Medium format quality? Test results: M10P vs. M10M vs Sony a7riv vs Phase One IQ4 with optimum lenses

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As my comparison with the a7riv suggests, I would estimate that the M10M's detail-resolving capability is comparable to that of a 60 MP Bayer CFA sensor of the same size (which, as UliWer points out, is caused by the 60 MP CFA-covered sensor losing some effective resolution due to demosaicing). Of course at high ISOs, the M10M outperforms just about any digital 35 mm camera on record (see the measurements on photons to photos).  Together, the 40.8 MP resolution, lack of a Bayer CFA, and outstanding high ISO performance is quite a potent combination—one of the first cameras I can get decent photos from of moving subjects in light barely sufficient to read.

[geoffreyg]

Without doubt, the M10M’s new capabilities have a bunch of us gobsmacked. Hi res, hi iso, easier usability, svelte. What’s not to like, except the price tag?

At some point, the dust will settle, and maybe then it will be possible to see how much of a game changer this camera really is. Personally I’m torn:  either this is the camera of dreams or..... there are just too many nighttime shots flooding the net. 😅

Edited February 17, 2020 by geoffreyg

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

anybody (else) feeling the high ISO low noise quality of digital bw sensors has something sterile and boring compared to film and a little bit of grain?

[digitalfx]

15 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

anybody (else) feeling the high ISO low noise quality of digital bw sensors has something sterile and boring compared to film and a little bit of grain?

boring? not in the least.

You can always add grain...its very difficult to remove it.

[duoenboge]

It seems that resolution is the dominant variable. On the other hand, we are now at a awesome high quality level.

I love my M10-P after every comparison like this one, more and more.🙂

Edited February 17, 2020 by duoenboge

[otto.f]

47 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

anybody (else) feeling the high ISO low noise quality of digital bw sensors has something sterile and boring compared to film and a little bit of grain?

With the MM1 though this is avoidable, it could well be that it is also with the M10M, but it seems to need more experience than I have seen thus far on the forum

[Jager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

anybody (else) feeling the high ISO low noise quality of digital bw sensors has something sterile and boring compared to film and a little bit of grain?

No. 

I'm pretty sure good photography has nothing to do with noise or grain.

I do find it interesting that if one were to go back to, say, the late nineties... when film was at its peak, before digital made its disruptive entrance and forever changed the world as we know it... no one, absolutely NO ONE, was asking for more grain.  Every discussion of photographic image quality revolved around how to minimize it.  Kodak and Fuji and all the rest of 'em spent untold millions on developing ever finer emulsions, to get rid of the nasty stuff.  Xtol, Kodak's last great R&D effort in film development, had the extraordinary design brief - extraordinary because it was something of a unicorn at the time - of minimizing film grain while still maintaining high (box) speed.  The current fashion of yearning for grain... well, you just kind of shake your head.

Modern digital cameras have more in common with medium and large format film than they do with 35mm film.  And to me that is their singular strength, even above their immediacy and convenience.

 

[otto.f]

4 minutes ago, Jager said:

no one, absolutely NO ONE, was asking for more grain

Yes, I was. Agfa had stopped with the beautiful color slide Tungsten light film 50L and the 1000RS slide daylight film was at its end. These films produced beautiful grain, which could be used to attain pointillism effects. The first time I saw beautiful noise/grain back in digital was with the M10 at 3200ISO, or thereabouts depending on the situation. 

[pgk]

18 minutes ago, Jager said:

I'm pretty sure good photography has nothing to do with noise or grain.

And much has little to do with resolution either😄. Different cameras cannot be defined or compared by a simplistic number or a comparison made of their performance this way either. Saying that a rally car is as fast as a race car intended for use on a circuit is pointless. IMO trying to assert that a 35mm format RF camera is as good as a medium format fails to appreciate that both have very different strengths and weaknesses. I appreciate that such comparisons can be interesting but they are by their nature simplistic. Give me an RF camera anyway for the sort of uses I put it to. I'm happy to give away resolution to other cameras which I would not want to use in the same way.

[tom0511]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb digitalfx:

boring? not in the least.

You can always add grain...its very difficult to remove it.

I sometimes add noise to digital b&w images. I even often add some vignetting to my images as well. Maybe - since I grew up with film - my brain is programmed to like this.

 

 

 

[tom0511]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Jager:

No. 

I'm pretty sure good photography has nothing to do with noise or grain.

I do find it interesting that if one were to go back to, say, the late nineties... when film was at its peak, before digital made its disruptive entrance and forever changed the world as we know it... no one, absolutely NO ONE, was asking for more grain.  Every discussion of photographic image quality revolved around how to minimize it.  Kodak and Fuji and all the rest of 'em spent untold millions on developing ever finer emulsions, to get rid of the nasty stuff.  Xtol, Kodak's last great R&D effort in film development, had the extraordinary design brief - extraordinary because it was something of a unicorn at the time - of minimizing film grain while still maintaining high (box) speed.  The current fashion of yearning for grain... well, you just kind of shake your head.

