Is the M10M sooo much better than the rest?

[James S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In just a few months (during which most of the world has been locked down) the M10M image thread has (almost) reached the same number of posts as the M246 image thread over 5 years. As a M246 user (who really can't justify the upgrade and likes the long battery life), it has got me thinking.

The original monochrom thread is still going strong, and when I log in, it seems to have new posts more frequently than the M246 thread. So I wonder why the M246 users are lagging? Was the original monochrom so groundbreaking that it attracted a whole new base. But M246 users were mainly a smaller subset of this group upgrading from the M246 and then to the M10M? But then that doesn't explain why the M10M thread has grown so rapidly? Does the number of posts reflect a significantly higher number of users or has it just attracted a few users who love posting to that thread??? Or is the camera soo much better that every shot you take is worth sharing 😉

And of course, does it matter? Almost certainly not, but I occasionally like to theorise about these things!

Edited July 30, 2020 by James S

[Likaleica]

 

15 hours ago, James S said:

In just a few months (during which most of the world has been locked down) the M10M image thread has (almost) reached the same number of posts as the M246 image thread over 5 years. As a M246 user (who really can't justify the upgrade and likes the long battery life), it has got me thinking.

The original monochrom thread is still going strong, and when I log in, it seems to have new posts more frequently than the M246 thread. So I wonder why the M246 users are lagging? Was the original monochrom so groundbreaking that it attracted a whole new base. But M246 users were mainly a smaller subset of this group upgrading from the M246 and then to the M10M? But then that doesn't explain why the M10M thread has grown so rapidly? Does the number of posts reflect a significantly higher number of users or has it just attracted a few users who love posting to that thread??? Or is the camera soo much better that every shot you take is worth sharing 😉

And of course, does it matter? Almost certainly not, but I occasionally like to theorise about these things!

I think that part of it is that the M10M thread seems to have a small group of enthusiastic users who are prolific with their postings.  A couple of them seem to be posting multiple times a day.  

[Advertisement]

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

[Herr Barnack]

@James S

Do you like your M246?  Are you pleased with the images you can produce with it?  If the answers are yes and yes, keep your M246.  Problem solved.  🙂

The M10M is my first Monochrom camera. It is admittedly very costly;  I was fortunate as several pieces of the money puzzle fell into place at once, making it possible for me to get an M10M.  Even then, I talked myself into and out of getting it several times. 

Then I realized that if I did not get an M10M when the opportunity presented itself, six months down the road I would be kicking myself, and for a very long time.

Life is too short to live it marinating in your own regrets, so I took the plunge.  I'm very pleased that I did.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[Arrow]

Because of the beauty of b&w film, I am currently done with monochrome M cameras. I had the MM and really liked it a lot. I thought I could endlessly shoot b&w files not having to bother about additional expenses, other than the one time investment into a digital b&w M body. Then came the MM 246 and faster lenses. The lenses never matched with the rangefinder and the MM 246 spent several times in Wetzlar. In the end, I decided to sell the MM 246, since I liked the original MM much more. Unfortunately, the MM developed sensor delimitation soon after the MM 246 had gone and I traded it in. I shoot most with the SL system. B&w film really makes a difference  to complement digital. It is a real add on aesthetically.

I have not tried out the M10M. For me monochrome digital cameras are no replacement for b&w film. They also do not come cheaper in the long run. It is more the contrary. A b&w conversion from a colour digital file is not far apart from what the digital Monochroms produces. 

My thumbs up goes to b&w film, as far, as the initial question is concerned.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Arrow

[Jeff S]

17 hours ago, James S said:

...or has it just attracted a few users who love posting to that thread??? 

Probably this.  Although I’m sure it has attracted many others who don’t bother to post.

 

17 hours ago, James S said:

Or is the camera soo much better that every shot you take is worth sharing 

 

Hardly, as the thread demonstrates.  But no different than for other gear; it’s about the photographer.

Jeff

[mmradman]

The new M10M may surpass predecessors in several points on spec sheet but it doesn’t make them obsolete, on the contrary both predictors have unique features valued by its users. Mono section of LUF is full of earlier threads arguing merits of M246 vs M9M and other way round, we are still here and, I am guessing, those who own their respective cameras remain happy with them, I am.

