M10 rather than SL

[wosamko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear all,

 

Why should we buy M10 rather than SL?

 

Please let's know the reasons other than lightweight or the manual focus. What is about the output images regarding colors and noise while as I know both have same sensor model

 

This website confuses me: http://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2017/2/23/leica-m10-vs-leica-sl-part-i-under-normal-use

 

[jdlaing]

Because one is a rangefinder and one is not.

[Advertisement]

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

[wosamko]

Because one is a rangefinder and one is not.

 

I know, but what is about image quality in terms of color and noise? The mentioned website shows difference in colors in ISO while both have the same sensor?!! That is weird

[jdlaing]

How do you know they are the same image engine?

[frame-it]

do they really have the same sensor ? interesting i always thought the m10 sensor was different

[T00m]

As scrolling through the website/images I tried to guess which camera has taken those - with just one exeption I was right - the M10 Images looking much more pleasant to me.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Different sensors and out of camera default rendering, but relatively easily addressed through use of profiles or presets.

 

Jeff

[6bit]

Surely post processing would result in near identical images. Are they both the same sensors? I would have assumed the M10 was designed for M lenses while the SL for SL lenses even though it can adapt. That SL is huge but I wouldn't turn a free one down. I may pick up the next generation body when they come out although it is hard to do that when I would use an M lens on it and not take advantage of all the AF and weather sealing. I just can't get down with those huge lenses. Even if they are awesomeness.

[youngjohn]

I’m sat here with M10 and an SL bodies in front of me and I’d love to know where ‘huge’ comes from. The whole size thing with the SL is daft and I can only assume people who comment on this have never actually handled one. It’s about the size of a Nikon D750 and the 24-90 is a bit SMALLER than a Nikon 24-70. It’s not even huge compared to an M10. Handle a Nikon D5 and then you’ll see what huge is.

[Herr Barnack]

I have even had people refer to my M-P 240 and 35 Summicron as huge.  What nonsense!  

 

If smallness is fetishized to the extreme that this kit is "huge," there is always the Rollei 35SE but of course it is "obsolete" because it records on film.

 

Digital, film, large format, medium format, 24x36mm, APS-C, color, monochrom - even with all the truly excellent options we have available to us these days, some people are just never satisfied...

Edited July 20, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[LBJ2]

From everything I've read the SL and the M10 do not share the same sensor. I know some on the forums continue to believe these two bodies share the same sensor. I do not. Likewise, from what I understand, Leica put extra work into the M10's color science to deliver what might be described as more authentic colors which may explain the differences in color output. 

 

Regardless, proper color management and processing workflow can pretty much equalize any output results between these two cameras or many other cameras for that matter. Also, I wonder if M10 micro-lens adjustments are responsible for that something special that some of us see SOOTC when using Leica M lenses on the M10. 

 

Note:  "So the sensor is a new development? 

Stefan: You know, to get the very best out of M lenses you need to follow certain rules in the sensor design which are special to M. And this is exactly what we did. As we did for the first digital M, we matched the sensor to the lenses. And that is the case here so it’s not just borrowing from the Q or SL. Nevertheless, the performance is on the same level or maybe, as it is a bit newer design, even a bit higher. It’s a sensor being exclusively designed for the M and it will not go into any other Leica or any other kind of camera."  https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2017/02/the-leica-m10-a-discussion-with-stefan-daniel-and-jesko-von-oeynhausen/

Edited July 20, 2018 by LBJ2

[6bit]

I’m sat here with M10 and an SL bodies in front of me and I’d love to know where ‘huge’ comes from. The whole size thing with the SL is daft and I can only assume people who comment on this have never actually handled one. It’s about the size of a Nikon D750 and the 24-90 is a bit SMALLER than a Nikon 24-70. It’s not even huge compared to an M10. Handle a Nikon D5 and then you’ll see what huge is.

 

 

I do consider the SL larger than the M10 by a significant margin both in weight and size. I consider my M10 much smaller than a Canon 5DIV. That is where I am coming from.  Even more so when you choose an M lens on the M10 vs an SL lens on the SL. The SL system gets big really fast. Just giving my opinion and of course it is all relative.

