M10 Sensor is More in Line with Top Crop Sensors??

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure what to make of the claims about the M10 sensor being made by DxOMark in this review: 

https://petapixel.com/2017/12/18/leica-m10-full-frame-sensor-line-top-crop-sensors-dxomark/?mc_cid=9cea2e42d5&mc_eid=08903530b5

 

As someone who is plotting to acquire an M10, I would be very interested to hear the reactions of M10 owners/users to DxOMark's evaluation of the M10 sensor.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ash]

The M10 is the best Leica M I ever had.

 

It is the best camera for Leica lenses.

 

High iso capabilities suffice my needs.

 

I feel I am not capable to utilise it to its full potential.

 

Go for it. You will not be disappointed.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[JusBL@zE]

Here’s a related thread - https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279882-dxo-mark-leica-m10-score/

 

Personally, I never looked at DxO score to determine what camera to buy. If you are looking for a digital rangefinder camera, then the M10 is a great choice.

[jdlaing]

My thoughts are why do you need to make anything of it? Actual photos don’t lie.

Edited December 19, 2017 by jdlaing

[LotharZhou]

Why do I need to look at some random chart on some random website to make my judgement of buying camera, never took DXO seriously.

[pgk]

And a Landrover performs more like a lawnmower than a Porsche  . All it tells me is that you shouldn't expect technicians to actually understand the basics of photography. Its an irrelevant comment. What is it with simple numbers that enable them to compare complex systems?

[Bill W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M10 is the best M I have every owned period. I have owned every M digital and the M6 and M7. I make a decision somewhat based on what other well respected folks have said on this forum. Never based on some technical test which I would probably not understand even after reading twice. I know how to use the M and it speaks to me.

[jdlaing]

And a Landrover performs more like a lawnmower than a Porsche . All it tells me is that you shouldn't expect technicians to actually understand the basics of photography. Its an irrelevant comment. What is it with simple numbers that enable them to compare complex systems?

Unless the Land Rover has more megapixels.

Edited December 20, 2017 by jdlaing

[Tailwagger]

Is the M10 sensor the most advanced, lowest noise, highest acuity one available today?  Ahh... no.  Does it get the job done brilliantly? Well yeah, AFAIC.  I happily accept that  the Sony sensors are more capable in some respects and for those who think it truly matters, perhaps the Nikon or A7 is a better choice. But then those arent the true top of the heap either, so why not a 'blad or P1?

 

My answer is that producing a great photograph involves a lot more than whether the sensor is at the top of the state of the art or not. Personally, a DSLR and requisite glass is far too much to lug around and as for the Sony's, I prefer to interact with something resembling a camera, not a computer that takes pictures. Other's are perhaps not so finicky and arguably they're better off for it.  But for what I shoot and the way I want to go about doing so, the M sensor would have to be comparable to an iPhone's before I'd even begin to wonder about such things.          

[blacksinner]

well i got more response from the photos i took from the M10 than any other camera i've used so far. so benchmark isn't really a thing for me

[coupdefoudre]

If you already have Leica lenses, know how to manual focus, shoot things that a rangefinder does well or best, blah...blah... blah... go and buy yourself an M10. You will not be sorry. On the contrary, you will be a happy camper.

 

I read many of the Comments (and there were dozens)  in the abbreviated version of the DXO testing article. The comments were good for lots of laughs while I ate lunch.

 

Many of the writers had no real experience with a digital Leica. An astounding number harped on the large cash outlay associated with buying a new M body. Nowhere did I see anyone simply state that basically one can do with one's money what one wants. Nor, point out that no one will force anyone to buy a Leica. The arguments were so strident that one would be forgiven for thinking the whole comments section was about, say, the U.S. tax legislation or something earth shattering in importance.

 

I also did not see anyone mention that 'miniaturization' (with regard to Leica lenses) always brings with it a larger financial cost than systems where size is less an objection.

 

After spending a long time reading I was sorry I had not gone out and used one of my excellent Leica cameras (M-P240, M246, M10) instead! It would have been time better spent.

Edited December 21, 2017 by coupdefoudre

[tobey bilek]

Wonderful images no question.

 

Nikon D3 still commands $1000 pricing  and I just bought a second low mileage one.   It is about sensor size,  pixel pitch, and lens resolution.    Not great at really high iso, >1600,  but neither is M10 although better than other digital M.

