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

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, oka said:

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.

I agree that Leica should be implemented electronic shutter options in their M cameras, which should be doable mostly through firmware changes given that they already support live view.

[Advertisement]

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

[onasj]

4 hours ago, Dennis said:

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.

I suspect the bigger benefit of the M10-R than resolution is the higher DR at the highlight end, possibly less color shift from wide-angle lenses due to a BSI sensor (I speculate based on Stefan’s comments during the Leica unveiling), and overall better noise performance.

Regarding high-ISO performance: reviews that compare two cameras with the same size sensor but different MP count at the same MAGNIFICATION level, rather than at the same IMAGE SIZE, will always end up biased towards the lower-resolution camera because doing so compares a smaller area of the higher resolution sensor with a larger area of the lower-resolution sensor.  This approach, in effect, presumes that as we get higher MP cameras, we will print or view images at proportionally larger absolute sizes—which is not the case for most people (though it would be nice if the size of our printers, screens, and walls scale up every time we get a higher MP camera!).

The fallacy of this approach become evident if you do a thought experiment at the extremes: would you compare a 6-pixel camera in which the entire sensor is 3x2 pixels with the M10-R by zooming into six pixels out of 40.8 MP and conclude that the 6-pixel camera gives a less-noisy image?  Likewise, medium-format sensors should be compared to 35-mm sensors not by cropping a 35-mm chunk out of the medium-format sensor but rather by comparing the entire image that results from using the full sensor— otherwise, many medium format cameras would offer no high-ISO advantage over their 35-mm sensor counterparts, even though the top three high-ISO performance cameras in Bill Claff’s comparison database (https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.) are all medium format cameras (the fourth is the M10M!).

The proper way to compare two cameras of different resolution is to compare them at the same IMAGE SIZE, not the same magnification.  This approach tells us what most photographers and photo viewers care about: when comparing the same subject printed or viewed at the same size, which camera produces a better image?  I will post comparisons at the same image size between the M10-P, the M10-M, the M10-R, and perhaps adding in the Sony A7riii or A7riv and/or the Phase One IQ4 (54x40 mm sensor) soon.

Edited July 18, 2020 by onasj

[Dr No]

 

4 hours ago, Dennis said:

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.

Many issues seem firmware related. Final release will tell.

[Dr No]

12 minutes ago, onasj said:

I suspect the bigger benefit of the M10-R than resolution is the higher DR at the highlight end, possibly less color shift from wide-angle lenses due to a BSI sensor (I speculate based on Stefan’s comments during the Leica unveiling), and overall better noise performance.

Regarding high-ISO performance: reviews that compare two cameras with the same size sensor but different MP count at the same MAGNIFICATION level, rather than at the same IMAGE SIZE, will always end up biased towards the lower-resolution camera because doing so compares a smaller area of the higher resolution sensor with a larger area of the lower-resolution sensor.  This approach, in effect, presumes that as we get higher MP cameras, we will print or view images at proportionally larger absolute sizes—which is not the case for most people (though it would be nice if the size of our printers, screens, and walls scale up every time we get a higher MP camera!).

The fallacy of this approach become evident if you do a thought experiment at the extremes: would you compare a 6-pixel camera in which the entire sensor is 3x2 pixels with the M10-R by zooming into six pixels out of 40.8 MP and conclude that the 6-pixel camera gives a less-noisy image?  Likewise, medium-format sensors should be compared to 35-mm sensors not by cropping a 35-mm chunk out of the medium-format sensor but rather by comparing the entire image that results from using the full sensor— otherwise, many medium format cameras would offer no high-ISO advantage over their 35-mm sensor counterparts, even though the top three high-ISO performance cameras in Bill Claff’s comparison database (https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.) are all medium format cameras (the fourth is the M10M!).

The proper way to compare two cameras of different resolution is to compare them at the same IMAGE SIZE, not the same magnification.  This approach tells us what most photographers and photo viewers care about: when comparing the same subject printed or viewed at the same size, which camera produces a better image?  I will post comparisons at the same image size between the M10-P, the M10-M, the M10-R, and perhaps adding in the Sony A7riii or A7riv and/or the Phase One IQ4 (54x40 mm sensor) soon.

One of the rarely acknowledged benefits of extra megapixel counts is that even with the same amount of noise, unless you are specifically viewing at 100% or printing at full size you see less noise. It pushes it further back into the image just purely by images size. So if you print an 11x14 from a 24MP and an 11x14 from a 40MP,  you see less noise (unless the 40MP inherently has more noise). Older CCD medium format cameras, at pixel level (100%), where actually quite ugly with splodgey chroma-noise. But at 60-80MP you never really saw it unless printing or viewing at full size.

[fotografr]

14 hours 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

It also destroyed my desire to get one.

[malfaris]

2 minutes ago, fotografr said:

It also destroyed my desire to get one.

Hopefully something wrong with his camera firmware or other , especially after booking one based on the glorified reviews 😬

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, malfaris said:

Hopefully something wrong with his camera firmware or other , especially after booking one based on the glorified reviews 😬

Time will tell. I'm in the group that's going to wait a while to see how it shakes out. I know from my own experience that once third party softwares developed profiles for the M10 Monochrom the out of camera image quality improved significantly. Initially I had to do a lot of adjusting to get the files to look good. Now I rarely have to do anything to them.

Please do let us know what your experience is with the new camera.

Edited July 18, 2020 by fotografr

[jonoslack]

5 hours ago, Dennis said:

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.

Hi Dennis

The M10-R is not like an M10-p with 40mp - it's quite a different sensor (based on the S3 sensor). The general feeling during the final beta test was that at 100% the M10r still had a small noise benefit over the M10 - it really is better. Important not to overstate the highlight issues in the M10-P sensor, but they are also fixed in the M10-R.

