M10-P or M10R

[Braaamer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m not yet a Leica user but saving to become one. Comparing the M10-P and the M10-R, and I’m wondering which manufacturers make the respective sensors and whether they are BSI or not. Does anyone have that information? 
 

Of course this won’t be the decision making factor, but I am just interested and curios. 
 

Thanks,

Erik

[Advertisement]

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

[Braaamer]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Steven:

I'm curious to understand why as someone considering to enter the Leica system, your first question concerns BSI sensors? 

Because I am finding answers to most other questions. Thanks for your feedback. 

[kegon]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Steven:

Look into Mandler lenses vs Karbe lenses

Karbe learned from Mandler... so I would rather say “and” and not “vs”... Sorry for the semantic handcrafting 😉

[Braaamer]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb Steven:

Great. Having been on the same path as you not too long ago, I would rather focus on lenses than sensors with Leicas, it's where all the difference will be made. 

When we look at emblematic or gorgeous Leica photos, the question we tend to ask is "which lens was that shot on?", not which sensor. 

Look into Mandler lenses vs Karbe lenses, or if you prefer, vintage lenses vs modern lenses. Lots to learn, and that's where you'll really define the look of your future Leica shots. 

Cheers, and welcome to Leica. 

Fully agree, it’s like the speakers in a hifi system. 
 

But just for those interested: The pre-R 24 MP sensor was designed by CMOSIS in Belgium and is being manufactured by STM in Switzerland. So not a Sony sensor. 
 

And now on to the important questions...  🙂

[raphael]

My observation is that high ISO photos on the M10/M10P show less noise than on the M10R.

The M10R has better dynamic range, but we all know the Leica man knows how to expose correctly.

In addition a high MP sensor without IBIS can be a disadvantage regarding sharpness / motion blur.

I’d always question myself: Do I really need the higher MP? (Exhibition, client request etc.)
Personally I’d prefer the P.

[Peter Kilmister]

The M10-P is the most amazing yet subtle (quiet and logo free) camera. 24MP is better than the best analogue film. You need more?  OK if you crop a lot. That's about it.

[nuc001]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had a play around with the M10-R in the store, and I had to push the shutter speed and ISO a lot higher than my M10-P to get sharp images. I can casually manage 1/30s hand held on the M10-P but with M10-R I found that the shutter speed had to be at least 1/125, so had to push the ISO up 2-3 stops, thus leading to grainier images in low-light situations.   

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Peter Kilmister said:

The M10-P is the most amazing yet subtle (quiet and logo free) camera. 24MP is better than the best analogue film. You need more?  OK if you crop a lot. That's about it.

Yes Peter I agree......I too flirted with the R but after using a loaner for a couple of weeks I found that I preferred the P for most of the reasons others have stated here plus the fact that for most images the files are too large for my current storage capabilities and for my older Macs to handle well so any camera upgrade costs would in my case probably involve upgrading my computers and file storage and that's something that's on balance not worth the step for me. Also as I have previously remarked on the forum I personally have yet to see any usage or images posted on the R images thread that have warranted the extra pixels and expense.

And whilst I do applaud Leica for continuing to innovate the M line of cameras I do at the same time regret the ceasing of the production of the 24 mp M's.........Maybe, hopefully, they will decide to bring out an M with the same sensor that's in the new SL2-S, I'm hearing good things about it and I believe that could be a step in the right direction that would appeal to many current M users. Leica has after all two versions now of the SL2, 24mp and 47 mp, so why not with the M as well?............In the meantime I am more than happy with the output of my current 24mp M's.

[nuc001]

I might get use to the camera over time if I bought it, as most my subjects i.e. architecture or coffee are rather stationary, but even photographing the displays in the Leica store was difficult with the 50 summicron at f2....unusable at 1/30. I pick up an M10-P 2 minutes later and get a sharp image at  f1.4 with summilux 50 at 1/30 of the same subject... so in my view the increase in sensor resolution really does have an effect in usability. Best to try what one can physically manage as well rather than judge on image quality alone.

Although I’ve only been using a Leica M for 9 months or so so my sloppy technique might contribute some part into that....not good enough for the M10-R it seems. 

[Guest Nowhereman]

6 hours ago, Steven said:

Finally some truth. No one believes me ! 

