DXO Mark Leica M10 Score

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And now with adj

 

It takes such a short time to set the camera and take a test shot. Why do we need this continual flow of low quality images to convince us of anything. If you haven't shot at 10000 or 16000 iso on an M10 you are missing out. As they say.... Do Your Own Research.

Chaemono. Take a break. Go outdoors and take some real photos.

Happy New Year to Leica photographers.

I'll do as I see fit on to topic of this thread. But you can move on. There are plenty of other threads where you can go and lecture.

[Chaemono]

And now with the adjustments mentioned.

 

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

 

α7R III

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 4000 f/2.8 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10

ISO 3200 f/2.8 @1/60 sec.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

And now the crops. ISO 10000/12800 to follow some time later.

 

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

 

α7R III

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 4000 f/2.8 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10

ISO 3200 f/2.8 @1/60 sec.

[Chaemono]

Ok, let's start our ISO 10000/12800 M10/α7R III series. This is just the beginning of many more examples to come over the next few weeks if not months. We are just warming up so to speak . Important to mention first, Shadows +100 (as in the previous Santa post - forgot to mention it), NR +85, and sharpening +50 for all in the pair to follow except where stated otherwise. WB adjusted in both to try to match and colors, Saturation, Vibrance, Whites on the M10 tweaked a bit to try to match the punchier look of the α7R III. No tweaks to the Sony colors in post.

 

I don't know what happened to the light in the Sony picture. Lens hood used on both, 50/1.4 Zeiss Planar FE on the α7R III and Noctilux on the M10, position not changed. There was a lamp above Santa illuminating the face and bit of light around in that corner. The Noctilux seems to have the ability to suck up every bit of light there is and make the best of it. It's called "light of the night" for a good reason and it's not only because it can be shot at f/0.95. Used at f/2.8 here.

 

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

 

α7R III, from ARW with AWB by the camera and opened in and exported from LR, not touched

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 12800 f/2.8 @1/250 sec.

M10, from DNG with AWB by the camera and opened in and exported from LR, not touched

IΣO 10000 f/2.8 @1/250 sec.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

And now with the adjustments mentioned

 

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

 

α7R III

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 12800 f/2.8 @1/250 sec.

 

M10

IΣO 10000 f/2.8 @1/250 sec.

[Chaemono]

And now the crops

 

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

 

α7R III

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 12800 f/2.8 @1/250 sec.

 

M10

IΣO 10000 f/2.8 @1/250 sec.

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I appreciate Chaemono's efforts here, and he nicely demonstrates the most important take-home point here, which is that both the M10 and the a7riii are capable of taking excellent photos under the vast majority of shooting conditions.

 

That said, if one really wants to see the difference in sensor performance between the two cameras, I suggest the following test:

 

- Take the same photo (tripod mounted) with each at a similar focal length at ISO 10,000+.

- Don't process the images-- just take the raws, unprocessed, or the max-quality JPGs straight from the camera.

- Zoom in on a region of the image containing fine detail at 100% (not 75%, not 50%) magnification, so one can see each pixel captured by the sensor.

- Of course the 42 MP image from the a7riii will be much larger than the 24 MP image from the M10 at 100%, so also scale down (using bicubic sharper reduction) the a7riii 100% crop image so that the scaled-down version is the same number of pixels tall and wide as the M10 100% crop.  If you don't do this scaling step, you are effectively comparing 57% of the a7rii's full-frame sensor to 100% of the M10's full-frame sensor, which isn't a useful comparison for real-life use.

- Then post and compare all three crops (a7riii @100%, M10@100%, a7riii scaled down to the same pixel size as the M10@100%).

 

I could be wrong, but my expectation based on what I've seen from both cameras is that the a7riii image, when scaled down to the same crop size as the M10 crop, will be 1-2 stops better in terms of detail:noise at ISO 10,000+.  That is, the a7riii @ ISO 12,800 will look like the M10 @ ISO 5000-ish.

[Chaemono]

First, I want to compare colors. I think Sony has done a great job with the colors this time. They are not necessarily more accurate than the M10's and I still prefer the more subdued look of the Adobe profile on the M10. But the α7R III's colors out of the box (Adobe profile) remind me a lot of a newly released Leica camera once WB is adjusted. See here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-qDx8fd/. Go figure  . The α7R III is used with the 50 Apo Summicron there and the Leica camera with the equivalent in its native mount. I'll try the 55 Otus on the Sony this weekend and compare it to the M10 with the Noctilux, also in low light.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Chaemono

[M11 for me]

I appreciate Chaemono's efforts here, and he nicely demonstrates the most important take-home point here, which is that both the M10 and the a7riii are capable of taking excellent photos under the vast majority of shooting conditions.

 

That said, if one really wants to see the difference in sensor performance between the two cameras, I suggest the following test:

 

- Take the same photo (tripod mounted) with each at a similar focal length at ISO 10,000+.

- Don't process the images-- just take the raws, unprocessed, or the max-quality JPGs straight from the camera.

