This is why I bought an M10R

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, bags27 said:

Can I give you a "thumbs up" for your first two paragraphs and a "thumbs down" for the last one? I agree fully that new equipment allows one to go back to old subjects and look anew--nothing much different than Monet's haystacks, etc. 

But I doubt anyone here (well, almost anyone here) doesn't value your subjective, as well as your objective, opinions. And before that leads us to a consideration of what is objectivity and the Romantic inversion of the subject and object, maybe we can just ask you to please keep posting your thoughts, however you consider them? 🙂

Oh, the double negative almost got me :). To simplify: Almost everyone values Jono's opinions.

For my part, I know that I appreciate Jono's contributions to Leicaverse very much.

Edited October 12, 2020 by SrMi

[250swb]

9 hours ago, jonoslack said:

But what you really have taught me is that if I mostly try to publicly offer a reasonably objective view of a camera / lens (which I do), then I lose the right to make a subjective judgement (which this certainly was). 

If you continue to make it a personal attack I think you are missing the entire point.

Look at the M10M, a camera that excels at capturing a vast range of tones, so well in fact that you should try looking through the M10M image thread and try and spot the photos that still have some white in them (or even a normal range of mid-tones in them). In life you would squint at the bright sky full of brilliant clouds, in the photo the clouds are an off-white tone because the camera has subjugated them. But an otherwise ideal starting point for some post processing you'd think, except personal observations are put to one side because the camera has been bought to make photography better, not to be overridden with subjective judgements.

So what are we really seeing, a fashion trend for photos without white in them, or people losing their ability to make their own judgements? I have nothing against grey, and it could be a statement about the times we live in, except it isn't is it? Most of the M10M image thread content tells the story of not upsetting the apple cart, this is how the camera makes the image so dammit it must be right. It's not new, the M9M image thread exhibited similar grey content. It's hard to imagine anybody should want less objective judgement because many decisions can be made from it, but perhaps encouraging more subjective judgement is a tandem job?

[dkmoore]

6 hours ago, 250swb said:

So what are we really seeing, a fashion trend for photos without white in them, or people losing their ability to make their own judgements? I have nothing against grey, and it could be a statement about the times we live in, except it isn't is it? Most of the M10M image thread content tells the story of not upsetting the apple cart, this is how the camera makes the image so dammit it must be right. It's not new, the M9M image thread exhibited similar grey content. It's hard to imagine anybody should want less objective judgement because many decisions can be made from it, but perhaps encouraging more subjective judgement is a tandem job?

I think it probably has more to do with skill level rather than following the crowd.

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

I think it probably has more to do with skill level rather than following the crowd.

I think many lack post processing skills, and this is exacerbated by a lack of clear style and judgment. As I often say (because I think it bears repeating), the most important tools in photography reside between the ears. Nothing substitutes for a ‘good eye’ and good judgment and decision making, from image capture to editing to final print and display; otherwise the gear dictates results, and now we’re seeing more and more how that can happen as digital files require more interpretation.
 

I have never looked to a camera reviewer for an assessment as to whether MY pictures and prints can improve.  I welcome their opinions about there own work and how the gear may support their needs and style.  But I remain confident enough in my own style and workflow, and my own actual testing, to make my own assessment.  So I encourage Jono (and others) to offer as much objective information and subjective opinions as they see fit.  I’m not troubled in the least by Jono’s commentary; I welcome it.
 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

10 hours ago, 250swb said:

If you continue to make it a personal attack I think you are missing the entire point

It isn’t an attack at all, especially not a personal one!

You make interesting points 

[jplomley]

My problem with Jono is that every time he writes a review, somehow it ends up costing me $$$....

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, 250swb said:

If you continue to make it a personal attack I think you are missing the entire point.

Look at the M10M, a camera that excels at capturing a vast range of tones, so well in fact that you should try looking through the M10M image thread and try and spot the photos that still have some white in them (or even a normal range of mid-tones in them). In life you would squint at the bright sky full of brilliant clouds, in the photo the clouds are an off-white tone because the camera has subjugated them. But an otherwise ideal starting point for some post processing you'd think, except personal observations are put to one side because the camera has been bought to make photography better, not to be overridden with subjective judgements.

