Any actual shots where M10M visibly outperforms M246?

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK let me ask it another way.  So far the shots I've seen from M10M are just as good as those coming out of the M246.

Could anyone who has both and shot them with the same lens, on the same scene, please share the comparison that clearly shows how the M10M is better?

So far what I see is a lot of gushing about more detail or higher ISO, but if you review the image threads above there's nothing dramatically better.

Edited April 8, 2020 by setuporg

[Advertisement]

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

[Jager]

And you think you're going to see much difference in a 100K jpeg, rendered on a web page?  Seriously?

I own all three Monochrom's.  I've made tens of thousands of images with the first two.  I've made far fewer images with the new M10-Monochrom, of course.  But the first few dozen were all it took to understand how the files compare to its illustrious predecessors.  

All three Monochrom models are very special cameras.  An owner of any of them can congratulate themself on having an incredibly powerful black and white imaging tool.  But make no mistake... the files from the M10-Monochrom are clearly superior to those from the M246.  In every regard.  Full stop.

You don't have to believe me, of course.  But my advice would be to enjoy the camera you own, rather than trying to convince yourself that a newer version is somehow no better.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Jager

[setuporg]

Nobody said 100K jpeg is enough, you can post link to the DNGs!  I'd like to understand what people mean when they say superior, in every regard.  I'll take even one regard when someone posts two DNGs and points out what it is.  This thread is specifically to ask folks to supply some data, as food for thought.  This is not a question of belief, or rather let's believe our eyes.:)

I really like the approach @Chaemono takes for SL2 and S3 testing, with numerous pedantic DNGs...

E.g.: here we have more details in the shadows.

Or, here the high ISO of M10M works where M246 utterly fails.

Give me any actual proof, or even a hint of a proof, via photographs...

Edited April 8, 2020 by setuporg

[jaapv]

As the Monochrom can be developed in many ways, this is really an unanswerable question. Start by defining "superior" in a photographic sense. The only thing you can do ist rent or borrow one and shoot it side by side with an M246. Then you can determine whether is works - for you.

[setuporg]

BTW, I'm of course inclined to believe you Jeff, especially with your wonderful writeup,

http://www.jeffreyhughes.net/photography/leica_m10_monochrom.html

-- but I wonder whether we experience a collective GAS here.  Say without knowing about the new sensor or high-resolution, how can we be sure?  Nothing beats a side by side.

[setuporg]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

As the Monochrom can be developed in many ways, this is really an unanswerable question. Start by defining "superior" in a photographic sense. The only thing you can do ist rent or borrow one and shoot it side by side with an M246. Then you can determine whether is works - for you.

I think the high-res, DR, and high ISO are all objective claims that could be verified with some reasonable settings.  I'm asking those who have both cameras to show what they got if they really got the M10M for the improvements.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

High resolution does not make a photograph superior by definition.  That goes for all pixel-peeping parameters. Even if a camera had all these "better" it could still render the image in a manner that you dislike, making it the inferior camera - for you. I would have to actually shoot an M10M to confirm my opinion, but for me the original MM1 is still the monochrome camera of  choice.

[Likaleica]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Start by defining "superior" in a photographic sense.

+1.  Exactly!

[setuporg]

Nah, I'd rather see some images by anyone who has both cameras and believes that M10M is superior, in whatever sense they use it.  There were many people who already said that the new M10M is better, and I'd simply like to see, how.

[otto.f]

I think that the the thread for M10M photo’s gives enough information on your question, side by side comparisons seldom give final securities. There are two main advances in the M10M: less noise in the dark and croppability of captures.

I don’t know if ’better’ is the right word in OP’s question. I think that the M10M is relatively best suited for landscape, so that you come home with files for big big landscape prints. And the MM1 is relatively best suited for street and photojournalism. But that is my taste, because I find that these domains need a certain tonal character. I really don’t think I need all that extra ISO’s of the M10M for night street photography, gets too slick for my taste. I am not a fan of making photographs with the idea of cropping in mind. 

[Luke_Miller]

Sean Reid has a detailed comparison of M10M and M-246 images on his subscription site. (reidreviews.com).  Subscription price is reasonable and well worth it IMO.

[davidmknoble]

I'd offer another approach.  I, too, have used all three monochrom's. 

First, let's make an assumption that the M246 and the M10M are equivalent in image rendition (I believe the M10M is better, but bear with me).  If they are equal, and the M10M provides a significantly higher pixel count for the same area, then you have your answer.  The M10M has to be better to get equivalent images with smaller sized pixels, or light gathering capabilities.  I'm not trying to justify upgrading from one to the other,  I'm just answering the question.

Second, the first point is more like philosophy than actual use.  I will say that it took me about 6 months to a year to really fine tune my ability to get the most out of the camera.  I've been shooting black and white film since the late 70's early 80's and developing it myself.  I am far better at developing film today than I was then.  I think my artistic ability has also gotten better.  I'm saying, it just takes me time to get the most out of the monochrom.

Third, there is visible difference in the higher ISO's and the ability to pull out shadows in the lower ISO's.  I posted some images I took at ISO 50,000 and then printed at 17x22.  In terms of tonality and 'noise' or 'grain', I would hang that print beside my S007 prints.  I know you want DNG files to compare, but honestly, because of the pixel difference, comparing the DNG is difficult.  The key to the monochrom has always been "how much shadow detail is available, without blowing the highlights, and at minimal noise."  The pure difference in time and technology of the CMOS chip is lower read noise, and hence, lower noise in the shadows.  Everything else is the photographer's ability to determine the best exposure for the brightness of the scene and the end use of the image - small JPEG, large print for example - the camera is not in control of any of that.

