M10-P or M10R

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

I replaced the M10 because I was then using Sony A9 almost exclusively, and thought I didn't want to watch both cameras depreciate while not using one of them. I always intended to get back an M body, but hoped that after a little time passed, I would either get a better deal on an M10P or the "next" body. I still could continue to wait for the M, but I really miss the viewfinder experience, the simplicity, and the native use of my 35mm Lux. Oh, but GAS is always in the rear view mirror too.

I don’t see anything here that explains adding the SL2-S, especially given almost exclusive use of the A9.  Or any discussion about pictures and needs. Makes no difference to me, but just trying to help you think though your own question. Depreciation never enters into my camera decisions, so it’s hard for me to shed light.

Jeff

[augustwest100]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I don’t see anything here that explains adding the SL2-S, especially given almost exclusive use of the A9.  Or any discussion about pictures and needs. Makes no difference to me, but just trying to help you think though your own question. Depreciation never enters into my camera decisions, so it’s hard for me to shed light.

Jeff

I appreciate your questions! I switched from A9 to SL2-S because I didn’t need the super high speed focusing, or all the menu and submenu items. But sometimes I do like autofocus, and zoom or telephoto lenses. I also did not like how the A9 handled my Leica M glass, and had liked the performance more on the SL2-S when I tried it out. I thought I would be able to use it with my M glass the way I used my M cameras. To some extent that is true. The M glass works pretty well and the focus experience is both better and worse. Better in that I can see the focus points more easily with a zoom live view and focus peaking but worse when I don’t utilize punch zoom and focus methods. Additionally, I felt limited on the M camera when using for macro or other close focus distances, as well as at longer distances. So I guess I am saying that I did solve my macro and tele urges with the SL2-S, and it works for my slower style better than the A9 did, and the Leica aesthetic is like the bonus cherry on top of that, but the thing I am missing since not having an M camera for the first time in almost 10 years is the simplicity of the viewfinder experience, the way zone focusing is sometimes a more enjoyable experience than autofocus, the way you can imagine what something will look like, then shoot, then see how well you had pre-visualized. I think almost any camera since my M9 would satisfy those missing pieces. Each version of M camera has been refined more and more. I probably should have kept my M10, but since I didn’t, here I am! 

I just returned from Costa Rica, and I do not regret having my SL2-S for that adventure. If I were in a city wandering around trying to find a connection of a different type, I would prefer an M camera. I think I can make the SL2-S work even in those situations, but I would love to have a native M to put the Lux on. Probably not a necessity, but rather a “wish” or a “would like.”  Considered the M10D for a while, mainly to use as a counterpoint to the EVF/LCD experience.

[Jeff S]

23 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

I appreciate your questions! I switched from A9 to SL2-S because I didn’t need the super high speed focusing, or all the menu and submenu items. But sometimes I do like autofocus, and zoom or telephoto lenses. I also did not like how the A9 handled my Leica M glass, and had liked the performance more on the SL2-S when I tried it out. I thought I would be able to use it with my M glass the way I used my M cameras. To some extent that is true. The M glass works pretty well and the focus experience is both better and worse. Better in that I can see the focus points more easily with a zoom live view and focus peaking but worse when I don’t utilize punch zoom and focus methods. Additionally, I felt limited on the M camera when using for macro or other close focus distances, as well as at longer distances. So I guess I am saying that I did solve my macro and tele urges with the SL2-S, and it works for my slower style better than the A9 did, and the Leica aesthetic is like the bonus cherry on top of that, but the thing I am missing since not having an M camera for the first time in almost 10 years is the simplicity of the viewfinder experience, the way zone focusing is sometimes a more enjoyable experience than autofocus, the way you can imagine what something will look like, then shoot, then see how well you had pre-visualized. I think almost any camera since my M9 would satisfy those missing pieces. Each version of M camera has been refined more and more. I probably should have kept my M10, but since I didn’t, here I am! 