- Zoom in on a region of the image containing fine detail at 100% (not 75%, not 50%) magnification, so one can see each pixel captured by the sensor.

- Of course the 42 MP image from the a7riii will be much larger than the 24 MP image from the M10 at 100%, so also scale down (using bicubic sharper reduction) the a7riii 100% crop image so that the scaled-down version is the same number of pixels tall and wide as the M10 100% crop. If you don't do this scaling step, you are effectively comparing 57% of the a7rii's full-frame sensor to 100% of the M10's full-frame sensor, which isn't a useful comparison for real-life use.

- Then post and compare all three crops (a7riii @100%, M10@100%, a7riii scaled down to the same pixel size as the M10@100%).

 

I could be wrong, but my expectation based on what I've seen from both cameras is that the a7riii image, when scaled down to the same crop size as the M10 crop, will be 1-2 stops better in terms of detail:noise at ISO 10,000+. That is, the a7riii @ ISO 12,800 will look like the M10 @ ISO 5000-ish.

That test was done already for those who like pixel peeping: No need to repeat. BUT as a result: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT :-)

 

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Leica-M10-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1207_1187

 

Click onto „measurements“ and then „SNR 18%“

 

You‘ll see that at high ISOs the Sony drops slower than the M10.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Alex U.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

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

[M11 for me]

The DxO Database is nothing else than a database. It allows me to compare different sensors and the technical progress being made over time. I am not interested in the overall score but in the 2 graphs DR and SNR 18%. I can see the performance of the sensor of my first full frame digital camera, the Canon 5D about 12 years ago. And I personally know absolutely nobody who ever told me that he/she just bout an old 5D for 100€ that is in very good shape with only 15,000 releases, because its make so stunning pictures. And indeed 12 years ago many professionals bought this camera exactly for its outstanding performance at that time. That is 12 years ago and we are all used to much better material incl. sensors nowadays to make our photographs. And indeed I use (real) 12,000 ISO when I have to do some reportage of an event. Not all are pictures are taken at 12,000 ISOs, but some are. Most time the light in those halls or hotels is poor. The quality of what I can deliver is clearly higher today. When we are now back in 2018 we have Mk4s and 850s and A7S III and M10s. We use them for different purposes. And I don‘t want to miss the technical progress any more. What I see as results every day in practice I can go to look up as figures in a data base. For me personally this is informative. And what some of our colleagues here in the LUF tested and communicated as their results is actually just what the DxO database shows.

[Rollin]

Came across this today - YouTube video about IQ: X-Pro 2 vs. M10

[onasj]

Came across this today - YouTube video about IQ: X-Pro 2 vs. M10

 

 

Wow, what an amazing video comparison- thanks for sharing.  The full-frame sensor of the M10 vs the APS-C sensor of the Fuji, together (I suspect) with the fact that the Leica 50 lux and 90 APO are very, very excellent lenses, provide clear advantages over the Fuji.  I really appreciated the careful and articulate analysis that the author conveyed in this video.

 

We are all fortunate to be living in a time when we have access to such tiny marvels of engineering and artistry.

[TrickyMrT]

It is a fact that Leica is many years behind the competitors in terms of a good sensor design. Leica M has extremely good glasses and I like to use the 50mm APO but I´m disappointed to get a sensor which is definitely not state of the art.

 

For the price of an M10, you should expect to get a sensor which is state of the art. And nowadays you can and you should be able to shoot with ISO 10.000 and higher....

 

Of curse, i can understand the fact to read about the bad sensor on DXO hurts... but we need to stay fair!

 

A bad sensor stays a bad sensor. Leica had lost the chance to create a much better sensor. 

 

As an M10 user, I´m more than sorry to say this.

 

[jaapv]

Ummm... Leica buys their sensors,  from large sensor designers. They don't create their own sensors nor does for instance Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Hasselblad, etc.  So you should indeed be sorry to say this, as it not supported by facts.

As a matter of fact, ISO "performance" is not even comparable between brands, as the amount of noise reduction varies from design to design. The sensor ( input )may be the same, the camera output is determined by firmware design choices. Leica, for instance, traditionally prioritizes colour and detail. Nikon, on the other side of the spectrum, likes to remove more noise in-camera. All trade-offs.

[onasj]

The M10 sensor is quite good (better than the last generation of Nikon FX sensors), just not state of the art.

 

My distilled impressions go something like this:

M10: good sensor, great compact lenses, great form factor, great ease of use, quite expensive

A7riii: great sensor, very good (finally) compact lenses, very good form factor, not simple at all, moderately priced

D850: great sensor, what’s a compact lens?, big form factor, moderate ease of use, moderately priced

 

Hopefully the M11 will have a fantastic sensor while preserving the rest of Leica’s strengths.

[jaapv]

Excuse me. What is your definition of a state of the art sensor that is suitable for use in a camera that must be able to accept a wide range of incidence angles? I cannot think of any other than the M10 one, closely followed by the SL sensor.  All other sensors presently on the market are inferior, particularly in the corners.

