M10-R full-resolution ISO 5000, 12500, 25000, and 50000 series

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even beyond the higher resolution, one of the most important aspects of the M10-R is the higher dynamic range and lower noise claimed by Leica.  While searching Flickr for M10-R sample files, I found a helpful series of the same subject taken at ISO 5000, 12500, 25000, and 50000.  The images turn out to be part of Camerajabber's review of the M10-R, which you can read here: https://camerajabber.com/reviews/leica-m10-r/.  But I found downloading and analyzing the full-resolution files in this series to be quite helpful in evaluating the M10-R's high-ISO performance and claims of improved signal vs. the M10/M10-P.  You can download the full-resolution files in the series here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5fyma9hq3z4c3y6/AABDimC30QJA1qUjlUcgK_hVa?dl=0

The images themselves are not a good acuity test—even though they were shot with the 50 APO, nothing with real detail is in perfect focus, oddly.  However, the files are full of bright and dark areas that are ideal for evaluating noise performance.  Indeed, the M10-R appears to have markedly improved high-ISO performance compared to the M10/M10-P.  My take on the files is:

ISO 5000: fine, as expected

ISO 12500: overall ok; would be acceptable for the vast majority of photography needs

ISO 25000: ok for some situations, but noise in the dark regions is quite noticeable at sizes larger than ~10"; this is especially true for chroma noise in darker monochromatic regions

ISO 50000: substantial loss of detail, more chroma and luminance noise, and perhaps most problematic, horizontal banding becomes evident in darker regions.

In other words: ISO 12500 = ok, 25000 = sometimes ok, 50000 = not ok.

Which is a 1+ stop improvement over the M10/M10-P, which I would rate at the same viewed image size as: ISO 6400 = ok, 12500 = usually not ok, ISO 25000 = not ok (see a detailed analysis here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1r063ietbog1te0/Sony Leica Phase Shootout by Onasj.docx?dl=0).  

Kudos to Leica for substantially improving both resolution AND performance in the M10-R.

And for those curious about the *low-ISO* detail capture performance of the M10-R, here is an ISO 100 photo (from "50mm Vietnam" on Flickr) shot with the 50 APO in critical focus that really shows the resolving power of the the M10-R (notice the fuzz on the apricot that is clearly visible at 100% but invisible even at full-screen size): https://www.dropbox.com/s/rs6qvbi6ufx1k12/ISO 100.jpg?dl=0

Edited July 17, 2020 by onasj

[Advertisement]

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

[elmars]

So I said in my little review of the M10-R. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, onasj said:

Even beyond the higher resolution, one of the most important aspects of the M10-R is the higher dynamic range and lower noise claimed by Leica.  While searching Flickr for M10-R sample files, I found a helpful series of the same subject taken at ISO 5000, 12500, 25000, and 50000.  The images turn out to be part of Camerajabber's review of the M10-R, which you can read here: https://camerajabber.com/reviews/leica-m10-r/.  But I found downloading and analyzing the full-resolution files in this series to be quite helpful in evaluating the M10-R's high-ISO performance and claims of improved signal vs. the M10/M10-P.  You can download the full-resolution files in the series here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5fyma9hq3z4c3y6/AABDimC30QJA1qUjlUcgK_hVa?dl=0

The images themselves are not a good acuity test—even though they were shot with the 50 APO, nothing with real detail is in perfect focus, oddly.  However, the files are full of bright and dark areas that are ideal for evaluating noise performance.  Indeed, the M10-R appears to have markedly improved high-ISO performance compared to the M10/M10-P.  My take on the files is:

ISO 5000: fine, as expected

ISO 12500: overall ok; would be acceptable for the vast majority of photography needs

ISO 25000: ok for some situations, but noise in the dark regions is quite noticeable at sizes larger than ~10"; this is especially true for chroma noise in darker monochromatic regions

ISO 50000: substantial loss of detail, more chroma and luminance noise, and perhaps most problematic, horizontal banding becomes evident in darker regions.

In other words: ISO 12500 = ok, 25000 = sometimes ok, 50000 = not ok.

Which is a 1+ stop improvement over the M10/M10-P, which I would rate at the same viewed image size as: ISO 6400 = ok, 12500 = usually not ok, ISO 25000 = not ok (see a detailed analysis here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1r063ietbog1te0/Sony Leica Phase Shootout by Onasj.docx?dl=0).  

