Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
onasj

M10-R vs M10-M high-ISO acuity and noise side-by-side comparison

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

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.

Edited by onasj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 1:39 PM, onasj said:

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.

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.

This is the most thorough comparisons I've seen.  I like how you can compare the two cameras at each ISO AND compare the results of each individual camera to how it performs at different ISOs.  Thank you.

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 8:39 PM, onasj said:

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.

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.

Waiting for the S3 Mono 😉.... 

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Leica001
      Leica M10 Monochrom. Fully boxed with all documentation and in as new condition.
      £5750

    • By sillbeers15
      Two shots taken same day within a couple of minutes apart.
      One shot was taken with the SL2 single shot with SL16-35 and another with M10R with WATE. 
      Both shots taken at ISO100 / M mode / F9 / 1/20 sec on tripod.
      Can you tell which shot is taken with SL2 + SL16-35mm lens?

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!untitled-1001471 by sillbeers15
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!untitled-1020091 by sillbeers15
    • By jonoslack
      Hi There
      Several people have asked me about this, and so it seemed to be worth doing it! 
      All the files were originally shot on DNG - the sharpening and noise reduction sliders in Lightroom were all zeroed. The SL2 files were opened in Photoshop and the Image size reduced without any noise reduction help. They were then exported as 100% jpg quality 12 jpg files. I've then done an XY comparison zoomed in to approximately 100% and taken a screen shot. I'll put this on to the Review thread as well, but I thought it was worth putting it up as a separate thread.
      As you would expect - downsizing the SL2 images does help with the noise - but even so, at higher ISO there is still at least a stop difference. In each case the SL2-S is on the left. To me this is a little like angels dancing on the heads of pins, and it's also open to methodology questions - and anyway, why would you not use noise reduction?) 
      First of all, the Scene:

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
      100 ISO: 

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 400 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 1600 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 6,400 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 12,500 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 25,000 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 50,000 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finally 100,000 on the SL2-S and 50,000 on the SL2

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
       
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...