Jump to content
onasj

M10R (M10-R) sensor performance

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With the important caveat that this post is largely speculation, let's anticipate the performance characteristics of the M10-R sensor.

The Leica S3 sensor is 45x30 mm (1350 sq mm) and the DNG files are 9816 x 6512, for a total pixel count of 63,921,792 pixels, or 47,349 pixels per sq mm

The Leica M10 Monochrom sensor is 36 x 24 mm (864 sq mm) and the DNG files are 7864 x 5200 = 40,892,800 pixels, or 47,330 pixels per sq mm.

The pixel density of the two sensors is so similar that I assume the discrepancy comes from non-scaling edge usage factors, and/or small 0.01 mm-scale rounding errors in sensor size.

So if we assume that the S3 sensor and the M10 Monochrom sensor come from the same process, differing only in size and the presence of the Bayer color filter array in the former, then it's reasonable to assume the M10-R sensor also comes from the same process, and is basically a 36 x 24 mm crop of the S3 sensor (as others have hypothesized in this forum previously).  

If this reasoning is correct, then you can expect the M10-R sensor to be the same as the M10M sensor, plus a Bayer CFA, and to perform more or less the same as the S3 sensor on a per-square-mm basis.  Therefore, I would expect:

- DNG files that are 7864 x 5200 = 40,892,800 pixels

- Dual gain design

- 4.6 µm pixel pitch

- Base ISO = 100

- ISO range = 100-50,000 (basically one stop lower than the 160-100,000 ISO range of the M10 Monochrom, as one might predict from the lack of the Bayer CFA in the M10M)

- 14 bits per pixel

Good ISO 12,500 photos and decent ISO 25,000 photos would be terrific, and a significant improvement over the M10/M10-P, as noted here:

https://photorumors.com/2019/01/20/mega-shootout-sony-leica-and-phase-one-comparison/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The M10-P high iso has been excellent.  I use it at base whenever possible with shadow recovery improved over  the M240.  So, this is good news (speculation), I wouldn't want to give up the gains of the M10-P.  I have heard the Q2 and SL2 were slightly less, both measured and by some users. 

Edited by darylgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, onasj said:

Therefore, I would expect ... 

OnasjRumors dot Com 🙌 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, onasj said:

With the important caveat that this post is largely speculation, let's anticipate the performance characteristics of the M10-R sensor.

The Leica S3 sensor is 45x30 mm (1350 sq mm) and the DNG files are 9816 x 6512, for a total pixel count of 63,921,792 pixels, or 47,349 pixels per sq mm

The Leica M10 Monochrom sensor is 36 x 24 mm (864 sq mm) and the DNG files are 7864 x 5200 = 40,892,800 pixels, or 47,330 pixels per sq mm.

The pixel density of the two sensors is so similar that I assume the discrepancy comes from non-scaling edge usage factors, and/or small 0.01 mm-scale rounding errors in sensor size.

So if we assume that the S3 sensor and the M10 Monochrom sensor come from the same process, differing only in size and the presence of the Bayer color filter array in the former, then it's reasonable to assume the M10-R sensor also comes from the same process, and is basically a 36 x 24 mm crop of the S3 sensor (as others have hypothesized in this forum previously).  

If this reasoning is correct, then you can expect the M10-R sensor to be the same as the M10M sensor, plus a Bayer CFA, and to perform more or less the same as the S3 sensor on a per-square-mm basis.  Therefore, I would expect:

- DNG files that are 7864 x 5200 = 40,892,800 pixels

- Dual gain design

- 4.6 µm pixel pitch

- Base ISO = 100

- ISO range = 100-50,000 (basically one stop lower than the 160-100,000 ISO range of the M10 Monochrom, as one might predict from the lack of the Bayer CFA in the M10M)

- 14 bits per pixel

Good ISO 12,500 photos and decent ISO 25,000 photos would be terrific, and a significant improvement over the M10/M10-P, as noted here:

https://photorumors.com/2019/01/20/mega-shootout-sony-leica-and-phase-one-comparison/

The least you could do is quote Nicci, whose thread discussion you participated in over 6 months ago, wherein he laid out most of this information.  He also noted how Leica started the process with the S007, which led to the M240.  
 

See especially Nicci’s posts # 22, 26, 38 and 73...