Buy a D5 or D4 if that is your bag.  I use 6400 or some pics at a certain venue,  but that is it. D750 does that for me.

 

The lower the pixel pitch,  the better the lens you need.   

[Herr Barnack]

 

The M10 is the best Leica M I ever had. 

 

Actual photos don’t lie. 

 

I prefer to interact with something resembling a camera, not a computer that takes pictures. 

 

I got more response from the photos i took from the M10 than any other camera I've used so far.

 

All are compelling reasons to say to hell with DxOMark's opinion of the M10.  At the end of the day though, this is what matters most:

 

I know how to use the M and it speaks to me.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Herr Barnack

[M11 for me]

I think that it is not the fault of DxO that the measured data of the M10 sensor are not better. DxO is just a database that shows you mainly the DR and the SNR18 of houndresds of sensors and you can compare. Its not about the size of the lenses nor about the RF system nor the handling or the beauty of the M10.

 

One might just wonder if the M10 would be an even better camera if it had the sensor quality of the D850 including all the needed microlenses that Leica has.

 

And I am absolutely shure that the sensor of the future M15 in 20 years time will have overpassed the todays Nikon sensor. And at that time DxO will measure 200 points for tat future Nikon and 170 points for the M15. Lets talk about that in 20 years time. Maybe the future will be vey different anyway.

 

Whoever defends the M10 technology today sits on an broken branch. Anyway we can not hold back the technical progress and its very good for the consumers that there will always be companies comparing performances of different products. This will further push the innovation as the bretter is the enemy of the good.

 

And in 20 years time there are still people who don‘t care about comparing products. That is fine of course. But compating everything makes everything better as it creates the push. I donkt want to be the stupid consumer. I want to know my products.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Alex U.

[rnl]

Unless the Land Rover has more megapixels.

 

 

. 

 

...doubt it...frankly, the M10 is similar to a Porsche with a PDK transmission....stay with me now...I own Canon 1dxmkii  as well as an M10. the Canon cameras are very good, but image acquisition does not promote thinking about the image taken. I use the Canon for avian photograph and for wide field astrophotography . Speed of focusing  15 frames per second are great for birds   High ISO and long exposures are wonderful for dark nights (I plan to capture images of the aurora in March)..The sensor is very good on this Canon as well as my 50mp 5dsr...that said, the M10, like a 911, requires you to actually...focus...on what you are doing. If you pay attention, think and work with the camera the result is amazing.  I continue to be impressed by the quality of the images my m10 produces.

 

....the Porsche....same thing...it takes time, practice and thought to get the most out of the experience

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!

Edited December 31, 2017 by richardlipow

[pgh]

There are enough discussions of the sensor here to peruse, but the bottom line is - if IQ is of top concern - the M10 makes little sense. If decent IQ with a great user experience (whatever that means) matters, it is worthwhile. If you've been spoiled by recent Nikon or Sony FF cameras and their incredibly flexible and deep files, you'll have to adjust. If you're coming from Canon - the change isn't very noticeable IMO.

 

I very much wish that Leica could put forth a more competitive sensor - it doesn't seem like an insane thing to ask - but right now it's good enough for most purposes. If you're gonna print large, you'll either give up some resolution or you'll have to use another camera. I've enlarged my M10 files for 40"x60" (quite big, yes - but not unheard of for my uses) and it's ok. My pictures don't depend super highly on detailed rendering but I am disappointed to not have it in these files. The other issue is the dynamic range lacks a bit, and you need to learn to shoot with that in mind. It's still decent - but I've already had unrecoverable, blown out portions of files that are gone that - had I shot it with my Sony, I would have been able to get it back and make a better print. Win some, lose some. DxO is whatever, but their test reflects my real world experience. I think it's fair to say the M10 sensor is about 85% as good as the best ones available now. 

 

It's better than any crop sensor I've used though - though my experience here is limited.

Edited December 31, 2017 by pgh

[Herr Barnack]

There are enough discussions of the sensor here to peruse, but the bottom line is - if IQ is of top concern - the M10 makes little sense. If decent IQ with a great user experience (whatever that means) matters, it is worthwhile. If you've been spoiled by recent Nikon or Sony FF cameras and their incredibly flexible and deep files, you'll have to adjust. If you're coming from Canon - the change isn't very noticeable IMO.

