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

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

I would actually disagree - having owned full framed modern sensors from all three brands.

I would change it to: 

Nikon:  Outstanding sensor, outstanding and good lenses available

Sony:  Outstanding sensor, outstanding lenses mostly, with some good lenses.

Leica M: Good sensor, unique lenses .

 

 And, having printed all three at just the sizes you reference, the Nikon and Sony make better prints at these sizes. I still print my M10 files at this size, and they hold up well for a 24 mp camera, but these lenses...in my opinion...are now matched in terms of optical quality by modern zeiss offerings. They have a different character and rendering, this is true, but if you're after resolution...I don't know what the science says, but my Sony A7RII with the Ziess 55 yields a more detailed - in a way that is probably noticeable upon inspection to a casual viewer - 24x36 print given equivalent technique and settings.    

 

Initial reports stated that the M10 was .5-1 full stop better than the M240, and I bought the camera with some hesitation because that just teetered on what I thought acceptable. (When didn't buy the M240 because of the sensor) Now that we know it's really no better in practice I think it's safe to say the sensor isn't why you buy an M10. Despite my moderate disappointment in the IQ I still find it adequate in most regards, and I do prefer the color and lens rendering. Also, the main reason I have kept the M10 is what everyone who owns it seems to say - it's just my favorite camera to use. So much so that I find myself giving up the resolution more willingly with more use, even though (!!) the final output of my work is specifically larger prints right now. It's actually causing me to make bad decisions in this regard but to hell with it. I remember seeing Lieko Shiga's rasen kaigan show at MOCP in Chicago a few years back with massive prints made from 35mm and they still blew me away. I'll probably never make anything that good anyways and if I come close, I guess I won't care about the resolution quite so much.  

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by pgh

[rnl]

you give up spontaneity with high resolution sensors. I have a Canon 5dsr (50 mp) and photos taken with any L Series Canon lens can easily be enlarged, with fidelity, to the size of a small building.  That said, I usually have use a tripod to take such photos.  No need to lug a tripod with the Leica

[Silkfatblues]

just rent a camera for a week and try it out yourself, to much fairy tales here ))

[Ko.Fe.]

Sony and good lenses? Last time I checked, they can't even make decent nifty fifty lens.

Sony and outstanding sensor? They can't handle RF lenses as good as Leica doing it since M8.

I read it and see it. how bad is this and what lens on Sony FF, while on Leica FF it is good.

[pgh]

you give up spontaneity with high resolution sensors. I have a Canon 5dsr (50 mp) and photos taken with any L Series Canon lens can easily be enlarged, with fidelity, to the size of a small building.  That said, I usually have use a tripod to take such photos.  No need to lug a tripod with the Leica

I just totally disagree.

 

I have shot documentary assignments on my A7RII with no trouble getting tack sharp images in many situations. It's a little more challenging than working with an older sensor on a fast DSLR camera, but actually, in practice, with the ISO advantage and AF it is faster than my Leica.

 

Actually, I came from the 645D (pentax) to the Sony, and the thing I loved about it was that it freed me up to ditch the tripod. I haven't mounted it once in two years and going with the 1/FL rule I've been able to make images that have no perceivable blur or shake, and I don't have very steady hands. The Canon may be different, but to say you give up spontaneity with high resolution sensors generally...nah...actually, the Sony is better with spontaneity than any camera I've ever owned - when it come to high resolution, sharp prints, including any Leica. You can't be sloppy with it, but if you're paying attention you can be quite spontaneous with a high res sensor it just depends on the body that it's in and the lens that's in front of it. Just my opinion of course.  

Edited January 3, 2018 by pgh

[pgh]

Sony and good lenses? Last time I checked, they can't even make decent nifty fifty lens.

Sony and outstanding sensor? They can't handle RF lenses as good as Leica doing it since M8.

I read it and see it. how bad is this and what lens on Sony FF, while on Leica FF it is good.

You probably should check again.

 

But no, Sony doesn't make RF, or those lenses. Sticking a Leica lens on a Sony and expecting it to work the same isn't advisable. However, put a Sony/Zeiss lens on a Sony and you'd be hard pressed to find higher quality 35mm file being made.