factor can currently muster. We can also recognize and accept that comparing one 35mm digital to another isn't necessarily an accurate way of gauging things. Unlike with extremely fine and slow 35mm film that produced high IQ, in digital one can hand hold and quickly shoot very high resolution images. One can shoot with the care needed for fast 35mm film, but spit out a digital file of superior relative quality. I would argue that really we should think of these cameras as a format between 35mm and MF maybe, because they outperform the Leica, but have the all of, or most of the mobility and ease and aspect ration of 35mm film.

 

TL;DR - if one can't understand why one would want more megapixels and more dynamic range, that's fine, but lots of people do and for actual valid purposes, and every other manufacturer recognizes this. It's not stupid to wonder if Leica would ever try, since, as we all can agree on (well, at least those of us that find the sensor to be the weak spot), we'd rather use a Leica to shoot those files than something else, if that were ever a possibility.

 

Don't worry all ya'll who are supremely happy with every bit of the sensor, those of us who aren't are still sleeping soundly and making plenty of work, but thanks for your concern about our health. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by pgh

[Chaemono]

A couple more with my two favs (favorite FF compact combos)

 

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!

IΣO 1000 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M

IΣO 1000 f/4.0 @1/60 sec.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

DXO test scores aside, I think this got attention because it just quantified what some had experienced already. You don't need a score to tell you the files aren't as robust as others.

 

Just like in any other area of life, subscribing to dogma necessarily limits one's worldview and perception of what a tool can be used for. Experimentation and tinkering with new technology is what leads to interesting new approaches - if one is fine doing the same thing the same way that's fine, but there are those who like to poke at the edges of current limitations. High resolution digital 35mm is justified by the sales of pretty much every other camera company that utilizes the full frame sensor in their product line (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sony) - to disregard this as unnecessary or argue that it's superfluous is all fine and good if it's true for one's own purposes - but to justify Leica's current inferior offering (even with consideration to the technical limitations) as of no consequence disregards the reality for many users, even if it doesn't matter for one's own purposes.

 

If we are going to consider all 35mm format digital sensors as comparable to 35mm film in terms of shooting experience etc, then we can recognize that in 35mm Leica always offered competitive, and often, the best image quality. Much harder to argue this now. 

 

If we are going to consider 35mm digital as a new format with new possibilities (as I think we should), then we can recognize and accept the technical limitations for the current M system as the best that the designers of this beautiful form factor can currently muster. We can also recognize and accept that comparing one 35mm digital to another isn't necessarily an accurate way of gauging things. Unlike with extremely fine and slow 35mm film that produced high IQ, in digital one can hand hold and quickly shoot very high resolution images. One can shoot with the care needed for fast 35mm film, but spit out a digital file of superior relative quality. I would argue that really we should think of these cameras as a format between 35mm and MF maybe, because they outperform the Leica, but have the all of, or most of the mobility and ease and aspect ration of 35mm film.

 

TL;DR - if one can't understand why one would want more megapixels and more dynamic range, that's fine, but lots of people do and for actual valid purposes, and every other manufacturer recognizes this. It's not stupid to wonder if Leica would ever try, since, as we all can agree on (well, at least those of us that find the sensor to be the weak spot), we'd rather use a Leica to shoot those files than something else, if that were ever a possibility.

 

Don't worry all ya'll who are supremely happy with every bit of the sensor, those of us who aren't are still sleeping soundly and making plenty of work, but thanks for your concern about our health. 

 

I have no problems with any of you arguments and they are well made.

 

I do have an issue with the current trend of saying the M10 sensor is "poor" or "behind" or "out dated" or "inferior". It's none of these. It a fine sensor attached to wonderful lenses. It is tested to be on par with current 35mm cameras from Nikon and Canon in the same megapixel range. The D5 and 1DX2 sensors aren't described as "poor" but the Leica is?

 

Certainly the current 42 and 48MP sensors in the Sony's and Nikons are class leading. But there can only be one leader and the M10 sensor isn't far enough behind to make it a poor sensor, just not as good as those two. The high res Canon sensor doesn't seem to bother Canon users even though it's DR is not as good as some others and having directly compared them the M10 makes up in colour retention what it loses in resolution against that sensor.

 

I just can't get on board with the argument that if the D850 sensor is good the M10 sensor is bad. It isn't. Nor is it far enough behind any of the current 24MP sensors to make a meaningful difference in the real world. We're talking a few percentiles at best in real world usage. So in the 24MP class maybe 5% better *if* you get to the 1% of situations where you'll see the difference at all. And even compared to the best of the best it's maybe 10% behind 2% of the time. And even then only if you get the exposure spot on. It's far more likely that if you get into a situation that needs more DR than an M10 you'll also need more DR than a A7R3. Not to mention high DR cameras often dump flat lifeless files into Lightroom and so need more processing time.

 

if someone tells me the M10 is a very good sensor but the D850 is better I'm on-board. But not for this crucifixion because it's resolution is the same as the majority of 35mm cameras sold today.

 

And if you're constantly pushing a sensor to its limits then why stop with a piddly 35mm sensor. miniMF trounces every 35mm sensor on the market, regardless of what DXO's measurements say (I know I tried them). A 645Z is cheaper than an M10. But you know what. The GFX/X1D sensor may be better. It still doesn't make the A7R3 sensor "inferior". Nor the M10.

 

Gordon

[pgk]

Its a bit like trying to argue that FP4 is 'better' than Tri-X .....