Modern digital cameras have more in common with medium and large format film than they do with 35mm film.  And to me that is their singular strength, even above their immediacy and convenience.

 

Not everybody prefered mainly fine grain films as far as I believe to remember.

[Jager]

54 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Not everybody prefered mainly fine grain films as far as I believe to remember.

Roger that, Tom.  Kodak sold far more Tri-X (400 box speed) than they did Plus X (125 box speed).  I certainly shot way more of the faster stuff.  But much of that was up to the faster emulsions simply being more flexible.  Tri-X, for example, behaved well from 200 to 800.  (It still does!)

I think most of us, most of the time, used the slowest, finest-grained emulsions that lighting conditions would allow.  And for most amateurs - who often as not had that roll of film in the camera over multiple hours/days - the slow stuff was just too limiting.

I'm sure there were photographers who deliberately chose coarser grained films purely for their look.  Somewhere there was a guy who put in Kodachrome 200 when he could as easily have used Kodachrome 64, or shot a studio portrait session (where lighting was easily controlled) using Tri-X instead of Plus X.  But to the extent that that sort of thing happened, it certainly wasn't the thing that it is today.  I never once read an article in any of the photography magazines touting the benefits of grain. 

Ultimately, photography is about making art.  Cameras (and film, and sensors) are just the tools that allow us to do that.  Alas, we spend way too much time arguing the merits of those tools.  Angels dancing on pins and all that.  As if any of that ever made a difference.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Jager

[Jeff S]

On 2/17/2020 at 3:34 AM, UliWer said:

It isn't

If you leave away the filter you don't increase the number of pixels. You might say that the effective number of  pixels of a sensor with color filters is decreased but not the other way round.

I think what he means is that one would need a color based camera with 82MP to achieve similar results.  

Jeff

[tom0511]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Jager:

Roger that, Tom.  Kodak sold far more Tri-X (400 box speed) than they did Plus X (125 box speed).  I certainly shot way more of the faster stuff.  But much of that was up to the faster emulsions simply being more flexible.  Tri-X, for example, behaved well from 200 to 800.  (It still does!)

I think most of us, most of the time, used the slowest, finest-grained emulsions that lighting conditions would allow.  And for most amateurs - who often as not had that roll of film in the camera over multiple hours/days - the slow stuff was just too limiting.

I'm sure there were photographers who deliberately chose coarser grained films purely for their look.  Somewhere there was a guy who put in Kodachrome 200 when he could as easily have used Kodachrome 64, or shot a studio portrait session (where lighting was easily controlled) using Tri-X instead of Plus X.  But to the extent that that sort of thing happened, it certainly wasn't the thing that it is today.  I never once read an article in any of the photography magazines touting the benefits of grain. 

Ultimately, photography is about making art.  Cameras (and film, and sensors) are just the tools that allow us to do that.  Alas, we spend way too much time arguing the merits of those tools.  Angels dancing on pins and all that.  As if any of that ever made a difference.

well, I used Kodakchrome 64 ISO if I could and 200 only if I had to. I feel a bit different about b&w, depending on the subject. Overall I like fine grain over heavy grain, and still sometimes digital noise free images look waxy and artificial  to me. In regards of color I find noise disturbing.

[jaapv]

Waxy digital images are (unless intentional) the result of poor post processing 

[Ken Abrahams]

I love grainy images and once used high iso films to shoot low light theatre rehearsals and stage images. I love the grainy and contrasty images of classic street photographers from bygone years but that doesn't mean "Grain" is all I like. Give me a roll of Panatomic X and incandescent lights with barn doors etc and I am very happy indeed. Likewise with the M10M and its very fine sensor. Desirable grain is achievable with the M10M when one crops into the image and processes accordingly. It is a fine grain indeed. This however presents the idea of an entirely different way of capturing subjects requiring the grainy effect. One must shoot wider and make compositions which almost seems antithetical for the design of this camera. The MM1 is already achieving desirable grainy qualities and is a very desirable camera to have if that is, one is still producing the style of images that film cameras could/can achieve here in the 21st Century.   

  

   

[Jon Warwick]

On 2/19/2020 at 2:11 PM, jaapv said:

Waxy digital images are (unless intentional) the result of poor post processing 

100% serious question .... I do find some digital images to be waxy - what do you think causes this, and what can help reduce that waxy look?

[jaapv]

The problem lies in the initial noise reduction, especially ACR. People are so afraid of noise that they try to reduce it maximally, destroying microcontrast. Then they try to restore sharpness and presence by sharpening. The end result is completely unnatural.