M10-P or M10R

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

[Steven]

4 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

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

Excellent post, thank you. And great shot as always. You have a very strong style. 
I light 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. 

Thanks for your input. 

[Advertisement]

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

[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.

[Steven]

45 minutes ago, Pixeleater said:

I am thinking about selling the M10R and picking up the M10P.

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

 

45 minutes ago, Pixeleater said:

I have the SL2-S (M lenses only) which I enjoy but not the same experience as shooting with an M body.

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

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 

[Steven]

4 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

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.

You might very well be right here, I have no idea. I am not too technical. I had just noticed that on a bright and contrasty scene, the highlight and shadows were slightly more malleable, and still, nothing to write home about. 

The truth is that the only thing I loved and missed from my R was the base ISO at 100. It helped me use less ND filter during the summer. Besides that, 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. 

[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?

[Steven]

3 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

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

😂 I already got one. It’s been two weeks so it’s still the honeymoon, but I think I’m onto something. 

[Steven]

3 hours ago, Pixeleater said:

 

Steven, did you sell or trade?

I first traded in my used m10p + 3k to get the m10r. 
one month later, I exchanged back my m10r against my old m10p + 1 used visoflex + 350 euros. 
so I would say that the m10r adventure cost me about 2500 euros, or about 85 euros rental for every day I had it ! 
 

the store made the best deal. They didn’t tell me but I later understood that they took back my mint m10r as a « return », got the vat refunded by the state, and then probably sold it again as new. The rest of the cash stayed in their pocked. Well, law of the jungle ! 

[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. 

[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") ?

[Steven]

1 hour ago, i-Leica said:

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

From M10R to M10P. Yes. 

[i-Leica]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Steven:

From M10R to M10P. Yes. 

Question: just because of the resolution?

[Steven]

2 minutes ago, i-Leica said:

Question: just because of the resolution?

Because the higher resolution introduced motion blur in 80% of my shots/shooting scenario. I had to be around 1/500th to not worry about it. Every time in zoomed in my photos, I could see motion blur, which made the extra pixels useless to me, so I went back to the P for peace of mind. 

Havent regretted it for a second. The R wasn’t the tool for me. It might be for others. Just don’t believe those that tell you that the R and lack of ibis has no impact of handheld shooting. If they don’t see motion blur, they’re likely shooting landscapes, of apples in a jar on a table. Not street like me at least. 

[i-Leica]

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steven]

3 minutes ago, i-Leica said:

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

I have both the P and the D. 
Added the D two weeks ago. At this point, I still love it, but I’m not sure yet that I could have a D with the safety of also owning a P with a screen as backup (although I haven’t missed the P yet). 
The way I see it is that of course I love having a screen, it’s more flexible and I don’t have a chimping problem, but the D experience is so beautiful. Not only because it makes you approach photography differently and everything else that comes with it, but also because it’s simply a beautiful object that you want to watch and touch all the time. After using the D for a few days, looking at the back of the P is quite disgusting. 
 

Im leaving on a month trip to Colombia this Friday, with the D as my only M. Ask me again upon my return on the first of March and I’ll give you my definitive answer. Ideally, I plan to keep only one of the two bodies on the long run.