M10 Vs M10-R Youtube Video

[malfaris]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

Video not by me, in German I think but there is subtitles.

 Anyhow the photo comparison show that the M10R has more dynamic in the highlights not the shadows , but worse ISO performance at 6400 and at 12500 by a margin ( to my eye the M10 ISO 12500 looks like M10 R 6400.)

I really wished they were the same as many mention, since I will need ISO more than the dynamic range. the color looks different, seems less in the M10R.

I don't know how accurate his comparison especially showing both at the same factor? but really wished for clean ISO 6400. 

I am happy with my M9 photos only feel so limited with the ISO 1000, and that's the only reason I am upgrading

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyJqsqjKUpg

Edited July 18, 2020 by malfaris

[Advertisement]

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

[scott kirkpatrick]

It's in German.  The subtitles are pretty good, as far as I can tell.  His main point, which Jono Slack's review also spots, is that the response of the new chip has been placed further from the highlights, without losing any or much depth of recovery from the shadows;  So, better skies and highlights in general.  But a stop advantage in highlight headroom can be reclaimed as high ISO performance by underexposing by one stop.  I think we may need to learn slightly different ways of using this new chip.

[otto.f]

Very good review. Much better than Jono’s which is flying too quickly over doubtfull aspects in my view

[Guest Nowhereman]

Yes, a good, balanced and reasonable review by Patrick Ludolph. He concludes that if you have an M10 you don't have to feel that you need "to run out and  buy" the M10-R unless you really need or want the somewhat better dynamic range in the highlights. Also, he thinks that at ISO 6400 the M10 is a bit better in terms of noise than the M10-R, but warns that he was not shooting with the final firmware and that  this aspect may also improve once a profile in Lightroom is available. Overall, his conclusion strikes me as similar to that of Jono, who states in one of the responses in his thread that, for him, the highlight treatment of the M10-R is more important than the increase in resolution. While Ludolph mentions that the color rendition of the M10-R is somewhat different than that of the M10, he does not say anything about the new camera having less color depth. The www.thephoblographer.com review, mentioned in another thread, placed a lot of emphasis on the color depth deficiency, but I don't know if this is really a problem with the M10-R.
________________________ 
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited July 18, 2020 by Nowhereman

[onasj]

Reviews (such as the one in this otherwise excellent video) 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

[Chaemono]

He’s an idiot. In the third pair he shot the M10 at ISO 100 to compare highlight detail recovery in the overexposed background. LOL. I stopped watching at that point.

[malfaris]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

54 minutes ago, onasj said:

Reviews (such as the one in this otherwise excellent video) 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.

That would be so nice thanks a lot in advance😃

[malfaris]

thank you all for the clarification , but still worried with some reviews showing color shift at higher ISO hope its just firmware or software profile.

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Chaemono said:

He’s an idiot. In the third pair he shot the M10 at ISO 100 to compare highlight detail recovery in the overexposed background. LOL. I stopped watching at that point.

Well, M10's base ISO is apparently 160 and measurement show better DR at ISO 100 than at ISO 200. However, it seems that M10's ISO100 causes loss of highlights unless underexposing. He should have accounted for that.

[dfarkas]

Just a quick word of caution on drawing definitive conclusions based on image comparisons right now. In my experience, once Adobe rolls out official support for a new camera, image quality often improves by a noticeable margin. Color fidelity is the most obvious, as is the behavior of color gradation in highlight roll-off. And to a lesser degree, noise handling usually improves as well. My takeaway is that quality will only get better from here once official camera profiles roll out. 

[PatrickN]

I really enjoy watching the videos of Patrick Ludolph. Besides technical specifications, his reviews are focussed on real-world use and the feel of the camera, which I like a lot. Nevertheless, just as @onasj mentioned, a comparison of the same section of the sample pictures would be more useful, than showing the same number of pixels. I think in the upcoming weeks, we will learn a lot more about how the new sensor performs. 

[Jeff S]

42 minutes ago, dfarkas said:

Just a quick word of caution on drawing definitive conclusions based on image comparisons right now. In my experience, once Adobe rolls out official support for a new camera, image quality often improves by a noticeable margin. Color fidelity is the most obvious, as is the behavior of color gradation in highlight roll-off. And to a lesser degree, noise handling usually improves as well. My takeaway is that quality will only get better from here once official camera profiles roll out. 

