Can images from the M10-R keep up with the SL2?

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While it should be fairly obvious that the M and SL lines are completely different systems and that any comparison from a function POV is rather silly, there is the not so small matter of how just how well they stack up against each other in terms of final image quality.  Personally, if I shoot a scene that I care really about, I want to come away with the best possible outcome. When I got the SL2, while I continued to shoot with the M, its outings became far more infrequent, for not too deep in the back of my head the thought was, 'if I just so happen to  I run across the shot of a lifetime, do I really want it to be a 24MPx shot or a 47MPx one?  Yes, yes, I know... a few ticks on the resolution scale has virtually zero to do with the outcome. But, we humans get emotionally attached to a lot of stupid ideas that even when they have no real basis in determining the value of the outcome, they nevertheless influence our behavior for good or bad. And besides, it's not just about the sensor, there are optics involved as well.

With the arrival of the 10R, the M no longer brings a 24MPx knife to a 47MPx gunfight. So this morning, I decided the time was right to do a set of real world comparison shots as a part of this mornings constitution around town.  I wanted to know if the 10R was now the SL2's equal or if it was in someway outclassed.  For the comparison, the SL2, king of the Leica FF hill, would wear Karbe's pride and joy, the SL-35mm. For the M, sadly and despite promises by a fellow forum member to exchange his 35mm FLE for signed prints of couple of my masterpieces, I've yet to receive to it. I'm being to suspect he might have reneged. No matter, I possess a lens whose reputation is nearly as ruthless as the SL 'cron, the 35mm Zeiss Distagon. And interestingly, when one tallies the cost, the two lens/camera combos come in at roughly the same dollars. So nearly a fair fight.

I'm quite blessed to dwell in a hamlet whose downtown streets are lined with historic homes, many of which take pride in having myriad flowers peeking though traditional picket fences. With summer in full swing, I decided to shoot some of these scenes with both cameras just to see well they fared against one and another, the only purpose being to assuage any unfounded, but nevertheless nagging fear that the M might still lag behind the SL form an IQ PoV. I tried as best I could to shoot from the same angle and location, but every thing was shot handheld in a rather informal manner. I wasn't trying to do anything particularly precise, just real world out and about shooting. It also should be mentioned that this morning was a particularly brutal one with high temps and even higher humidity. That took a bit of a toll on both the steadiness of hand and mind by the end, so a few of the M shots might have missed focus by a tick. 

A couple of notes before the comparison samples. The Zeiss FoV is noticeably wider than the 'cron, so the SL2 has not only the advantage of more MPx but slightly higher magnification as well. Most of the shots are fairly heavy cropped. I did the best I could to match things up from both a perspective as well as processing PoV for most of the shots. The processing was done quite quickly, nothing fancy, but the goal in post was more to see if the two could be made to resemble each other as opposed to amplifying any SooC differences. The AWB of the M is visibly cooler than the other, which largely I equalized in post.  Finally, given Mr. Karbe's recent interview where he was touting shooting wide open, everything was shot at f2 with both lenses.  I did make a few with the Zeiss at f1.4 just to test his assertion that the 2.0 rendering in such a way as to make it a full stop faster in terms of Bokeh, but thats something for another day. In each of the pairs, SL2 first, M10-R second.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Anyway, for those losing sleep over whether or not the M10-R can keep up with SL2, IMO you can rest easy. For everyone else, hopefully the notion to compare the two was at least amusing. 

 

[SrMi]

Assuming that you have an M-to-L adapter, it would be useful to compare both cameras with the same lens (35mm Zeiss Distagon). On the other hand, comparing systems (M vs. L) makes sense as well.

[Tailwagger]

 

33 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Assuming that you have an M-to-L adapter, it would be useful to compare both cameras with the same lens (35mm Zeiss Distagon). On the other hand, comparing systems (M vs. L) makes sense as well.

I do, but I already compared this lens to the Lumix 16-45mm and SL-35mm on the SL2 in another thread a while back. (sample corners) On axis it is fine, so if you shoot wide open with your subject on axis expecting Bokeh, you'd never see a problem. If you shoot landscape, however, its corner performance is very poor. My now departed M10 kicked the SLs butt with that lens attached. No need to repeat the drubbing. With M lenses on the SL, I'm fully convinced by both personal observation and the physics involved that retrofocal designs which spread light to the sensor at an angle will never perform very well in the corners due to refraction. The M's micro lensing, discussed a bit in the recent interviews on the M10-R, seems to be crucial for overcoming this problem.   

[EDIT] I probably should add that this was really the only focal length that I had something comparable.  I could for example compare the 50 lux BC agains the Sigma 45mm or the 75 'lux against the SL-75 or even via the adapter but neither test feels very satisfying.   