I just returned from Costa Rica, and I do not regret having my SL2-S for that adventure. If I were in a city wandering around trying to find a connection of a different type, I would prefer an M camera. I think I can make the SL2-S work even in those situations, but I would love to have a native M to put the Lux on. Probably not a necessity, but rather a “wish” or a “would like.”  Considered the M10D for a while, mainly to use as a counterpoint to the EVF/LCD experience.

Maybe you could pick up a clean used M10; still a fine camera, and a nice complement to the SL2-S.  For example...

https://leicastoremiami.com/collections/used-m-cameras

Jeff

[hdmesa]

On 4/28/2021 at 4:17 PM, augustwest100 said:

I have been happily exploring the SL2-S, but cannot get M off my brain since I traded in my M10 (previously owned M240, M9). Also wondering if I should try for a used M10P or an M10R. I have one single M lens now but it's a good one - 35mm Lux FLE.

I almost feel like if I get the M10R, my system would be sort of "backwards" in that I would have the resolution on the camera that I would use mostly for street photography, and the "lower" resolution on the more flexible SL2-S that I currently use. Does this make sense to anyone? Would I have been better off with the SL2 and then an M10P for street photography where I don't necessarily need so many megapixels? I'm not going to switch now, but just wondering.

Even though I love the SL2-S so far, I still miss looking through a glass viewfinder at the actual world. Wondering what would be the best compliment to the SL2-S at this point. Oh, Leica, with you, one thing is never enough! 🙂

 

Don't worry about resolution differences, be more concerned with file malleability. The M10P would be a step backward from the SL2-S BSI sensor, IMO.

I would just wait for the M11 since it will likely use the same battery as your SL2-S. In the meantime, you could pick up a nice condition M9 to get you by.

Or just do what was already suggested and go for the M10M. That gives you the M experience plus something unique you don't have now with the SL2-S.

[augustwest100]

4 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Don't worry about resolution differences, be more concerned with file malleability. The M10P would be a step backward from the SL2-S BSI sensor, IMO.

I would just wait for the M11 since it will likely use the same battery as your SL2-S. In the meantime, you could pick up a nice condition M9 to get you by.

Or just do what was already suggested and go for the M10M. That gives you the M experience plus something unique you don't have now with the SL2-S.

Thanks. It is true - the SL2-S seems to output flexible files. I like the M9 while waiting idea, but afraid to get one with a bad sensor. Waiting or monochrom do sound like good options. Or use the SL2-S with an optical viewfinder in the hot shoe (joking of course!!!)

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

I like the M9 while waiting idea, but afraid to get one with a bad sensor. 

A good dealer (like Miami linked above) will not sell any M9 camera (including the M Monochrom listed) without a Leica service and new sensor replacement, and often a Leica warranty in addition to the dealer warranty and service policy.

Jeff

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/18/2021 at 12:22 PM, Ktsa5239 said:

I got lured into getting the M10R because of the night shots Steven posted when he first got it. After about 4 months of use, I too find that I need to concentrate more to avoid blur at lower shutter speeds. I too can get down to 1/60 using my favourite APO50 lens relatively well but below that I start to get blurs at pixel level. However, it still looks ok without pixel peeping or printed to A4 sizes. While I do miss the smaller file size, I really like the new sensor. So I guess I'll just need to go slower and be more mindful when shooting 

 

On 3/18/2021 at 12:28 PM, Steven said:

@Jeff SJust stopped by the Leica store to try an M10R for two days. I spoke with Laurent and Jean Marc (everyoneI who's in Paris must know them, they are pillars of the Leica chain in france). I explained the different results with the M10M and M10R. 

He said it should not bother wasting time. He clearly and confidently affirmed " the M and the R are not the same camera". The lack of bayer and less processing demands of the M10M makes a world of difference. He says, for all the reasons we mentionned here already, that it's much easier to get sharp shots with the M than the R. 

During a long conversation, he went on to say that anyone who is saying that there is no difference with motion blur between the P and the R lied to himself. He told me, again, with extreme confidence, that one MUST raise the shutter speed if one wants to use the R and get the same result as the P. As a matter of fact, he even said that he recommended to all his clients to NOT buy the R (and especially NOT upgrade to R) as he thought the P was a better camera for 2021. 