As stated in previous reply it is about the photographer, the frequency of posting has nothing to do with merits of individual models.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suspect it has something to do with timing, and the photographers attracted to the M9 Monochrom (Henri) in the first place.  My suspicion is that those buyers got the camera because it was revolutionary, and the way it complimented the other M cameras.  For those buyers, the later manifestations were insufficiently better or different to the original to warrant changing.  My Monochrom (M9M in silver chrome) is the most expensive camera I have bought so far ...

[James S]

To answer Herr Barnack, I love my M246 though (as I'm sure may of us do), I do find it frustrating at times. And short of a large and unexpected cash injection I have no plans to replace it with the M10M. I also thought it was a 'foolish purchase' limiting oneself the way it does. But out of all of the images that have ended up on my walls - only one is in colour (albeit even that is pretty monochromatic). And then there is the cost, particularly when I have an M6 perfectly capable of monochrom and colour!

I do however find it interesting that the M10M thread has grown so much more rapidly. And maybe it is to do with the timing. Bored during lockdown, with less to photograph, but a wonderful new 'toy', perhaps the proliferation of images on the M10M thread is due to new users wanting to post some images but not feeling they're 'portfolio' images suitable for the open threads and forums 😉 

But then that begs the next question - when do you post to a camera image thread vs the other forums???

[shirubadanieru]

To me the biggest difference with the M10M VS any other digital Leica (not just MM), is that it made me stop caring about ISO...this is the first camera I leave ISO on Auto all the time because simply it doesn’t make a big impact to the file if it was shot at 200 ISO or 15,000 ISO...that to me is a whole new way of using a camera. Files wise, I still think nothing beats the M9M rendering but after using 40MP and getting used to it 18MP starts to seem too little...(it’s not though unless you wanna print large files). Also, shadow recovery is much better on the M10M vs the other MMs. Other than that, I feel there isn’t much difference.

[Likaleica]

1 hour ago, shirubadanieru said:

To me the biggest difference with the M10M VS any other digital Leica (not just MM), is that it made me stop caring about ISO...this is the first camera I leave ISO on Auto all the time because simply it doesn’t make a big impact to the file if it was shot at 200 ISO or 15,000 ISO...that to me is a whole new way of using a camera. Files wise, I still think nothing beats the M9M rendering but after using 40MP and getting used to it 18MP starts to seem too little...(it’s not though unless you wanna print large files). Also, shadow recovery is much better on the M10M vs the other MMs. Other than that, I feel there isn’t much difference.

My thoughts exactly.  I love the M9M and I can't tell any difference in prints at least up to at least A2 (haven't compared larger sizes) in images that are not very low light.  But the M10M's ISO capability allows me complete freedom with the aperture and shutter speed (which, given the published test results so far, I don't think the M10-R will do beyond 6400).  And the UI is much nicer on the M10M.  However, there is something special and magical about the M9M.  Remember when everyone was gushing about its high ISO capability?

[Stef63]

2 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

To me the biggest difference with the M10M VS any other digital Leica (not just MM), is that it made me stop caring about ISO...this is the first camera I leave ISO on Auto all the time because simply it doesn’t make a big impact to the file if it was shot at 200 ISO or 15,000 ISO...that to me is a whole new way of using a camera.

Before Jan 2020 I never used Auto ISO because the lack of control and undesirable side effects.  The M10M is the first digital camera I never have selected ISO myself.  The ISO seems to be vanished in the equation exposure speed - ISO - aperture.  What a joy to set the Auto ISO to 2x focal length, let the camera choose an appropriate speed and ISO setting and only use aperture for creativity purposes.  
 

I have had all 3 Monochrom camera’s but the M10M changed the way I take pictures the most. 

[Ken Abrahams]

Yes, the M10M is soo much better than the rest.  

[Herr Barnack]

On 8/1/2020 at 2:04 PM, James S said:

To answer Herr Barnack, I love my M246 though (as I'm sure may of us do), I do find it frustrating at times. And short of a large and unexpected cash injection I have no plans to replace it with the M10M. I also thought it was a 'foolish purchase' limiting oneself the way it does. But out of all of the images that have ended up on my walls - only one is in colour (albeit even that is pretty monochromatic). And then there is the cost, particularly when I have an M6 perfectly capable of monochrom and colour!

I do however find it interesting that the M10M thread has grown so much more rapidly. And maybe it is to do with the timing. Bored during lockdown, with less to photograph, but a wonderful new 'toy', perhaps the proliferation of images on the M10M thread is due to new users wanting to post some images but not feeling they're 'portfolio' images suitable for the open threads and forums 😉 

But then that begs the next question - when do you post to a camera image thread vs the other forums???