Edited July 28, 2020 by Tailwagger

[bags27]

My blepharitis-challenged eyes tell me that the 10R outperforms the SL2 in the top two comparisons and that the SL2 outperforms the 10R in the bottom two. FWIW, which is absolutely nothing.

[jdlaing]

Why would they have to keep up?

[Jeff S]

You mentioned steadiness of hand and mis-focus with a few M attempts.  This could point to the potential benefits of IBIS and/or focus aids (directly off sensor) for the SL2, which could have real practical differences in resulting pics in some circumstances.  Of course the M has its own set of special benefits.  
 

For me, when deciding whether to use my M10 or SL2, pixels rarely enter the equation; it’s about a lot of other stuff, not the least of which are lens choices, subject matter and shooting conditions. Which is why the M10R is not screaming for my attention. That is unless the R can more effectively accomplish what no digital camera has yet achieved for me, which is more gentle handling of highlights and tonal transitions (e.g, clouds) that some silver prints could yield. 
 

Jeff

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

You mentioned steadiness of hand and mis-focus with a few M attempts.  This could point to the potential benefits of IBIS and/or focus aids (directly off sensor) for the SL2, which could have real practical differences in resulting pics in some circumstances.  Of course the M has its own set of special benefits.  

Without a doubt.  That said, all of these M shots used were attempted to be confirmed via EVF.  The difficulty I encountered is that AFAICT the M focus zoom is fixed at what appears to be 10x which makes it, depending on how how close the subject is and how much twisting around you wind up doing to frame it, more difficult to hold steady and therefore focus precisely. My faltering, however, was more attributable to the early onset of heat exhaustion than the camera. After 150 frames taken in around 3.5 miles at my typical 3.25 MPH pace, but today in the mid 80s at near 100% humidity, I was pretty spent. Toward the end of my efforts, when I was quite tired, some misses. I will mention that I far prefer the option on the SL of 5x zoom and would hope for a firmware update along with a fix for the maddening e-level which vaporizes exactly when I want it, on a half press.

For those that do take advantage of the EVF on the M, I'll offer that the 020 seems magically transformed by the new sensor. It is far and away better, cleaner, less noisy than it is when atop the M10.  The M10 EVF holds one other advantage over the SL2 in this shooting situation.  When the target is a below waist level, as was often the case today, the 020 can be used as a waist level finder.  Not an insignificant amount of my overall weariness was due to having to contort in ways with the far heavier SL, to match framing that was more easily accomplished with the M10-R.

[Guest]

Whats an SL2?

Is it better than my x700?

[scott kirkpatrick]

This seems like an interesting exercise, although it would stand the test of time better with that 35FLE that you hoped to get for a few prints...  Maybe make it a loan for one print, and it will work out.  According to the Karbe talk, there is no competition between the two lenses, designed more than ten years apart,  and I tend to agree (I have both)..  Were these shot from a tripod, or hand-held?

I don't have an -R yet to check, but the M10s have several magnifications available, using the inscrutable buttons.  The 2X greater magnification seen on the -R might be because there are 2X as many pixels to deal with and the firmware might not have adjusted for that.  Could you post a more detailed critique of using 020 magnification to check focus on, as input to the next few firmware upgrades.? We haven't even reached 1.0 yet, so there should be some.

Edited July 29, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[Tailwagger]

Whenever I 'test', I try to account for a few variables, but largely I just go out and shoot as I normally would, save that I'm a bit less demanding about the subject matter. So no, there wasn't a tripod in sight. My sole purpose was just to get an idea on a morning walkabout as to whether or not, if I hiked up Monadnock on a fall afternoon I might I feel cheated if I opted to cut the weight in half and the pixels by 10%. With a modern optic such as the Zeiss, the generic answer IMO seems to be no.  I typically keep such conclusions to myself to avoid argument and ridicule, but as an early adopter also armed with an SL2, I felt obligated to be more open in this case.

Only thing in the menus is:

Capture Assistant -> Focus Aid ->  [Automatic | Manual]. 

That's it. I set up my M10 years ago and then completely forgot about it, to be honest. And as the 10 now resides with said FLE, can't check. Borrow?!? That bum has already profited enough off me... he'll get nothing more... except maybe the power cable I owe him... someday... when I remember to send it... and forget he promised a FLE.  😉 Regardless, the Zeiss is extremely competent.