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

The least you could do is quote Nicci, whose thread discussion you participated in over 6 months ago, wherein he laid out most of this information.  He also noted how Leica started the process with the S007, which led to the M240.  
 

See especially Nicci’s posts # 22, 26, 38 and 73...

Jeff

No disrespect to Nicci was intended; thanks for finding his post (my imperfect memory of which was what I meant by "as others have hypothesized in this forum previously"), and for adding additional details.

I don't consider any of what I posted to be surprising or new—just a point of optimism that if the M10-R really uses a cropped S3 sensor then I hope it offers the same benefits as the S3.  I haven't found high-ISO sweep test images of the S3 but anecdotal reports suggest its high-ISO performance is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, onasj said:

I don't consider any of what I posted to be surprising or new—just a point of optimism that if the M10-R really uses a cropped S3 sensor then I hope it offers the same benefits as the S3.  I haven't found high-ISO sweep test images of the S3 but anecdotal reports suggest its high-ISO performance is good.

Well, the relationship between the S007 and the M240 might provide some perspective, since this was where Leica began sharing wafers, as Nicci notes.  But obviously there’s much more to how cameras perform, including what’s bonded to that wafer such as micro lenses, filter arrays, etc, let alone differences and qualities that extra sensor size potentially affords. And then there’s obviously all the other hardware and software.  But we should have faith that Leica demands high and consistent standards across product lines, even sharing lenses in many cases.  
 

In this case, we also have the M10 Monochrom as a better basis for comparison, as it is likely the same sensor, albeit with Bayer array, in the same body.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also, as far as I know, same sensor can have different base ISO values. So S3 might have a lower base ISO and M10R might have a higher base ISO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Herr Barnack
      I am thinking about selling off my M-P 240 Safari set (M-P 240 with chrome 35mm Summicron ASPH and accessories) to fund an upgrade to an M10R. 
      This would mean that I'd be short a chrome 35mm ASPH lens, which I think I would not really miss.  The only time I am currently using the 35 Summicron is when I shoot with the M-P 240, which hasn't gotten much use lately.  I am shooting almost 100% with my Q2 and M10 Mono these days.  Another reason I don't think I'd miss the 35 Summicron is because I have the 28 Summilux on the Q2 and a 28mm Elmarit f/2.8 for the M10 Mono.  Between 28mm and 35mm, I gravitate to the 28mm almost always.
      Selling/trading/upgrading M cameras and lenses must be approached like a chess game IMHO.  Give serious thought to your every move and the ramifications it will produce, or you will come to regret it.
      The advantages if the M10R compared to the M-P 240 would be much higher usable ISO, a shutter that is quieter by roughly 50%, a refined layout and the new 40.89 mp color sensor. 
      My M10 mono also has the redesigned 40.89 mp B&W sensor; my Q2 has the 47.3 mp color sensor.  Upgrading to the M10R would mean that my color M camera would be on more equal footing with the  Q2 and M10 Mono with regard to the sensors.  I think that for making exhibit quality and size fine print, this would be a good thing.
      Upgrading would be contingent on being able to get a favorable (or at least reasonable) amount of money out of the Safari set; I'm not going to get M10R fever and let myself be skinned alive, letting the Safari set go for a song.  IMHO that would be a very poor decision. 
      My question is - assuming I can get a favorable selling price for the 240 Safari set, does this sound like a good idea - even though it involves saying goodbye to the 35mm Summicron (I would not want to break up the Safari set and keep the 35 'cron)?
      Any insights into how to best proceed will be greatly appreciated.
    • By didier
      Many of us have already noticed it, but shooting @ iso 25000 is now a non-issue 😊

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
    • By BFMount
      I took a very underexposed shot and tried raising the exposure 3.4 stops, and I expect noise, but what are these horizontal lines? Is it normal? This was taken with my 'new' used LeicaQ. Is this expected? I've never seen this before, and I've definitely shot underexposed before. Should I return this camera? Is it defective? Thank you!