That, and the fact that the M10M is a truly inspiring camera to use. 

New M10m owners are also excited to see what the camera is capable of.  Having shot with color cameras for so long, I enjoy shooting a subject and looking at the camera's rear screen to see how it translates to black and white.  In my experience of just over a month of shooting with the M10M, this camera gives the image maker a new perspective, a new way of seeing.

As Garry Winogrand once said, “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.”  The M10M brings out that curiosity in me. 

[LeicaS2]

I too was noticing how fast the images were being posted with the M10M.

The M10M is my first mono camera since an M6 with Tri-X. I had previously considered the earlier models of the mono, but I was shooting so much color, a mono seemed like an indulgence. But the last few years I have been shooting and selling predominantly B&W.

The key for me was Leica introducing the M10M before the M10R.  In the past, one knew that a better M was in the offing that would eclipse the mono offering. This time one knew the next M would merely match the mono resolution. The unlimited ISO really wasn’t discussed much prior to my placing an order months before the announcement. But I agree that ISO feature is what I now will judge future cameras.

As far as posting more, I’m posting more on all forums. In a pandemic I have more time to post. 

That unlimited ISO range then allowed me to get more compact lenses where slowness was not an issue. With a more compact kit, I wear the camera more. I rarely “wear” the S.

Long answer to the question, is the M10M that much better? Yes for me, not because of resolution, but ISO. 
And why more posting? Pandemic.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, LeicaS2 said:

I too was noticing how fast the images were being posted with the M10M.

The M10M is my first mono camera since an M6 with Tri-X. I had previously considered the earlier models of the mono, but I was shooting so much color, a mono seemed like an indulgence. But the last few years I have been shooting and selling predominantly B&W.

The key for me was Leica introducing the M10M before the M10R.  In the past, one knew that a better M was in the offing that would eclipse the mono offering. This time one knew the next M would merely match the mono resolution. The unlimited ISO really wasn’t discussed much prior to my placing an order months before the announcement. But I agree that ISO feature is what I now will judge future cameras.

As far as posting more, I’m posting more on all forums. In a pandemic I have more time to post. 

That unlimited ISO range then allowed me to get more compact lenses where slowness was not an issue. With a more compact kit, I wear the camera more. I rarely “wear” the S.

Long answer to the question, is the M10M that much better? Yes for me, not because of resolution, but ISO. 
And why more posting? Pandemic.

Handling aside, and at low(ish) ISO, how would you compare the rendering (in print) from the M10 Monochrom vs b/w conversions from your S system?

Jeff

[LeicaS2]

You asked at low ISO, how would I compare the rendering in print M10M vs BW conversions with the S system. This was a thread of M10M vs earlier mono cameras, but you are asking how it is vs an S.

Short answer: Very good.

Long answer:

Jeff, I have only done a same subject comparisons on a monitor, not printing the same subject side by side because I was only trying to satisfy myself that my using the M10M was not putting myself at a disadvantage versus the S. The attached photos show a crop from a 30"x45" print, showing a 6" wide crop from the 30" wide shot which I have also included from the M10M. Both cameras were hand held at minimum iSO. Using the M10M does not put me technically at a disadvantage vs an S 007. As you said, ergonomics are different. The S is easier to shoot, but not to carry.

The 30"x45" prints I have made from the M10M have been technically fantastic. I couldn't tell one from an S print, but again, I haven't printed the exact same subject. I don't have matched lenses to make it a scientific comparison. I have a 12, 21, 50 and 90mm for the M, and a 24, 30-90, and 120mm for the S. My closest comparison has been the 120 S (effective 96mm) vs the 90M which is what I tested.  Pixel peeping it was a toss up to see the difference in my initial monitor test. But what would be proper is to look at two huge prints. You have motivated me to do a print test with something worth printing twice at my preferred printing size of 30"x45". That won't be this week, as oddly enough, I am working on a color project. With the Pandemic, give me a lot of time.

Incidentally, there is one image I have posted on the M10M forum as well as on the S forum. Both were rainbows. I just went back to convert the S color shot to B&W and noticed that the M10M was shot at 3200 and the S was at 400. The M10M won in B&W, in part because even though I could see tight noise in the huge enlargement of the M10M, it was sharper. I didn't notice it before the comparison, but I had a tiny amount of camera shake with the S visible at truly extreme enlargement. Or was the Bayer filtration softening the edges? So, unless I had used a tripod, and both were a grab shots, the M10M wins thanks to ISO advantage that allowed shooting a 1/250 with the M, or maybe no Bayer array. So again, the M10M is a game changer because of the ISO range, and yes that much better than earlier mono cameras.