So IMHO, the only way to compare the monochrom's is to use a grey scale card that has 24-36 white, grey and black patches, meter for the middle grey and compare the resulting DNG files for how many stops the shadows can be increased without causing visible noise.  You already know the answer, the lowest ability for shadows is the M9M, then M246 and the best is M10M.

Just my opinions from use of course...

Edited April 9, 2020 by davidmknoble

[onasj]

I don't own a 246 but I suspect based on the best-in-class (among 35-mm format cameras) high-ISO performance that for capturing low-light scenes, especially of moving subjects (evening street photography, indoor candids, stage photography, etc.) the M10M will offer meaningful, real-world differences vs. other M models.  I know the 246 is no slouch in high-ISO performance either, but the M10M camera is the first non-medium-format camera that allows me to confidently shoot at ISO 25,000-50,000 and not worry much about noise.

[Chaemono]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb setuporg:

[...]
I really like the approach @Chaemono takes for SL2 and S3 testing, with numerous pedantic DNGs...
[...]

Thanks.  Pedantic is what pays the bills. 😁

[setuporg]

17 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

Sean Reid has a detailed comparison of M10M and M-246 images on his subscription site. (reidreviews.com).  Subscription price is reasonable and well worth it IMO.

Yeah finally subscribed to Reid and he's awesome.

[Ken Abrahams]

I am not familiar with the M 246 however coming from the Monochrom M to the M10M I can offer an artistic differentiation in a couple of ways. When a style is developed by the photographer and he or she sets out to achieve a certain goal attached to that style they the of camera can influence the results. In saying this, I have seen the works of a particular Leica photographer who has over time has really made a statement with his style of images then to shift to a canon and go about making similar images with his Canon camera. Admittedly there is a little lost between the two however still exceptional image making. 

The M10M has excellent capabilities where the goal for me might be using detail and resolution for Urban Abstracts or other styles of my work.

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!

The M9M is my choice for achieving an effect that I love on the streets as seen by the second image on the streets of Melbourne. In my view its not about the camera but ones personal style and how to better express that style using the camera as the tool. It seems expensive to have two different sensors/cameras to achieve desired results however that's how photography has always been with 35mm, medium format cameras and others. I have seen excellent images from the M246 however its not the camera but the developed style of the photographer and his or her creative statements in their image making. 

 

  

Edited April 11, 2020 by Ken Abrahams

[UliWer]

I have no M Typ 246, though when I got the M10 Monochrom and had not many opportunities to go out for taking pictures in the evening after work, I tried a comparison with the „normal“ M10. I was sure the size difference of the sensors of both camera could be shown, so that the Monochrom examples still resolved finest details when the M10 came to its limits.

Unfortunately I found out that all my „testing“ did not lead to any results: I just could not see any difference in resolution from my „test“ examples of both cameras. So I gave up and just started to use the M10 Monochrome for what it was made.

For the time being I believe that my methods for „testing“ were inadaequate. It needs very meticulous preparation and ideal conditions to make very small differences visible. I am not able to find a setting which eliminates so many causes for inconsistencies and faults which may impair the results.

So my advice - for the moment - is: If anybody tells you, that a camera with a 40+ MP sensor sensor does deliver  „more“ resolution in real life as another camera with a 24MP sensor, just don‘t believe him. 

[otto.f]

12 hours ago, UliWer said:

I have no M Typ 246, though when I got the M10 Monochrom and had not many opportunities to go out for taking pictures in the evening after work, I tried a comparison with the „normal“ M10. I was sure the size difference of the sensors of both camera could be shown, so that the Monochrom examples still resolved finest details when the M10 came to its limits.

Unfortunately I found out that all my „testing“ did not lead to any results: I just could not see any difference in resolution from my „test“ examples of both cameras. So I gave up and just started to use the M10 Monochrome for what it was made.

For the time being I believe that my methods for „testing“ were inadaequate. It needs very meticulous preparation and ideal conditions to make very small differences visible. I am not able to find a setting which eliminates so many causes for inconsistencies and faults which may impair the results.

So my advice - for the moment - is: If anybody tells you, that a camera with a 40+ MP sensor sensor does deliver  „more“ resolution in real life as another camera with a 24MP sensor, just don‘t believe him. 

The same goes for comparing the MM1 with M10 B&W conversions. I did that when the M10 came out and it was very hard for me and forum members here to distinguish between the two, although possible in some situations when you are alert to microcontrast, deep blacks and contrast in shadows. Some preferred the broader possibility of the M10 to work with ‘digital filters’ in postprocessing compared to analogue filters on the MM1. 
Btw, rumour has it that Alan Schaller made the photos for the advertisement of the M10M for Leica with an M246 (which are mostly overprocessed anyway, but that’s another matter).

Edited April 22, 2020 by otto.f

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Nowhereman]

Overprocessed  is sometimes an overused word. Certainly, in my view, in the case of the Alan Schaller M10M images on the Leica website. This is are an aesthetic choice: intentionally high-contrast images, which is the look that this photographer wants. You could call it an expressionist look. They are over-processed only for people who don't like this type of look or ones who want lower-contrast images, to see what the camera can do in terms the aesthetic that they prefer.

Now, what is the evidence that these Schaller photographs were shot with an M246? Would Leica want to shoot themselves in the foot by misrepresenting these shots?
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited April 22, 2020 by Nowhereman

[convexferret]

2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Now, what is the evidence that these Schaller photographs were shot with an M246? Would Leica want to shoot themselves in the foot by misrepresenting these shots?
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

The fact that I had seen some of those images before, years before.