So what are we really seeing, a fashion trend for photos without white in them, or people losing their ability to make their own judgements? I have nothing against grey, and it could be a statement about the times we live in, except it isn't is it? Most of the M10M image thread content tells the story of not upsetting the apple cart, this is how the camera makes the image so dammit it must be right. It's not new, the M9M image thread exhibited similar grey content. It's hard to imagine anybody should want less objective judgement because many decisions can be made from it, but perhaps encouraging more subjective judgement is a tandem job?

I agree with your last paragraph regarding. a trend towards photos that generally have no true white or true black in them as a way of proving technical competence. This often leads to very tonally bland photographs. I blame Fuji (😀) for starting this trend with their DR100-DR400 settings with the result that a lot of Fuji images are flat. 

[Kwesi]

22 hours ago, jonoslack said:

But what you really have taught me is that if I mostly try to publicly offer a reasonably objective view of a camera / lens (which I do), then I lose the right to make a subjective judgement (which this certainly was). 

This is a rather tough situation to be in, I don't envy you one bit.

Jaap has figured out a way around this by using blue ink when he speaks as moderator - wish it were as easy for the rest of us.

Bottom line, I find both your object and subjective writing always generate lots of food for thought.

[250swb]

13 hours ago, Kwesi said:

I agree with your last paragraph regarding. a trend towards photos that generally have no true white or true black in them as a way of proving technical competence. This often leads to very tonally bland photographs. I blame Fuji (😀) for starting this trend with their DR100-DR400 settings with the result that a lot of Fuji images are flat. 

It's been something creeping in gradually. With the M9 and M9M people had to make choices about exposure and post processing and they came away delighted with themselves and their images. They only seem delighted now if they don't have to do anything. Well actually they don't have to do anything, generally speaking there is nothing like blown highlights like before, there is nothing worrying like the lack of light like before. But judgement has taken a back seat and there's the absurd situation of a camera that can deliver far more only being used to half it's capacity. In particular the M10M if going on the photos uploaded it's (again generally speaking) the equivalent of driving a Range Rover around Chelsea. I guess seeing what Adobe comes up with by pressing 'Auto contrast' is as radical an idea as raising the suspension and going to find a muddy field.

[LocalHero1953]

On a screen, and often with a traditional silver print or colour print, a true white is not a problem. On an inkjet print a true white is just the absence of ink, which often looks ugly and unintentional. I don't think this is the the cause of the trend being discussed here, but in printing I certainly try to avoid such true whites because when the light catches them they stand out more than they should.

[jonoslack]

On 10/12/2020 at 9:08 AM, 250swb said:

If you continue to make it a personal attack I think you are missing the entire point.

Look at the M10M, a camera that excels at capturing a vast range of tones, so well in fact that you should try looking through the M10M image thread and try and spot the photos that still have some white in them (or even a normal range of mid-tones in them). In life you would squint at the bright sky full of brilliant clouds, in the photo the clouds are an off-white tone because the camera has subjugated them. But an otherwise ideal starting point for some post processing you'd think, except personal observations are put to one side because the camera has been bought to make photography better, not to be overridden with subjective judgements.

So what are we really seeing, a fashion trend for photos without white in them, or people losing their ability to make their own judgements? I have nothing against grey, and it could be a statement about the times we live in, except it isn't is it? Most of the M10M image thread content tells the story of not upsetting the apple cart, this is how the camera makes the image so dammit it must be right. It's not new, the M9M image thread exhibited similar grey content. It's hard to imagine anybody should want less objective judgement because many decisions can be made from it, but perhaps encouraging more subjective judgement is a tandem job?

I'm sorry - I misunderstood your first sentence - I thought you though I was attacking you!

I remember when I wrote the M9M review back in the mists of time, people thought that the files looked flat. I actually quite agree with your first point - the more dynamic range you have the more opportunity there is . . . but the more you have to do something. First thing I was taught in the darkroom (by my Dad) was that a black and white picture should have black and white in it!

I certainly don't think there is a fashion trend for pictures with no white in them (or black come to that), although there are circumstances where grey images can work I agree the it's unusual.

To be honest, I think you misunderstood my original intent (probably I didn't write it down very clearly). It wasn't actually about dynamic range at all, but more about an ugly rolloff between blown highlights which the M10r has fixed - anyway, water under the bridge. 