[youngjohn]

I’m not disputing that the SL is a few mm bigger than an M10 and it’s all of 200gms heavier but neither of these really deserve the word ‘huge’. It also mounts ‘M’ lenses If you need it to.

[wosamko]

How do you know they are the same image engine?

 

 

do they really have the same sensor ? interesting i always thought the m10 sensor was different

 

 

Different sensors and out of camera default rendering, but relatively easily addressed through use of profiles or presets.

 

Jeff

 

 

Surely post processing would result in near identical images. Are they both the same sensors? I would have assumed the M10 was designed for M lenses while the SL for SL lenses even though it can adapt. That SL is huge but I wouldn't turn a free one down. I may pick up the next generation body when they come out although it is hard to do that when I would use an M lens on it and not take advantage of all the AF and weather sealing. I just can't get down with those huge lenses. Even if they are awesomeness.

 

 

From everything I've read the SL and the M10 do not share the same sensor. I know some on the forums continue to believe these two bodies share the same sensor. I do not. Likewise, from what I understand, Leica put extra work into the M10's color science to deliver what might be described as more authentic colors which may explain the differences in color output. 

 

Regardless, proper color management and processing workflow can pretty much equalize any output results between these two cameras or many other cameras for that matter. Also, I wonder if M10 micro-lens adjustments are responsible for that something special that some of us see when using Leica M lenses on the M10. 

 

Note:  "So the sensor is a new development? 

Stefan: You know, to get the very best out of M lenses you need to follow certain rules in the sensor design which are special to M. And this is exactly what we did. As we did for the first digital M, we matched the sensor to the lenses. And that is the case here so it’s not just borrowing from the Q or SL. Nevertheless, the performance is on the same level or maybe, as it is a bit newer design, even a bit higher. It’s a sensor being exclusively designed for the M and it will not go into any other Leica or any other kind of camera."  https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2017/02/the-leica-m10-a-discussion-with-stefan-daniel-and-jesko-von-oeynhausen/

 

Dear all,

 

Please see the text in the links from official Leica webpages for SL and M10 which proves they have SAME SENSOR. Please let me know if I missed or mistake

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/Leica-SL/Details

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M10/Details

Edited July 20, 2018 by wosamko

[ramarren]

I have had and used the SL with its native lenses plus R lenses, the M9 then M-P240 now M-D262 with their native lenses, and now also the CL but with only my M and R lenses. I also have the Leicaflex SL and it's R lenses.

 

The notion that the SL is huge is ludicrous when you consider only the body. The SL body is just about the size of the Leicaflex SL body, which is a minor increment larger than an M body. Even the CL isn't that much smaller, given that it is just about the same width, thickness, and only a couple mm shorter than the M-D. The CL body is a half pound lighter than the M-D, which in turn is about a quarter pound lighter than the SL body. These increments do make a difference, but less so than the lens systems.

 

What makes the SL system big and bulky are the big zoom lenses, just like with any modern DSLR system. I've never liked zooms all that much because of this. The SL primes are similar in size and weight to the R primes. The R primes are a nice size, carrying two-three of them is not so great a burden. M lenses are generally pretty compact, an advantage that the rangefinder body allows in lens design, particularly older lenses designed for film use.

 

There's a balance to this. The M-D with its lenses is well balanced, has plenty of gripping surface for stabilizing the camera and working the controls smoothly. The Leicaflex SL and the SL used with their prime lenses the same: the lenses add to the ergonomics nicely.

 

What I find interesting is that the CL used with M lenses feels unbalanced to me.. too light, and not enough gripping surface to work smoothly. Used with the R lenses, the CL feels nicely balanced and just right. The smaller format means you drop down one notch in focal length, thus lens size and total weight for the system is lower than the other TTL bodies. (The native lenses achieve this nicely too.)

 

So ... why buy an M10 vs an SL, or for that matter a CL? Imaging quality between all three of them is so close as to be a nonissue for most uses. BTW: All three sensors are quite different...

 

The trick is to figure which based on what kind of body works best for you in terms of focusing, framing, and other body features, and also based on what lens choices fit your needs best. While the lenses are all pretty much excellent, that doesn't mean they all render identically.