As far as the review in the phoblographer - I find it quite confusing, but it may be something to do with using Capture One rather than Lightroom, or it might be because he had an early version of the firmware - or indeed a sensor which had an older calibration - but the final beta had that calibration as well, and nobody came up with that particular problem. 

All the best

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, Dennis said:

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.

Not just an M10-P sensor with more resolution, it has new sensor architecture and technology derived from the S3 sensor, with new cover filters, which Leica says enhances ISO, color and noise performance.  We’ll see over time, especially after the usual camera profiles are issued from Adobe, along with possible FW updates, as well as user feedback on shooting or processing tips.

If you’ve followed the forum over the years, you’ll know that each M iteration initially receives complaints regarding various operating issues or IQ characteristics, only to have impressions change dramatically later on.  For instance, the forum was filled with harsh criticism of M9 colors initially; now it’s valued by many for its color output.  And so it goes.

I wouldn’t rush to judgment.

Jeff

EDIT...I see Jono beat me to it!

Edited July 18, 2020 by Jeff S

[nicci78]

That’s why. Manufacturers should let only beta testers played with prototypes. Send only manufacturing units to reviewers. 

A review like that with not ready for prime time camera will stay forever. 
And guess what ? It is not The Phoblographer fault. It is Leica’s one ! They should have warned them. Or wait to send them a final product. 
 

Even better. Please Leica work with PhaseOne ! I would be pleased to use a special blend of CaptureOne Pro for Leica. Lightroom is not bad. But your kind of customers already prefer C1 to LR. 
That would have saved Phoblographer all the trouble of a non colour calibrated M10-R, when used with C1

Edited July 18, 2020 by nicci78

[jonoslack]

2 hours ago, nicci78 said:

That’s why. Manufacturers should let only beta testers played with prototypes. Send only manufacturing units to reviewers. 

A review like that with not ready for prime time camera will stay forever. 
And guess what ? It is not The Phoblographer fault. It is Leica’s one ! They should have warned them. Or wait to send them a final product. 
 

Even better. Please Leica work with PhaseOne ! I would be pleased to use a special blend of CaptureOne Pro for Leica. Lightroom is not bad. But your kind of customers already prefer C1 to LR. 
That would have saved Phoblographer all the trouble of a non colour calibrated M10-R, when used with C1

Hi Nicci

Of course I don't know which firmware / calibration Leica gave him - there were some changes at the last moment . . .

I think the idea that Capture One would work with Leica (or vice versa) is vanishingly unlikely. The competition between Phase One and the Leica S means that they wouldn't be sharing each others secrets!

It is why I always use Lightroom for Leica cameras though. I wouldn't suggest that Phase one would intentionally do anything . . but I doubt that they make special efforts with it either!

 

[jonoslack]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Not just an M10-P sensor with more resolution, it has new sensor architecture and technology derived from the S3 sensor, with new cover filters, which Leica says enhances ISO, color and noise performance.  We’ll see over time, especially after the usual camera profiles are issued from Adobe, along with possible FW updates, as well as user feedback on shooting or processing tips.

If you’ve followed the forum over the years, you’ll know that each M iteration initially receives complaints regarding various operating issues or IQ characteristics, only to have impressions change dramatically later on.  For instance, the forum was filled with harsh criticism of M9 colors initially; now it’s valued by many for its color output.  And so it goes.

I wouldn’t rush to judgment.

Jeff

EDIT...I see Jono beat me to it!

Snap!

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, fotografr said:

It also destroyed my desire to get one.

I really wish the reviewers would mention which firmware version they were using :(. Now we can only speculate and extrapolate from the previous work by the reviewer ;-).

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

<snip>

Even better. Please Leica work with PhaseOne ! I would be pleased to use a special blend of CaptureOne Pro for Leica. Lightroom is not bad. But your kind of customers already prefer C1 to LR. 

<snip>

I am with Jono, Sean Reid and (likely) most of Leica owners: I am using LrC. C1 is very nice tool, but is hampered by its ties to Phase One and related competitive issues (Hasselblad, Leica ... surprisingly not Fuji).

[Dr No]

No way Leica would release this camera looking like that phoblographer review. Not in a million years.

It will be a firmware issue, for sure.

[rivi1969]

19 hours 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

His website destroyed my interested in keep reading his review. Too many pop-up ads, banners from eBay, Amazon, and a plethora of e-commerce garbage which is very annoying.

[Jeff S]

Leica borrowed the 4 unlabeled button control interface from Phase, back in the days when the companies were cooperating, for the S system, and then for the SL. Those days are long gone.  Too bad, as talent exists in both businesses.

Jeff

[Dr No]

13 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Leica borrowed the 4 unlabeled button control interface from Phase, back in the days when the companies were cooperating, for the S system, and then for the SL. Those days are long gone.  Too bad, as talent exists in both businesses.

Jeff

I believe it wasn't just a case of borrow. They co-designed it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fotografr]

24 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

His website destroyed my interested in keep reading his review. Too many pop-up ads, banners from eBay, Amazon, and a plethora of e-commerce garbage which is very annoying.

One might also want to take into consideration that two of the three lenses used for the review were 7-Artisans. The other was a Leica.

[oka]

...C1 support for the M10P was joke, if I remember correctly - it took a year to get proper profiles.

Even the support gave me response to use generic profile which was adequate at the best.

Thought without it I wouldn’t have learned to make own profiles with linear curves to get out all the details out from the RAW files...

Probably with custom profile in C1 with M10-R would have given the best result and fixed the color problem on the review.

Edited July 18, 2020 by oka