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I’m so happy the truth is finally coming to light. People have accused me of being a bad photographer for not being able to use the r. 
it’s all a matter of what you’re using it for. For architecture, landscape or nature morte, it’s better than the P. Not only because of resolution but also DR and lower base iso. 
but for street and people, the P just makes much more sense, and not because of lower resolution only. 

I've believed you all along, and found it surprising that people kept on saying that they can shoot the M10-R or M10-M handheld even at 1/30 sec or 1/60 without camera shake. The truth is, I think, that one can do that occasionally, but not consistently as something one can count on. From my experience with the M10, I find that I sometimes can shoot at 1/30 without shake; but when I'm shooting with immediacy in a dynamic scene, when I have to react in the zen of the moment, I cannot take a breath and brace myself to get a shot without a camera shake on a regular basis — and that can also be a challenge in such situations at 1/60 as well. Not something I would count on with 40 MP cameras without IBIS.

The photo below, shot at 1/90 with a 28mm lens, has camera shake that I like in this image; but I think it works because the shake is from my swiveling the camera on a vertical axis, as framed the shot — swiveling around the main subject almost in the center and, therefore, less blurred. I suspect that with a 40 MP camera, the young woman's face would have been more blurred, so that the image would not work.

M10 | Summaron-M 1:56/28 | ISO 400 | f/5.6 | 1/90 sec | Bangkok

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Guest Nowhereman]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

...I might also add that motion blur is less visible as the focal length gets wider. I shot my M10R with a 35, which is harder to "stabilise" than a 28. I also shot at 1.4 to make things worst...

Yes, in film days the rule was that the minimum shutter speed for handheld shooting without camera shake was 1/f: that would be 1/28 sec for a 28mm lens, 1/35 sec for a 35mm lens, 1/50/sec for a 50mm lens, etc. With digital, when sensors were, 12-18 MP, people felt that this minimum shutter speed should be 1/2f: 1/100 sec for a 50mm lens. Even when the 24 MP sensors came some people started saying the the minimum shutter speed should be 1/3f: 1/150 sec for a 50mm lens. Now with 40 MP pixels, some feel the minimum shutter speed should be 1/4f: 1/200 sec for a 50 mm lens. While 1/4f may be too conservative, it comes close to your experience with the M10-R. As for me, at this stage, I wouldn't want a camera with a 40 MP sensor without IBIS. I have IBIS on the Ricoh GR III, and it's great.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Braaamer]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Nowhereman:

Yes, in film days the rule was that the minimum shutter speed for handheld shooting without camera shake was 1/f: that would be 1/28 sec for a 28mm lens, 1/35 sec for a 35mm lens, 1/50/sec for a 50mm lens, etc. With digital, when sensors were, 12-18 MP, people felt that this minimum shutter speed should be 1/2f: 1/100 sec for a 50mm lens. Even when the 24 MP sensors came some people started saying the the minimum shutter speed should be 1/3f: 1/150 sec for a 50mm lens. Now with 40 MP pixels, some feel the minimum shutter speed should be 1/4f: 1/200 sec for a 50 mm lens. While 1/4f may be too conservative, it comes close to your experience with the M10-R. As for me, at this stage, I wouldn't want a camera with a 40 MP sensor without IBIS. I have IBIS on the Ricoh GR III, and it's great.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

The concept of max exposure times as a function of focal length certainly holds true from practical experience. What denominator to use can be a function of sensor resolution if the goal is pixel sharpness. Otherwise I think it is largely a function of how well one can hold the camera still. 

But there is one thing I don't get: If the goal were sharpness for the whole image when magnified to certain dimensions, or in a print out, then I would think that sensor resolution doesn't play much of a role. Only when zooming into the image to the same zoom level, i.e. pixels have the same dimensions on screen, one would see more motion blur in an image shot with a higher resolution camera, as then of course the overall magnification is higher, hence the motion blur caused by camera movements of a distance x is also magnified to a larger visual dimension. 

Does that make sense? Or where does my logic fail? Or is it just a perceived visual impression that motion blur would look more unpleasant in an image shot with a higher resolution camera? 

As I am still torn between the M10-P and the M10-R this discussion here is very useful to me. 