Exactly.  I take everything with a grain of salt early on. The forum lit up when the M9 was introduced... supposedly bad color rendering (not to mention red edges, buffer issues, card compatibility problems, etc).  Then Adobe did its thing,  users learned shooting and processing ‘ best practices’, FW updates were issued, etc.  Now the M9 is praised by many, specifically including its color rendering. Predictable discussion progression. Followed by wish lists for the next model.  

Bless the early adopters. I prefer to let the dust settle, then trust my own tests based on my own shooting, editing and print workflow. Reviews are useful, but no substitute for personal experience and assessment.

Jeff

[malfaris]

this review gave me hope again in the camera(not to cancel my booking) first image at ISO 6400 looks clean (zooming in it show clear noise but acceptable), rest of the images looks nice too 

https://petapixel.com/2020/07/16/leica-unveils-m10-r-with-40mp-sensor-and-better-low-light-performance/

Edited July 19, 2020 by malfaris

[scott kirkpatrick]

Well, it's early, but apparently Adobe's M10R profile is already out in the CC version and has been for a while.  Sean Reid in his recent article (small subscription fee required) used it to compare the M10P, M10R, and Q2 for color rendition at each ISO.  He also, at higher ISO values shows comparisons both at 100% rendering (where 24 MPx usually wins) and with all three cameras reduced to the pixel width of the M10P (where the larger files  may win by averaging down their noise).  But you have to go to his site to see the details. 

One caveat.  Comparing smoothed results from a higher number of MPx to unveraged results from a smaller MPx sensor is a bit unfair to the smaller sensor.  So a truly fair comparison would reduce all of them to something like 2400 pixels width.  The only problem with that fair contest is that there will be no noise left to study.

BTW, is there any agreement on how one determines experimentally the "base ISO" of a sensor in a camera that you purchase?  I have my thoughts on that, but would be interested in everyone's views.  I think this is an interesting case in which to see if Leica's control over a "bespoke" sensor which they use in the S3 and M10R can give better results than the industry standard approach taken with the sensor seen in the Q2, SL2 and S1R (Panasonic), which is confidently stated by some to come from Sony.

Edited July 19, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[rivi1969]

18 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Exactly.  I take everything with a grain of salt early on. The forum lit up when the M9 was introduced... supposedly bad color rendering (not to mention red edges, buffer issues, card compatibility problems, etc).  Then Adobe did its thing,  users learned shooting and processing ‘ best practices’, FW updates were issued, etc.  Now the M9 is praised by many, specifically including its color rendering. Predictable discussion progression. Followed by wish lists for the next model.  

Bless the early adopters. I prefer to let the dust settle, then trust my own tests based on my own shooting, editing and print workflow. Reviews are useful, but no substitute for personal experience and assessment.

Jeff

Jeff, I would never downgrade my M9P to anything else. The magic is real. 

[rivi1969]

On 7/18/2020 at 5:52 AM, onasj said:

Reviews (such as the one in this otherwise excellent video) 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.

Correct. Printing images at the same size is the best way to compare. At regular sizes, tabloids, etc prints from 24 to 42mp cameras are pretty much impossible to tell. 

[malfaris]

I hear a lot say it’s hard to see difference with higher MB and resolutions but I can see clearly more details in the SL2 compared to the M10 trying both at the store the other day?

[Chaemono]

The SL2 is slightly bigger, that’s probably why. 🤣

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[XRayGuy]

5 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

BTW, is there any agreement on how one determines experimentally the "base ISO" of a sensor in a camera that you purchase?  I have my thoughts on that, but would be interested in everyone's views.  I think this is an interesting case in which to see if Leica's control over a "bespoke" sensor which they use in the S3 and M10R can give better results than the industry standard approach taken with the sensor seen in the Q2, SL2 and S1R (Panasonic), which is confidently stated by some to come from Sony.

I thought the consensus was that the SL2/Q2/S1R sensor was made by TowerJazz.  There are a lot of atypical features for a modern Sony sensor.  The ISO performance does not match and the lack of phase pixels seem to point away from Sony (Nikon and Fuji sensors purchased from Sony all have these benefits).  It also makes it more understandable how this new 40MP sensor can be superior to the SL2 sensor, at least in some ways.