Kudos to Leica for substantially improving both resolution AND performance in the M10-R.

And for those curious about the *low-ISO* detail capture performance of the M10-R, here is an ISO 100 photo (from "50mm Vietnam" on Flickr) shot with the 50 APO in critical focus that really shows the resolving power of the the M10-R (notice the fuzz on the apricot that is clearly visible at 100% but invisible even at full-screen size): https://www.dropbox.com/s/rs6qvbi6ufx1k12/ISO 100.jpg?dl=0

The downloadable images are all JPGs. IMO, JPGs are not a good way to compare quality as the camera's JPG engine contributes a lot to the output quality and may change from model to model. We need to compare RAW files instead.

AFAIK, Leica claims 1-2 stop improvement in DR not in the noise level.

For those interested, Sean Reid has detailed high ISO noise comparison between M10R, M10P and Q2 (subscription only).

[onasj]

16 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The downloadable images are all JPGs. IMO, JPGs are not a good way to compare quality as the camera's JPG engine contributes a lot to the output quality and may change from model to model. We need to compare RAW files instead.

AFAIK, Leica claims 1-2 stop improvement in DR not in the noise level.

For those interested, Sean Reid has detailed high ISO noise comparison between M10R, M10P and Q2 (subscription only).

Yes, this is why I didn't draw any conclusions about DR, only about noise level.  While JPGs can affect noise and detail level, cameras (or post-processing software) that does so with a heavy touch leave telltale signs that I didn't find in the files I linked.  In other words, I think those files are representative of what we will get in terms of high-ISO noises even from using DNG files.  And my conclusions from analyzing those files were consistent with those of elmars and Jono Slack in their testing of the M10-R as well.

[Gobert]

The stupid thing is that I am not interested in higher and higher ISO’s. I would be really interested in lower ISO’s, enabling us to get rid of the grey ND filters.

[Dr No]

A solid improvement where many thought there would be none. The M10R really is a great achievement for Leica.

[Dr No]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Gobert said:

The stupid thing is that I am not interested in higher and higher ISO’s. I would be really interested in lower ISO’s, enabling us to get rid of the grey ND filters.

You are right. I would find lower ISO and/or faster shutter very useful. While others might, I don't see myself ever needing ISO 50,000. Useful to have though, none the less.

[M11 for me]

I am suprised that there are still lots of (at least some) posts or "tests" claiming that ISO perfirmancce is below m10 or m10-p. Maybe these people compare 100% views of pictures from 24 resp 40 MP sensor. How come that there are contradictions there? It seems to beckear that the m10-p performs better.

[nicci78]

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2020/07/16/the-true-successor-to-the-leica-m9-leica-m10r-review/

This review destroyed M10-R high ISO capabilities

[01af]

vor einer Stunde schrieb M10 for me:

I am suprised that there are still lots of (at least some) posts or "tests" claiming that ISO performance is below M10 or M10-P.

Yeah ... that's what I heard, too — and yes, it does surprise me.

According to my own quick tongue-in-cheek comparison, the M10-R at ISO 200/24° has a wider exposure range than the M10 at ISO 200/24° ... but only marginally so. Maybe 1/3 of an f-stop or so. That's nice but nothing to write home about. (I didn't have the opportunity to check out high-ISO performance.)

Of course, the M10-R's resolution is clearly better. But then, it takes absurd magnifications to actually notice. My computer monitor is 24", 1920 × 1200 pixels. At a magnification that corresponds to a print size of 1 × 1.5 m (= 40 × 60 inches), my monitor hardly shows any perceptible difference in the rendition of fine detail. For an obvious difference, I have to crank up the magnification to a level that corresponds to a print size of 2 × 3 m (80 × 120 inches) and beyond.

Those who print at these sizes on a regular basis will love the M10-R.

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2020/07/16/the-true-successor-to-the-leica-m9-leica-m10r-review/

This review destroyed M10-R high ISO capabilities

I was surprised by this yesterday, at least compared to other reports, including Jono’s, which I’ve always found credible.  But he has pics that back his findings.  I hope it was either an early camera sample and/or FW version. The lack of dedicated third party profiles at this point might also contribute, but presumably all reviewers are subject to similar software constraints.
 