We finished the conversation talking about the future M11. They believe that as always (since the M8) it will be announced at the end of the year for a 2022 release. After a small chat with the guys in Germany earlier this year, the believe there will be NO EVF, and NO IBIS in the camera, the technology to add such features without touching the size not being readily available. 

He added that he speculates the camera will have a minimum of 40MP (only one version, no lower res model) and that the upgrades will focus on faster processors (maybe he mentionned something about I5 to I7, or I misheard, not sure) and that the faster processors will yield to better results with higher MP sensors, as well as better low light performance. 

I forgot to ask him about the most important feature for me: a faster shutter speed than 1/4000th so I can stop using ND filters. 

To be continued...... 

I just tried an M10-R and an M10-P this week and can only confirm the problem of movement blur. There is a mix or a mulltiplier effect of two things I believe:

1. Every step up in amount of pixels on the same sensor size, from M8 to M10-R has led to less pop and perceived edge sharpness. Due to higher DR > less contrasty > more need to bind up the histogram and/or sliding the sharpness button up. So without any PP the M10-R images will show a smoother kind of sharpness than any M before. Is that where we needed the APO 50 for? I see so many contradictions in Leica’s journey with the M since 6 years or so. 
2. I made several photo’s with the Summicron 28 asph ii on the M10-R and had movement blur at even 1/1000 😳. I do not intend to brag about my steady hand or discuss this variable here further but I had sharp photo’s with the M10-P with the APO-Telyt 280/4.0 without the Evf and focusing with LV from the screen @ 1/250 handheld. I agree with Steven that if the rat race on ISO and pixels is not paralelled by a shutter time race, we have again a contradiction with the released Nocti’s. Btw, the M8 had 1/8000, with a highest reasonably usable ISO of 640.

If you need to concentrate more to attain sharp photo’s and you need more time for postprocessing, what has the M10-R still got to do then with it’s roots, the M camera as a reporter, street and photojournalism camera? Not to mention the three batteries you need for it, which is a real laugh for an 8000€ camera. And what is Leica heading at if the story of Laurent and JeanMarc about the plans for an M11 is true? Is there any coherent philosophy left or is creating GAS their only goal left? I can’t follow. 

[Oswalt]

Impossible it’s “movement blur” at 1/1000th. That’s a RF, lens, or user focusing error instead. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Oswalt

[otto.f]

8 hours ago, Oswalt said:

Impossible it’s “movement blur” at 1/1000th. That’s a RF, lens, or user focusing error instead. 

Could be, strange then how you can see double lines with focus error with such a tacksharp lens.
And the other points of the strange idea to put 40Mp on a small sensor and on an M remain. If you want to stick with the M idea of a manual operated camera, and keep on repeating this every time when people ask for EVF or IBIS on the M11 for instance, which I find completely legit and logical, why do you produce a camera then that needs three batteries a day? A solar cell on the top would be a better idea than what I hear now, but this will probably be impossible too I guess. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by otto.f

[Photoworks]

10 hours ago, otto.f said:

 

I just tried an M10-R and an M10-P this week and can only confirm the problem of movement blur. There is a mix or a mulltiplier effect of two things I believe:

1. Every step up in amount of pixels on the same sensor size, from M8 to M10-R has led to less pop and perceived edge sharpness. Due to higher DR > less contrasty > more need to bind up the histogram and/or sliding the sharpness button up. So without any PP the M10-R images will show a smoother kind of sharpness than any M before. Is that where we needed the APO 50 for? I see so many contradictions in Leica’s journey with the M since 6 years or so. 
2. I made several photo’s with the Summicron 28 asph ii on the M10-R and had movement blur at even 1/1000 😳. I do not intend to brag about my steady hand or discuss this variable here further but I had sharp photo’s with the M10-P with the APO-Telyt 280/4.0 without the Evf and focusing with LV from the screen @ 1/250 handheld. I agree with Steven that if the rat race on ISO and pixels is not paralelled by a shutter time race, we have again a contradiction with the released Nocti’s. Btw, the M8 had 1/8000, with a highest reasonably usable ISO of 640.