[Pixeleater]

14 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Yes, in film days the rule was that the minimum shutter speed for handheld shooting without camera shake was 1/f: that would be 1/28 sec for a 28mm lens, 1/35 sec for a 35mm lens, 1/50/sec for a 50mm lens, etc. With digital, when sensors were, 12-18 MP, people felt that this minimum shutter speed should be 1/2f: 1/100 sec for a 50mm lens. Even when the 24 MP sensors came some people started saying the the minimum shutter speed should be 1/3f: 1/150 sec for a 50mm lens. Now with 40 MP pixels, some feel the minimum shutter speed should be 1/4f: 1/200 sec for a 50 mm lens. While 1/4f may be too conservative, it comes close to your experience with the M10-R. As for me, at this stage, I wouldn't want a camera with a 40 MP sensor without IBIS. I have IBIS on the Ricoh GR III, and it's great.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

I have the minimum shutter speed set to 1/250 on my M10R + APO Summicron 50mm and still struggle with camera shake / motion blur. That is more about my inability to hold with a steady hand. I am thinking about selling the M10R and picking up the M10P. I have the SL2-S (M lenses only) which I enjoy but not the same experience as shooting with an M body.

[Guest Nowhereman]

7 hours ago, Braaamer said:

The concept of max exposure times as a function of focal length certainly holds true from practical experience...But there is one thing I don't get: If the goal were sharpness for the whole image when magnified to certain dimensions, or in a print out, then I would think that sensor resolution doesn't play much of a role...Does that make sense?...As I am still torn between the M10-P and the M10-R this discussion here is very useful to me. 

I look at this in simple terms of the context in which one is shooting, the type of photography that one does. Perhaps you can look at what one did with film. For street photography, where immediacy was important, I liked the 35mm aesthetic; and that was quite different from large format landscape or architectural or still life photography: it wasn't difficult to choose  between a 35mm or a 4x5 camera, whether you wanted to shoot Tri-X or the finest grained film available. The approach and effort involved was quite different for these two types of photography. Now, if you're trying to decide between the M10-P and the M10-R with the foregoing as your concern, then the decision is not difficult. The problem is that these two cameras are the same price and "the market" feels, or makes one feel, that more megapixels is "better". 

Around the year 2000, a friend a I in Bangkok were looking at the difference in shooting Tri-X with a 35mm Leica and a Mamiya 7II (6x7cm). The medium format Mamiya shot had certainly had smoother gradation and greater resolution. However, comparing prints of the same subjects, we both liked the greater "bite" of the 35mm shots; we preferred the 35m aesthetic: a matter of taste and artistic intent. This tells you where I'm coming from.

Now, @Steven mentions above that, for architecture, landscape or still life, the M10-R is better than the M10-P. "Not only because of resolution but also DR and lower base iso." I don't agree about the greater dynamic range. The DR graphs on the photonstophotos.net website show almost indexical dynamic range, which is actually quite an achievement for a 40 MP camera with smaller pixel size. But several other people have also said that they get better DR from the M10-R than from the M10. My feeling is that something else is at play here: while the dynamic range from the two cameras is about the same, the distribution of that range between the highlight and dark tones differers; so that the M10 raw files have a contrast curve that has less of that distribution in the highlights and more in the dark tones, while the M10-R has more in the highlights and less in the dark tones. That makes it seem that the highlights are easier to deal with with the M10-R (which gives the feeling of better dynamic range), while there is more shadow recovery in the M10.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook 

[Guest Nowhereman]

5 minutes ago, Steven said:

...im really happier with my P, and if I got it stolen and had to rebuy a brand new M today, I'd still chose the M10P. Or actually maybe the M10D. 

Now, that going off the deep end, mon pote — the M10-D, in mean.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Nowhereman

[Braaamer]

Thanks a lot for input. Fortunately I still have some time to decide as the cash is not quite there yet.

[Pixeleater]

 

33 minutes ago, Steven said:

It's what I did, accepting a 3K USD loss. I never looked back. I am so happy with my P. 

 

Same setup here. SL2S and M lenses + M10P is super complementary and covers every need. 

Steven, did you sell or trade?

[i-Leica]

Gerade eben schrieb Steven:

P.S. I walked out of the store that day with a little pain in my stomach, feeling guilty I hadn’t spent that cash in a channel bag (for my wife). I too three shots quickly outside the store of people walking out of the subway, checked my screen, all three shots were perfectly in focus and sharp. That hadnt happened to me in a month. The thought of the channel bag immediately went away and never returned. 

why??? you moved back to the M10 (with no "R") ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[i-Leica]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Steven:

From M10R to M10P. Yes. 

Question: just because of the resolution?

[i-Leica]

Thank you Steven  - now I see the M10-P is the right one for me (maybe the M10-D??....)