No time to read the manual this morning to see if theres some secret handshake somewhere to set the magnification. And yes, initially that was my thought exactly... they just reused the M10 zoom algorithm without any alterations and now the magnification is too fine. If the white rectangle in the photo below is a reasonably accurate representation of the zoomed area, the actual value looks closer to 20 or 25x. But in thinking about, my guess is that zoom right now might mean pixel for pixel straight off the sensor, so around 17x (41MPx / 2.4Mpx).  Regardless, the image in the EVF is crystal. The noise levels I experienced when zoomed with the M10 just aren't there any more. Overall, it's still not an SL2, but IMO its now likely better than the X1DII.  The only disappointment is that the non-adjustable high level of magnification is problematic, particularly for close subjects like flowers, as the slightest shake is amplified when hand held. Beyond the jumpiness, just finding the target when off-center is a chore as well. On a tripod, for macro use, the implementation would likely be praised. But hand held, at a meter or two, it's somewhat like trying to manually focus a heavy 400mm; without perfect technique, the image just jumps around, you grow weary and just say F-it... good enough... which sometimes it is and others it isn't.  In sum and by my recollection, the accuracy, noise levels, clarity is definitely a big improvement over the 2017 version, but the usability needs some serious tweaking.

Anyway, this was a PITA attempt to capture before morning coffee... all tries with the SL were futile. A bit of a dance only manageable using an iPhone as the zoom view is only up for a few seconds. Noisy due to iPhone and low light. Camera screen is actually far cleaner in person.  The lower corner of the door was a bit less than 3 meters away (with the Zeiss still attached, hence the nose droop). But it gives you an idea of the severity of the magnification, albeit a noisy and OOF one. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[scott kirkpatrick]

It is always possible to RTFM, even though I don't have the camera yet.  And it says that you can adjust the magnification in live view by either using the touch vocabulary or by cranking the backwheel. I have my M10-D set on manual for focus assist.  The touch input is obviously not going to do anything, but the back wheel adjusts the magnification in steps of 1X, 2X, and 5X. So first see if you have two or three or whatever number of magnification steps, and then let us know what the magnification ratio (linear multiple of the width) seems to be.  Does manual focus assist trigger with the unmarked front button?

[anickpick]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb scott kirkpatrick:

This seems like an interesting exercise, although it would stand the test of time better with that 35FLE that you hoped to get for a few prints...  Maybe make it a loan for one print, and it will work out.  According to the Karbe talk, there is no competition between the two lenses, designed more than ten years apart,  and I tend to agree (I have both)..  Were these shot from a tripod, or hand-held?

I don't have an -R yet to check, but the M10s have several magnifications available, using the inscrutable buttons.  The 2X greater magnification seen on the -R might be because there are 2X as many pixels to deal with and the firmware might not have adjusted for that.  Could you post a more detailed critique of using 020 magnification to check focus on, as input to the next few firmware upgrades.? We haven't even reached 1.0 yet, so there should be some.

 

Actually, the Zeiss 35/1.4 outperforms the 35FLE easily. The Leica lens exhibits field curvature, looses micro contrast in the outer third of the frame, and has a busier out of focus rendering between f2.0 and f5.6. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by anickpick

[Mikep996]

"But, we humans get emotionally attached to a lot of stupid ideas that even when they have no real basis in determining the value of the outcome,"

Absolutely agree!

[anickpick]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Jeff S:

You mentioned steadiness of hand and mis-focus with a few M attempts.  This could point to the potential benefits of IBIS and/or focus aids (directly off sensor) for the SL2, which could have real practical differences in resulting pics in some circumstances.  Of course the M has its own set of special benefits.  
 

For me, when deciding whether to use my M10 or SL2, pixels rarely enter the equation; it’s about a lot of other stuff, not the least of which are lens choices, subject matter and shooting conditions. Which is why the M10R is not screaming for my attention. That is unless the R can more effectively accomplish what no digital camera has yet achieved for me, which is more gentle handling of highlights and tonal transitions (e.g, clouds) that some silver prints could yield. 
 

Jeff

 

A more gentle handling of highlights is exactly what the M10-R does...

Compared to the M10 the difference is huge. Really.

Compared to the SL2 my initial impressions are that there is a (smaller) difference too,  in favor or the M10-R, but I will have to shoot more in critical situations.

Compared to the SL2, the M10-R sensor is much better in lifting shadows (not that this really matters in most situations).

Conclusion: The M10-R sensor certainly has more dynamic range than the sensor in the SL2.

[Jeff S]

40 minutes ago, anickpick said:

 

A more gentle handling of highlights is exactly what the M10-R does...

Compared to the M10 the difference is huge. Really.

Compared to the SL2 my initial impressions are that there is a (smaller) difference too,  in favor or the M10-R, but I will have to shoot more in critical situations.

Compared to the SL2, the M10-R sensor is much better in lifting shadows (not that this really matters in most situations).

Conclusion: The M10-R sensor certainly has more dynamic range than the sensor in the SL2.

I’ll certainly do my own testing (demo/rental), and printing, at some point.  While I understand that there’s more reported highlight exposure latitude with the R, and less worry about blowing highlights, I remain skeptical about subtle highlight tonal rendering in the way that I’ve experienced with film vs digital results. Ability to recover shadows is already remarkable beyond my darkroom dreams, with all my modern digital cameras, including the M10 and SL2. (Frankly, I think letting darks go dark is often more effective for my tastes.) Time will tell for me.