If you need to concentrate more to attain sharp photo’s and you need more time for postprocessing, what has the M10-R still got to do then with it’s roots, the M camera as a reporter, street and photojournalism camera? Not to mention the three batteries you need for it, which is a real laugh for an 8000€ camera. And what is Leica heading at if the story of Laurent and JeanMarc about the plans for an M11 is true? Is there any coherent philosophy left or is creating GAS their only goal left? I can’t follow. 

I take the sensor quality of the M10-R any day over the M10-P.  Motion blur is not a problem for me, I have bumped shutter speed to 1/250 and everything is without motion blur. I still use 1/60 in low light and I have not seen problem. I have switched from M10-P month ago and I am happy to take the M camera again. The blowing highlights problem on M10-P was holding me back. 

I like the natural grain structure of the new sensor much more, and the colors seam spot on and much more natural.

 

[otto.f]

Yes I see that color thing. I must say I can hardly choose between the two. 

[Gobert]

13 hours ago, otto.f said:

 

I just tried an M10-R and an M10-P this week and can only confirm the problem of movement blur. There is a mix or a mulltiplier effect of two things I believe:

1. Every step up in amount of pixels on the same sensor size, from M8 to M10-R has led to less pop and perceived edge sharpness. Due to higher DR > less contrasty > more need to bind up the histogram and/or sliding the sharpness button up. So without any PP the M10-R images will show a smoother kind of sharpness than any M before. Is that where we needed the APO 50 for? I see so many contradictions in Leica’s journey with the M since 6 years or so. 
2. I made several photo’s with the Summicron 28 asph ii on the M10-R and had movement blur at even 1/1000 😳. I do not intend to brag about my steady hand or discuss this variable here further but I had sharp photo’s with the M10-P with the APO-Telyt 280/4.0 without the Evf and focusing with LV from the screen @ 1/250 handheld. I agree with Steven that if the rat race on ISO and pixels is not paralelled by a shutter time race, we have again a contradiction with the released Nocti’s. Btw, the M8 had 1/8000, with a highest reasonably usable ISO of 640.

If you need to concentrate more to attain sharp photo’s and you need more time for postprocessing, what has the M10-R still got to do then with it’s roots, the M camera as a reporter, street and photojournalism camera? Not to mention the three batteries you need for it, which is a real laugh for an 8000€ camera. And what is Leica heading at if the story of Laurent and JeanMarc about the plans for an M11 is true? Is there any coherent philosophy left or is creating GAS their only goal left? I can’t follow. 

What’s new? I remember from my Nikon days when the “high resolution” D3x came out 10 years ago or so people and magazines where discussing the same. Conclusion was that the higher the resolution, the higher shutter speed is needed to avoid motion blur.

[LBJ2]

15 hours ago, otto.f said:

 

I just tried an M10-R and an M10-P this week and can only confirm the problem of movement blur. There is a mix or a mulltiplier effect of two things I believe:

1. Every step up in amount of pixels on the same sensor size, from M8 to M10-R has led to less pop and perceived edge sharpness. Due to higher DR > less contrasty > more need to bind up the histogram and/or sliding the sharpness button up. So without any PP the M10-R images will show a smoother kind of sharpness than any M before. Is that where we needed the APO 50 for? I see so many contradictions in Leica’s journey with the M since 6 years or so. 
2. I made several photo’s with the Summicron 28 asph ii on the M10-R and had movement blur at even 1/1000 😳. I do not intend to brag about my steady hand or discuss this variable here further but I had sharp photo’s with the M10-P with the APO-Telyt 280/4.0 without the Evf and focusing with LV from the screen @ 1/250 handheld. I agree with Steven that if the rat race on ISO and pixels is not paralelled by a shutter time race, we have again a contradiction with the released Nocti’s. Btw, the M8 had 1/8000, with a highest reasonably usable ISO of 640.