The point is that Leica will define the parameters for the sensor they need and then will look for a company that is able to supply it. For the M240 Sony was their first choice as they had been supplying the Leica sensors for some other models, but they were unable to provide a suitable sensor, causing Leica to have it specifically designed by CMOSIS. For the Q and the SL, they used their Panasonic connection, for the M10 possibly (nobody knows for sure) as well. The CL sensor may be Sony like Leica's previous APS-C sensors, but it may well come through other channels. Whatever else, it is amazingly good. Just not pitched at super-high ISO, but at photographic rendering. Which to me is the right choice. I don't really see the point in forced ISO values over, say, 3200. Photography is about creating with light. Once the light drops so much that one needs very high ISO values, the photograph will in most cases be rubbish anyway,

There are some exceptions, obviously, like maybe theatre photography, but even then. Have a look at the concert shots by Topoxforddoc; most were taken with a DMR - max usable ISO: 400...

[pico]

We can get crazy with DXO metrics, agonizing about purchases, or we can make pictures.

What's it going to be?

[M11 for me]

Excuse me. What is your definition of a state of the art sensor that is suitable for use in a camera that must be able to accept a wide range of incidence angles? I cannot think of any other than the M10 one, closely followed by the SL sensor.  All other sensors presently on the market are inferior, particularly in the corners.

The point is that Leica will define the parameters for the sensor they need and then will look for a company that is able to supply it. For the M240 Sony was their first choice as they had been supplying the Leica sensors for some other models, but they were unable to provide a suitable sensor, causing Leica to have it specifically designed by CMOSIS. For the Q and the SL, they used their Panasonic connection, for the M10 possibly (nobody knows for sure) as well. The CL sensor may be Sony like Leica's previous APS-C sensors, but it may well come through other channels. Whatever else, it is amazingly good. Just not pitched at super-high ISO, but at photographic rendering. Which to me is the right choice. I don't really see the point in forced ISO values over, say, 3200. Photography is about creating with light. Once the light drops so much that one needs very high ISO values, the photograph will in most cases be rubbish anyway,

There are some exceptions, obviously, like maybe theatre photography, but even then. Have a look at the concert shots by Topoxforddoc; most were taken with a DMR - max usable ISO: 400...

Thank you Jaap. Do I understand you correctly? Do you say that the so called top Sony sensors did not cover the needs and as a consequence and after evaluating other sensors Leica had asked CMOSIS to make the suitable design and build the sensor. If that thesis were true then evidently there were fully different criteria for a Leica M sensor than DxO measures. I could well accept that and it seems that is the opinion of some friends here. It is an interesting thesis. Still with what we can make out by the several private tests that we read here, DxO data are rather confirmed than proved wrong. This contains then some contradiction.

 

Still what you say about high ISO is certainly true for me too.

 

Whoever gets annoyed about this discussion I feel sorry about that. But for those who are technically interested this is quite fascinating. And what we can take out of many posts here is that nobody decided against the M10 because of the DxO results. And I think that this makes sense too. There is a tremendous amount of great features in this camera. And however the sensor might compare to others I have my M10 with me almost all the times. That puts all the questions into another perspective after all.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Hannes Lummes]

Ummm... Leica buys their sensors,  from large sensor designers. They don't create their own sensors nor does for instance Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Hasselblad, etc.  So you should indeed be sorry to say this, as it not supported by facts.

As a matter of fact, ISO "performance" is not even comparable between brands, as the amount of noise reduction varies from design to design. The sensor ( input )may be the same, the camera output is determined by firmware design choices. Leica, for instance, traditionally prioritizes colour and detail. Nikon, on the other side of the spectrum, likes to remove more noise in-camera. All trade-offs.

What is not supported by facts? I don't understand.

There is plenty of evidence in every possible form, well made comparisons, that M10 sensor is not capable of resolving as much usable info in low light as some of the best.

I am not sure what your point actually in general is, since you are using multiple points:

1) comparisons are wrong

Obviously some are well made, and not not favorable to Leica sensor. Do you have contrary evidence ? Please share it!

2) There are no other sensors to accept steep ray angles

perhaps... but Sony's back lit sensors with thinner cover glass seem like a possibility in the future. Also, you are talking like the ray angle acceptance somehow causes worse high ISO performance. Do you have any proof for this? Do the micro lens design on Leica's sensors let less light through? Or what are you referring to? Are we for ever to be happy with worse high ISO's because of the ray angle issue? And why? Get technical please. Get to the details.

3) No one needs the high ISO. Now please....  I for example need the higher ISO performance, all the time. With super wide lenses in dim churches, in theater photos, and pretty much everywhere here in Finland during the horrible dark winter. I am constantly using 1/8s with super wides and 1/50s with 50mm with people in the photos, making subject movement a real problem.

 

Luckily M10 (which I am waiting....) has better noise pattern than M240, so things will get better for me. I would not also consider any other camera system because of 1 stop better performance, because M is the best system for me. How ever, the high ISO performance is disappointing and worse than in the best sensors.