 

I very much wish that Leica could put forth a more competitive sensor - it doesn't seem like an insane thing to ask - but right now it's good enough for most purposes. If you're gonna print large, you'll either give up some resolution or you'll have to use another camera. I've enlarged my M10 files for 40"x60" (quite big, yes - but not unheard of for my uses) and it's ok. My pictures don't depend super highly on detailed rendering but I am disappointed to not have it in these files. The other issue is the dynamic range lacks a bit, and you need to learn to shoot with that in mind. It's still decent - but I've already had unrecoverable, blown out portions of files that are gone that - had I shot it with my Sony, I would have been able to get it back and make a better print. Win some, lose some. DxO is whatever, but their test reflects my real world experience. I think it's fair to say the M10 sensor is about 85% as good as the best ones available now. 

 

It's better than any crop sensor I've used though - though my experience here is limited.

 

What we seem to have is -

Nikon:  Outstanding sensor, good lenses.

Sony:  Outstanding sensor, good lenses.

Leica M: Good sensor, outstanding lenses.

 

So which of the three will produce the highest quality printed image at large to very large sizes such as 20x30 inches or 40x60 inches?

[MJ_2003]

Whilst I think it is a tad lazy just to dismiss the DxO scores/ratings as useless, I also don't think it is worth giving them too much weight when looking at M cameras overall. If you are considering an M10 then I think you will be more interested in the whole camera experience and in particular the quality and size differential of the lenses to worry too much about the sensor.

 

One issue I have often wondered about (and I am no sensor expert by any means) is the extent to which the Leica specifications for the M sensors to work specifically with M lenses (e.g. micro lenses) affect the DxO testing. If one was to take a D850/A7R sensor and then had to add in features to allow perfect use of M lenses then I wonder how that would affect their DxO scores? Just idle curiosity.

 

I am interested however in the comparison between the M10 sensor and the sensor in my last M camera, the venerable M9. For this comparison I think DxO is perhaps a little more valid and provides some interesting data. Whilst the overall score (see link below) favours the M10, the individual graphs seem quite similar. I do remember with the M9 that taking the ISO over about 640 was moving into risky territory and I am sure people will recall the long exchanges on these forums about shooting at 640 and then applying gain in post processing as a way of mitigating the noise. For my own use the M10 sensor is streets ahead of the M9 sensor notwithstanding the perceived benefits of CCD vs CMOS, which I personally never really got.

 

In summary I am very happy with my M10 and see no significant real world difference between this sensor and the A7RII which I use to own (other than MP which are not critical for me).

 

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Leica-M10-versus-Leica-M9___1207_640

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Triumph]

Hi

I bought the M10 in October to use at my son's wedding, and I have a bunch of M lenses plus and M8, M4, M6. I now have taken about 2000 images including lots at Christmas. This camera is simply superb and I recommend to buy one. I see the following:

1. The thing just feels right (like an M4) and is superbly built. It just sings quality.
2. In use the focussing on difficult lenses such as 50mm Noctilux, or 75mm Summilux is a dream due to the sensitive rangefinder mechanism, and wider than previous viewfinder......plus you get live view and the EVF which really shows fine detail. Add to that the little button that magnifies the live view image and shows any misfocus it is a doddle to get accurate focussing.
3. I find the bracketing functionality a great tool as it shoots off three (or five) frames very quickly so besides the varying EV number you can get shots with people moving forward or backwards that would otherwise be out of focus. The continuous mode of shooting is really very fast and for my purposes more than adequate.
4. The actual delivered image quality is superb but each image in RAW files give a lot of bits to store compared to the M8 !! That said I am finding that I click away happily and then brutally attack it with Lightroom to select the best shots....I am then deleting those files that I did not select. The colours are really so much better than anything I have used before.
5. I have not used my f4 135mm lens in many years as I had difficulty focussing using the rangefinder. With the EVF it is easy and I am now using my Telyt lenses also all the way to 560mm. The images that result are fascinating and so much easier than the Visoflex III. 
6. The menu is easy to use and better than the M8 for example as it is intuitive and uncluttered.

 

The only negative I can think of is that there is no flash socket if the EVF is used so how you do Macro shots with flash is a mess... Otherwise they have done a great job in my view.

 

[jaapv]

Don't delete the files you don't like. It has happened too often to me that a good photograph (in retrospect) did not survive the first selection - and was found only years later.