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By onasj
      I obtained a customer-release—not pre-release/beta—M10-R and compared it side-by-side with the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as the M10-M) on a test scene at high ISO values.  The firmware version for both was the latest firmware currently available to the public: 10.20.27.20 for the M10-R (upgraded from the initial released 10.20.23.49 firmware that was pre-installed in the new camera), and 2.12.8.0 for the M10-M. 
      Methodology: all shots were taken on a tripod with a 2-second delay to minimize vibration.  The same Leica 50 APO lens was used for all tests.  The aperture was set to f/5.6 for all tests, at which the resolving power of the 50 APO is about as high as possible among commercially available 35-mm format lenses.  The ISO value and shutter speeds were as follows:
      ISO 6400, 1/60 s
      ISO 12500, 1/125 s
      ISO 25000, 1/250 s
      ISO 50000, 1/500 s
      ISO 100000 (M10-M only), 1/1000 s
      To the best of my ability, the M10-R and the M10-M were treated equally.  The test shots were taken in one sitting, with the same tripod position 2.2 m from the target, and under the same lighting.  The images were focused by rangefinder and confirmed by live view for each camera.  The subject distance (2.2 m) was farther from the test scene than my earlier M10-R tests (1.3 m) because I anticipated that the M10-M might have no trouble resolving all the details of the scene from 1.3 m, even at absurdly high ISOs.
      To keep the test as pure as possible, all the test shots were taken as DNG files, then transferred and opened in Adobe Photoshop 2020 with Camera Raw 12.3 (which has native M10-R support) with no corrections or adjustments to the default image settings, other than clicking “B&W” to convert the M10-R images to monochrome.  Therefore, this test does not really answer the question of how the performance between the cameras compares if one were to bring the full power of modern post-processing, noise removal, AI-driven scaling and sharpening, etc. to bear on the images.  It also does not exploit the important ability of adjusting the levels of different colors when converting color files to monochrome files—arguably the largest advantage of using the M10-R to generate monochrome photos instead of the M10-M.  Instead, the purpose of this test is to compare the acuity and noise level of the two cameras at ISO 6400 to ISO 50000.
      Overall, both cameras take remarkably good monochrome photos, even at ISO levels such as 12500 that would previously be considered out-of-reach.  Here are 100% crops from a small portion of the center region of both cameras (M10-R on the left, M10-M on the right).  Click on the image below to view it at 100% to avoid scaling artifacts.  I would have no hesitation using ISO 12500 monochrome images from either camera for virtually any application.  But of course there are substantial performance differences.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finding #1: The M10-M captures higher acuity levels than the M10-R across the ISO range tested (6400 to 50000).
      As expected, given the lack of a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and no need to de-mosaic the red-, green-, or blue-filtered pixels, the M10-M offers significantly higher acuity than the M10-R.  To my eye, the advantage persists even if you give the M10-R an advantage of one or two stops: compare the sharpness of the fine features of the scene as captured by the M10-M at ISO 25000 vs. the M10-R at ISO 6400, or the M10-R at ISO 25000 to the M10-M at ISO 100000—a remarkable testament to the M10-M’s ability to capture a scene down to the smallest details, even zooming in to 100%.  Notice also that at the same ISO level, aperture, and shutter speed (chosen by each camera’s auto-shutter speed setting to be the same at all ISO levels!), the M10-M images are only modestly brighter than the M10-R; I was surprised that the Bayer CFA didn’t dim the M10-R images more strongly.  Perhaps the M10-R firmware partially compensates for the loss of light due to the Bayer CFA.
      Finding #2: The M10-M offers about a 1- to 2-stop advantage in high-ISO noise levels over the M10-R.
      Compare the M10-M at ISO 50000 to the M10-R at ISO 12500, or the M10-M at ISO 25000 to the M10-R at ISO 6400. The M10-M continues to blow me away with its high-ISO performance.  Indeed, Bill Claff’s measurements at https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm rank the M10-M’s high ISO performance as fourth among all cameras tested to date, behind the Phase One IQ4, the Phase One IQ3, and the Fuji GFX-100—three current or recent top-of-the-line medium format cameras.
      Overall, Leica has created in the M10-M and the M10-R two current-generation sister cameras with outstanding overall performance.  If acuity or high-ISO performance is more important than color for your particular application, than the M10-M outperforms the M10-R and is among the very best cameras to my knowledge, even joining some medium-format monsters.  And if color is needed, either in the final image or to enable creative conversion to black and white images that allows easy sky darkening, face lightening, etc. during post-processing, the M10-R remains an option worthy of its current flagship status among Leica M cameras.
×
×
  • Create New...