Jeff

Edited July 29, 2020 by Jeff S

[Tailwagger]

26 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

It is always possible to RTFM, even though I don't have the camera yet.  And it says that you can adjust the magnification in live view by either using the touch vocabulary or by cranking the backwheel. I have my M10-D set on manual for focus assist.  The touch input is obviously not going to do anything, but the back wheel adjusts the magnification in steps of 1X, 2X, and 5X. So first see if you have two or three or whatever number of magnification steps, and then let us know what the magnification ratio (linear multiple of the width) seems to be.  Does manual focus assist trigger with the unmarked front button?

Actually, this morning, I did try setting to manual and cranking the back wheel... didn't work. Nada, zippo zilch. So given the above... hmm... says I, WTF? So I  did an explore of the menus checking to see if theres an LV setting for the wheel. There is. So it takes two setting to get the zoom feature not one.  If you're willing to give up exposure comp then you can have  two levels of zoom, but not if you want, as I have since my 240, for the wheel to be dedicated to be EV comp. 

But then I got a bright idea to try out... Heres what you do. 

1. Go to Capture Assist set to manual.
2. Go to Customize controls -> Customize wheel and select LV Zoom.
3. Perform a focus operation and scroll the wheel to your preferred default zoom setting, in my case the middle position. 
4. Now exit the focusing operation, being sure to have left in the mode you desire.
5. Return to the menu system. 
6. Set Capture assist back to auto, set Customize wheel back to EV comp and...

Viola, I'm now zooming at the lower value which is generically far more useful for me and I've kept my EV comp intact. Only downside  is that I cant easily go to full zoom.

On last interesting thing is that the front button, which I only just remembered, will invoke zoom manually. However, testing it now, it does not cycle through the values, just on/off.  The fix, IMO, is for that button to cycle through values instead of acting like a toggle.

[Tailwagger]

45 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I’ll certainly do my own testing (demo/rental), and printing, at some point.  While I understand that there’s more reported highlight exposure latitude with the R, and less worry about blowing highlights, I remain skeptical about subtle tonal rendering in the way that I’ve experienced with film vs digital results. Ability to recover shadows is already remarkable beyond my darkroom dreams, with all my modern digital cameras, including the M10 and SL2. (Frankly, I think letting darks go dark is often more effective for my tastes.) Time will tell for me.

Jeff

I'd confirm that my impression is that the highs are far more easily recoverable. An occasional upward tilt and half press is likely still a good idea, but for a normal modest contrast scene with sky, it's no longer a requirement to avoid white splotches.

I posted this resulting shot elsewhere so apologies for repeating myself, but this time its along side the original so you can see just how much more latitude there is. I could have easily pulled far more from the ceiling shadows if I had cared to, but I wanted the highlights of the bulbs and the slight impression of structure as opposed to anything more well defined. I don't think this shot would have been so easily obtained with the M10. As it was, I cranked the exposure down 1.3 stops... old habits die hard I suppose... its an interesting question as to how well things would have gone if I just let the camera do it thing with no comp.  Regardless, I consider this sort of high contrast scene a bit of torture test which IMO he 10-R passed. SEM 21.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Tailwagger

[Jeff S]

Thanks. I’ll be interested to see how all this translates to my own black and white workflow, and particularly how the highlights render and ‘feel’ in print. 
 

Jeff

[scott kirkpatrick]

52 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

.  If you're willing to give up exposure comp then you can have  two levels of zoom, but not if you want, as I have since my 240, for the wheel to be dedicated to be EV comp. 

I forgot that M10's of the other persuasions lack the very nice exposure comp dial that my -D has in the center of the back side.  In my M10, I also used the thumb wheel for exposure compensation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

17 hours ago, bags27 said:

My blepharitis-challenged eyes tell me that the 10R outperforms the SL2 in the top two comparisons and that the SL2 outperforms the 10R in the bottom two. FWIW, which is absolutely nothing.

I wont argue one way or another, but to my eye there's so little between the two, which is what I was hoping to be true, that one need not worry about that aspect when deciding which camera should come along.  If your are fortunate enough to own both, operational differences, the need for lens selection, AF or IBIS vs the desire for RF or lighter weight are more the sort of determinants to consider,  not IQ ones.

23 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Thanks. I’ll be interested to see how all this translates to my own black and white workflow, and particularly how the highlights render and ‘feel’ in print. 

I look forward to hearing your opinion. As yet, I've neither run across an appropriate scene nor read a competent review of the new SCs so while I hope and expect that its navigable, arriving at a fully satisfying B&W result remains elusive.