Edited January 21, 2018 by pgk

[hteasley]

If you read DxO's definitions of its scoring, they list values that define "excellent" for each category. The M10 sensor sits above all of those. They state a range of difference between two values that is barely perceptible. The range of top 50 cameras barely exceed that "barely perceptible" range, between #1 and #50, meaning that, essentially, the top 50 cameras are pretty damned equivalent.

 

I've said this for a long time: we have reached the point where nigh any ILC camera out there has capabilities that exceed that of the average photographer; that the differences in capability, camera to camera, are swamped into irrelevance by other factors; that the best thing for a photographer to do is find a camera they enjoy handling and using, because that's going to lead to better photos more than anything else.

[Simon]

Personally, I do not care much about high ISO - but I do care a lot about low ISO for noise and subject isolation. It is therefore very dissapointing that ISO 100 in the M10 is not a true native ISO, but a partial software pull.

I struggle to understand how a digital sensor has a native ISO. I believe this point has been argued elsewhere in this forum. At the end of the day isn’t it all just software interpretation of an electrical value?

[Mark II]

I struggle to understand how a digital sensor has a native ISO. I believe this point has been argued elsewhere in this forum. At the end of the day isn’t it all just software interpretation of an electrical value?

 

 

The part of the sensor that records the light is essentially just a linear photon counter. It has a single ISO (sensitivity) that is the result of things like the colour filter array and any inefficiencies in the photon capture and storage. 

 

However, to get the data out of the sensor, the collected charge has to be converted to a digital value. Ideally, you would have a fixed converter with sufficient precision and range to read the sensor completely, in which case adjusting the exposure to something useful could be done entirely from the RAW file in Lightroom etc with near perfect quality (ie you are limited by the light, not by the camera or processing). People often call this "ISO-less", although that is a bit of a misnomer because there is still one ISO - the native ISO rating of the sensor. You could just expose for this one ISO value, and then everything else would be handled by lifting the shadows in post-processing.

 

In practise, the circuity that converts the charge to a digital software value is very difficult to build. Most cameras have a ADC (converter) circuit that can not completely capture the full range that was recorded by the sensor, so in the signal is first amplified before being converted. The amount of gain that is applied is determined by the ISO value you set on the camera. Most cameras with limited dynamic range (Canon's 5D II and III, for example) do this, which is why you see the DR graphs on DXO flatten off at low ISOs.

 

Leica's M240/262/10 sensors and many Sony FF sensors actually have pretty good ADC stages, and come pretty close to the ISO-less ideal. Unfortunately, both Leica and Sony play games in firmware to try to make the RAW files look better than they really are (noise reduction and fiddling with the black point - ask Sony shooters about the missing stars in their astrophotography, for example ;-) ... which means that it is still useful to set ISO on the camera.

[M11 for me]

Your statement is wrong, they also have several Fuji cameras in the database. I am still looking for the „fake news“ that I am supposed to be „distributing“ and obviously you cannot explain your statement.

My point is, treat reviews very carefully from a company that has the manufacturers that they test on their client list at the same time... because they are just not truly independent.

Maybe you should research why for example company auditors may not provide other paid services for the same company at the same time... to ensure the independence of their reports (e.g. look what happened to the auditor of Enron :-))

Actually there are some outdated models in the data base. That‘s correct. None of the current Fujis. Anyway I understand your view about DxO. Thank you for clarifying.

[M11 for me]

The many examples that Chaemono shows here in this thread show very well how the M10 compares to a Sony. I like very much to see how well the M10 sensor does. Indeed in practice I like very much working with M10 dng files in LR. Thank you Chaemono for all these examples.

[Chaemono]

DxOMark's testing process is very robust. I trust them. See here: https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols

 

But IQ of a sensor without a lens is for all practical purposes meaningless. 

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

[M11 for me]

DxOMark's testing process is very robust. I trust them. See here: https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols

 

But IQ of a sensor without a lens is for all practical purposes meaningless.

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

Did not Tony Northrup these days publish a Youtube video comparing high megapixel cameras. And one conclusion was that the best sensor does not deliver the best results without the best lenses. He shows then some quite impressing examples. Its a bit the discussion that is going on here just with different hardware. The sensor without the lens is somehow meaningless. But still DxO deliver valid data. Edited January 21, 2018 by Alex U.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Generally, reading more Roger Cicala and less Tony Northrup is a good thing.

 

Gordon

[Rollin]

. . . Most cameras with limited dynamic range (Canon's 5D II and III, for example) do this, which is why you see the DR graphs on DXO flatten off at low ISOs. Leica's M240/262/10 sensors and many Sony FF sensors actually have pretty good ADC stages, and come pretty close to the ISO-less ideal. Unfortunately, both Leica and Sony play games in firmware to try to make the RAW files look better than they really are (noise reduction and fiddling with the black point - ask Sony shooters about the missing stars in their astrophotography, for example ;-) ... which means that it is still useful to set ISO on the camera.

What I can see in DXO's measurements and Imagining Resource's print testing at higher ISO's the M10 is like the previous generation of Canon FF's, which is not a compliment. I ran into M10's well reported low highlight ceiling today in the top of the head of a white-haired lady where lost all recoverable detail just a bit too easily at ISO 8,000. Has anyone done practical testing of underexposing and pushing in LR vs. raising the ISO in camera?

 

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!

 

Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[david strachan]

White in a small area, always need consideration, no matter the sensor.

 

If I'd been taking that picture, dial back an f-stop or two, to keep the texture in the hair.

 

If that is so important...sometimes a burnt highlighlight is not a disaster.

 

...