If you need to concentrate more to attain sharp photo’s and you need more time for postprocessing, what has the M10-R still got to do then with it’s roots, the M camera as a reporter, street and photojournalism camera? Not to mention the three batteries you need for it, which is a real laugh for an 8000€ camera. And what is Leica heading at if the story of Laurent and JeanMarc about the plans for an M11 is true? Is there any coherent philosophy left or is creating GAS their only goal left? I can’t follow. 

The M10 series of cameras are all beautiful FF cameras capable of stunning results at 24MP and 40.89MPs. I've had the pleasure to shoot with both. If you can't take a sharp image with the 40.89 M10-R, even at 1/1000 okay! That's your own personal situation and glad you believe, your situation can be accommodated with fewer MP camera. 

The fact that you wrote "I see so many contradictions in Leica’s journey with the M since 6 years or so." is very telling and I could have accurately guessed your response to the M10-R even before you "tried it out" and am confident I can predict the same with the M11 or whatever comes after the M10-R. But again, plenty of lower MP and film camera choices to fit anyone's needs and desires. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by LBJ2

[otto.f]

2 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

The M10 series of cameras are all beautiful FF cameras capable of stunning results at 24MP and 40.89MPs. I've had the pleasure to shoot with both. If you can't take a sharp image with the 40.89 M10-R, even at 1/1000 okay! That's your own personal situation and glad you believe, your situation can be accommodated with fewer MP camera. 

The fact that you wrote "I see so many contradictions in Leica’s journey with the M since 6 years or so." is very telling and I could have accurately guessed your response to the M10-R even before you "tried it out" and am confident I can predict the same with the M11 or whatever comes after the M10-R. But again, plenty of lower MP and film camera choices to fit anyone's needs and desires. 

I’m not sure whether your prediction will come true. Both the P and the R are such great camera’s to work with that it’s worth to make a compromise at one or the other side. 

[Gobert]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

I’m not sure whether your prediction will come true. Both the P and the R are such great camera’s to work with that it’s worth to make a compromise at one or the other side. 

I’m afraid it will be true. MP’s are still considered being sexy. You and I know this is rubbish, but the market thinks different.

[LBJ2]

22 minutes ago, Gobert said:

I’m afraid it will be true. MP’s are still considered being sexy. You and I know this is rubbish, but the market thinks different.

There is one small hole in this comment. There seems to be a technical trend in that most ( not all) higher MP FF sensors also seem to be better sensors than their predecessors typically at lower MPs. Plenty of data to support for years now. Maybe someone with the right background in sensor development can explain why this seems to be the trend. Or is it just common practice to make a better sensor when increasing MPs? 

[LBJ2]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

I’m not sure whether your prediction will come true. Both the P and the R are such great camera’s to work with that it’s worth to make a compromise at one or the other side. 

I've been shooting with high mp FF cameras for all types of photography for some years now. I just don't see what some are afraid of with a 40.89 MP FF camera, other than maybe the numbers. I do hope at some point you will have the opportunity to use a M10-R for more than just a brief try-out. The traditional 1.5x or 2x FL rule still stands, even at 40.89MPs FF. 

[jdlaing]

27 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

There is one small hole in this comment. There seems to be a technical trend in that most ( not all) higher MP FF sensors also seem to be better sensors than their predecessors typically at lower MPs. Plenty of data to support for years now. Maybe someone with the right background in sensor development can explain why this seems to be the trend. Or is it just common practice to make a better sensor when increasing MPs? 

Not only the sensor, which is a mindless brick, but the entire image engine.

[LBJ2]

1 minute ago, jdlaing said:

Not only the sensor, which is a mindless brick, but the entire image engine.

Yes, good point. Honestly after someone has been shooting high MP cameras for a few years, not sure many would upgrade anything for "just more MPs" MP is not what attracts someone like me in this age of digital photography wizardry. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Herr Barnack]

20 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Yes, good point. Honestly after someone has been shooting high MP cameras for a few years, not sure many would upgrade anything for "just more MPs" MP is not what attracts someone like me in this age of digital photography wizardry. 

How are you defining "high MP cameras?" 

Where do we draw that line?