In any case, this is why I’m not an early adopter,  and always demo gear and make prints before a major purchase decision.  
 

Jeff

[Dr No]

57 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2020/07/16/the-true-successor-to-the-leica-m9-leica-m10r-review/

This review destroyed M10-R high ISO capabilities

That does look awful. I suspect an issue with that camera.Too much of an anomaly, incongruent with most reviews.

Here is another account showing it is decent up to 25000.

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Dr No

[01af]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dr No:

vor 1 Stunde schrieb nicci78:

[...] This review destroyed M10-R high-ISO capabilities.

That does look awful. I suspect an issue with that camera.

I suspect an issue with the lack of a camera-specific profile in the raw converter used, combined with the reviewer's incompetence in image processing.

Edited July 17, 2020 by 01af

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2020/07/16/the-true-successor-to-the-leica-m9-leica-m10r-review/

This review destroyed M10-R high ISO capabilities

Mentioned right at the top. Processed in C1. Raw processing issue perhaps. 

[Dr No]

23 minutes ago, 01af said:

I suspect an issue with the lack of a camera-specific profile in the raw converter used, combined with the reviewer's incompetence in image processing.

Yes, that particular reviewer is historically quite useless.

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I was surprised by this yesterday, at least compared to other reports, including Jono’s, which I’ve always found credible.  But he has pics that back his findings.  I hope it was either an early camera sample and/or FW version. The lack of dedicated third party profiles at this point might also contribute, but presumably all reviewers are subject to similar software constraints.
 

In any case, this is why I’m not an early adopter,  and always demo gear and make prints before a major purchase decision.  
 

Jeff

It has been mentioned on various places that there was an older M10-R firmware that had the color issues. It was resolved with a firmware update.

[Dennis]

My Resume:

M10 | 6,400 - OK | 12,500 Not OK

M10R | 12,500 OK | 25,000 Not OK (+1 stop)

M10M | 25,000 OK | 50,000 Not OK (+2 stop)

 

When the next M10 color model (R+), will have the same high-iso performance than the M10M, I guess it's when it worths for me to trade my M10.

For 40MP vs 24MP and +1 extra stop, not enough IMHO. I keep my louder shutter, 24MP, and a great 6,400 ISO.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Dennis

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

My Resume:

M10 | 6,400 - OK | 12,500 Not OK

M10R | 12,500 OK | 25,000 Not OK (+1 stop)

M10M | 25,000 OK | 50,000 Not OK (+2 stop)

 

When the next M10 color model (R+), will have the same high-iso performance than the M10M, I guess it's when it worths for me to trade my M10.

For 40MP vs 24MP and +1 extra stop, not enough IMHO. I keep my louder shutter, 24MP, and a great 6,400 ISO.

 

 

FWIW, Jono rates the M10R highlight exposure headroom to almost 2 stops more than the M10. This is his favorite distinction, more than the resolution. And the base ISO is a real 100, unlike the M10 at closer to 200.
 

That said, I’ll reserve judgment until the dust settles and I have a chance to test drive and make some prints alongside my M10.  I find that specs often don’t tell the whole story, or fully account for my personal impressions. Not a rush, though, especially in this Covid environment.
 

Jeff

Edited July 18, 2020 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dennis]

I saw around some negative (or at least not satisfying as expected) feedbacks about not very well high iso's performances of the M10-R. What if the 6,400 of the M10-R, it looks like an 8,000 or 12,500 of an M10? Because for a 40MP camera, it's more difficult to excel in high iso. It's not like the M10M, it's a color sensor. 
So, The M10-R it's like an M10-P, but with 40MP. That's it. There is a big market for that. The different resolution, but having the same results. Does it make sense? 
I guess we have to wait for more to see a color sensor camera performing like the M10M's high iso.

[oka]

From the samples I have seen from the various reviews, there is significantly more DR in high iso on R.

Personally, only weakness is the battery life what I can see on my work (wedding).

Thought I carry 4 spare batteries and charger for just in case anyway...

What puzzles me is that why there is no still electronic shutter and ISO50? I do hate fiddle with ND on Noct.

Edited July 18, 2020 by oka