 

For me, the M-D and a couple of lenses works great for a lot of my photographic interests, but I realistically must have a TTL body for macro, copy, and tabletop work due to the needs of precision in framing and focusing. It's also necessary for the extremes of telephoto work. That's why I bought the CL after selling my SL system. These are the right fit, with the lenses I have and what I want to do. What works best for others... you have to figure it out.

[Jeff S]

An excerpt from your second link...

 

“The key component of the Leica M10 is the 24 MP, full-frame CMOS sensor developed especially for the camera.”

 

Jeff

Edited July 20, 2018 by Jeff S

[35mmview]

I have even had people refer to my M-P 240 and 35 Summicron as huge.  What nonsense! 

I always find that hard to understand

[magixaxeman]

I think we have to bear in mind that over recent years the goal posts have shifted somewhat in both camera size/weights and users expectations/needs.

 

For starters a lot more of us who fit into Leica's target demographic are older users with a reasonable amount of disposable income for both equipment and travel, but as said we are getting older and with that usually comes a degree of infirmity, be it creaking joints, a touch of arthritis, or worse still they all affect our ability to carry and sustain that carrying of heavier objects, what once we could carry all day long without issue now becomes at best less comfortable to carry and at worst impossible to carry at all.

I myself fall into this group of people and have seen my ability to support certain weights not only cause me to have to sell on beloved camera's but even have a heart attack for refusing to listen to the protest's of my body, I knew that lens/camera combination was too much for me but pushed on anyway.

 

Also as said with the advent and development of mirrorless camera's we've seen camera bodies drop dramatically in both weight and size.

The Sony full frame A7 series is a classic example, slightly smaller than a Fuji X-Pro1 (but slightly taller) the current A7R3 weighs in just slightly less than the M10 @ 657gm all up thats not bad for a FF 42mpg camera but the original A7R is even lighter at well under 500gm making it to my knowledge the lightest full frame digital camera ever!

and we can go even lighter if we drop to APSC or M43 finally ending with the Leica Type 109 or Panasonic LX100 @ 393gm inc a decent fast lens.

 

My point here is that the game has changed, whereas before a 850gm + camera body would have been regarded as the norm, now its seen as large and by some even huge and to some myself included those "mere" 200 gm difference over the M10 are a mammoth difference, putting it out of our grasp.

[Tailwagger]

Dear all,

 

Please see the text in the links from official Leica webpages for SL and M10 which proves they have SAME SENSOR. Please let me know if I missed or mistake

 

You've made a mistake.  

1. They dont have the same pixel count. The SL is 6000x4000, the M10 is 5976x3984.

2. Per Leica the M10 has specific micro lenses for M optics.  Leica went to pains to stress this fact as a key part of the M10 set of upgrades of the M24x.

3. The base ISO and reported dynamic ranges are different.  The SL is purportedly 50/200 dual range, the M10 is pegged at 160.

 

Similar perhaps, the same no.  

 

Point #2 is a key reason why I own an M10 and not an SL.  As for the OPs question, similar answer. Outside the optical finder, the answer is that an M natively supports 60+ years of glass. That grants an utterly different dimension of flexibility in terms of rendering when compared to any other system available today. That may or may not be important to some, but it is to me.  

 

I'd agree the SL body is in no way huge. The native glass however is. A body sans optics is pretty much a brick.  Taken as a package, SL with native 50mm Summilux, vs M10 with the same, the different in size and weight is substantial. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stonewall Brigade]

Interesting that half the on-line reviews for the SL focus on the use of small M rangefinder lenses, but I don't recall reading about shooting an M with a giant SL zoom lens fitted (if it was technically possible).  I borrowed the SL and big zoom for 2 days and had 2 thoughts - easy to use as an expensive point and shoot where the camera does most of the work, especially auto focus. My second impression is that the SL and zoom lens weighed a ton and was just huge.  For the same money and in a much smaller package, I find my M10 to be capable of reproducing the same image without carrying around the equivalent of a big Japanese DSLR.  Yes, I love the SL body and I'm sure the SL lenses are equally super, but for the size and cost of that arrangement, I'd rather spend ⅔ less and have a full frame, 36 megapixel Pentax K1 with the Pentax 24-70 f/2 zoom.  Much less money, even smaller to carry around, and equally capable.  For about the same financial investment as the SL and zoom lens cost, why not instead put that investment into the Fuji medium format digital?