Otherwise, don't trust me; what's smarter is for you to do your own test, or convince Josh at Leica Miami to do a test. 

Jack

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!

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, LeicaS2 said:

You asked at low ISO, how would I compare the rendering in print M10M vs BW conversions with the S system. This was a thread of M10M vs earlier mono cameras, but you are asking how it is vs an S.

Short answer: Very good.

Long answer:

Jeff, I have only done a same subject comparisons on a monitor, not printing the same subject side by side because I was only trying to satisfy myself that my using the M10M was not putting myself at a disadvantage versus the S. The attached photos show a crop from a 30"x45" print, showing a 6" wide crop from the 30" wide shot which I have also included from the M10M. Both cameras were hand held at minimum iSO. Using the M10M does not put me technically at a disadvantage vs an S 007. As you said, ergonomics are different. The S is easier to shoot, but not to carry.

The 30"x45" prints I have made from the M10M have been technically fantastic. I couldn't tell one from an S print, but again, I haven't printed the exact same subject. I don't have matched lenses to make it a scientific comparison. I have a 12, 21, 50 and 90mm for the M, and a 24, 30-90, and 120mm for the S. My closest comparison has been the 120 S (effective 96mm) vs the 90M which is what I tested.  Pixel peeping it was a toss up to see the difference in my initial monitor test. But what would be proper is to look at two huge prints. You have motivated me to do a print test with something worth printing twice at my preferred printing size of 30"x45". That won't be this week, as oddly enough, I am working on a color project. With the Pandemic, give me a lot of time.

Incidentally, there is one image I have posted on the M10M forum as well as on the S forum. Both were rainbows. I just went back to convert the S color shot to B&W and noticed that the M10M was shot at 3200 and the S was at 400. The M10M won in B&W, in part because even though I could see tight noise in the huge enlargement of the M10M, it was sharper. I didn't notice it before the comparison, but I had a tiny amount of camera shake with the S visible at truly extreme enlargement. Or was the Bayer filtration softening the edges? So, unless I had used a tripod, and both were a grab shots, the M10M wins thanks to ISO advantage that allowed shooting a 1/250 with the M, or maybe no Bayer array. So again, the M10M is a game changer because of the ISO range, and yes that much better than earlier mono cameras.

Otherwise, don't trust me; what's smarter is for you to do your own test, or convince Josh at Leica Miami to do a test. 

Jack

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!

 

Thanks, Jack.  I appreciate your follow up.  Please don't go out of your way to test.  As you suggest, I always do my own demo of potential new gear, shooting my own pics and making prints.  I rarely do any detailed A/B testing, though....life is too short....but I do make judgments about gear once I've accumulated enough data points from real life pics and prints, not pixel peeping.  Usually my gut tells me.  (And IQ these days is so good from so much gear, that judgments and purchase decisions are usually more on the basis of viewing/focusing, handling and ergonomics, menus/controls, lens options, etc).

With regard to the S vs the M10 Monochrom b/w output, I anticipated that you might have some gut reaction, particularly with respect to tonality and tonal transitions, perhaps resulting from the bigger S sensor.  Others often comment about the 'feel' of S pics vs those from 'full frame' high MP cameras such as the SL2, with the former being more 'organic' in some way, even if not technically superior.  The fact that you need to do more testing to draw some better conclusions already suggests to me that you don't have a  similar immediate reaction.

I'm currently happy with my M10, M Monochrom and SL2 (relatively new).  I haven't tested the M10 Monochrom and probably won't any time soon.  I knew you embraced the S  system and enjoyed big prints (mostly from reading Mike Johnston over at TOP), so I thought I'd ask you about IQ/print rendering compared to your M10M.  

Thanks again.

Jeff

[gotium]

<oh dear. I misunderstood the question>

The high iso performance of the M10M is just nutty. Never seen anything like it. 

Edited August 8, 2020 by gotium

[Gavinf]

The two crops sent by LeicaS2 are captioned as coming from a Leica S and an M10M, but they appear to be completely identical, and so can only have come from one camera. An upload error perhaps? It would be interesting to see the two different crops comparing the two cameras as intended.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I would advise to read the accompanying post and judge the tonal range.