So, yes, I agree, encouraging subjective judgement is important, and as the dynamic range of cameras increases it's important to understand that that's an opportunity rather than an end result .. . . . if you don't want to do any post processing, then you're better off shooting jpg.

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

....if you don't want to do any post processing, then you're better off shooting jpg.

+ 1. With more power comes greater responsibility; certainly true for those generically clamoring for more DR.  The more range we gain on the front end (and make use of), the more work confronts us on the back in order to provide a reasonable blend of the 12+ stops of light and shadow for viewing on media that typically only affords us 25-60% of that range at best. 

Regardless, while technical improvements to the devices and software we employ might enhance or save a given shot, they are indifferent on the question of whether or not the shot itself was worth enhancing or saving in the first place. The greatness or lack thereof regarding the camera itself is a completely different discussion from whether or not its ownership is demonstrating they are capable of making the most of it. 

 

[elmars]

🥱

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, Steven said:

Just reread this entire topic by Jono . It’s an excellent thread except for a stupid fight from a stupid post that came to pollute it half way through. It’s a pity it ended buried because it was probably the most interesting M10R thread.

But six months have passed and what a better excuse to revive it? 
So, how are the M10R users been going on with it ? Was it worth it ?

I myself had quite a rocky adventure with it. I’m currently testing it out for the second time since it came out, and reaching very interesting conclusions. 

Looking forward to hearing everyone out. 

The #1 takeaway from this thread is exactly what the M10-R has allowed me to do over the M10/P –> shoot wide open ~f/1.4 in bright sunlight and still recover the photo without compromised-looking highlights. It's like having virtual 1/8000 shutter speed + ISO 50. The highlight headroom on the M10-R is more like what I see from a BSI sensor.

But why not just keep using your M10-P until the M11 comes out next year? The money you lost from switching back to the P, plus the money you'd lose from switching back to the R, plus the money you'd lose upgrading to the M11 (which you will) would have about paid for an M11

[Jeff S]

Need to compare pics at same magnification, screen or print, to reach any conclusions regarding resolution effects.  

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Only way to know is to try.

Jeff

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

Excellent, that's very compelling indeed. Any other great improvement ? 

I always feared that the increase of MP would produce a different look. As it records more details, things become too sharp ? For example eyebrows ? And then, one ends up with an over realistic image. A little like the difference between shooting a film at 24fps vs 60 fps? sometimes, not too much details can look more filmic. Anyway, this might just be something I'm building in my head. 

I only had the M10-P for a few days, so I'm not a good person to ask about everything P vs R. But I have had the original Leica Q and a Q-P for a few years at 24mp, so I know the look. Also use GFX 50R and Canon R5. Used an original Canon 5D (12.7mp) for about a year before those systems. I'd say you're overthinking it. I could line up shots taken with my original 5D next to the R5 and at forum web resolution, it would be almost impossible to tell them apart – portrait or landscape either one.

There usually is some increased perception of depth and acuity with a 50-ish mp file sized back down to 24mp versus a native 24mp file, but it doesn't make portraits look less flattering, IMO. There's only so much detail the human eye can resolve at viewing distance for typical portrait print sizes from 8x10 up to about 16x20. The detail resolved with portraits at 50mp is only disconcerting when viewing on the computer at full resolution at 100% magnification. But what the extra megapixels do allow for is better retouching. Think about the print days when it was more expensive to have a professional film lab retouch a 35mm negative than it was a medium format negative. It's just easier to work with more image area, and the edits are less obvious when printed at portrait sizes (skin texture stays more realistic, etc.).

Still we are talking about very, very minor differences:

24mp is plenty. 40-50mp is not too much 😎

3 hours ago, Steven said:

Didn't ask the question to consider an upgrade again, just out of pure curiosity ! 

Just ignore me – I was assuming you were thinking of going back to the R after some of your recent posts.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, Steven said:

I feel like even at the same magnification, details such as hair and eyelashes might be more visible on a higher res sensor, since they might be recorded while the lower res sensor doesn’t record the same amount of details. 
otherwise what you say make sense. Similar as with the motion blur issue (or non issue) but I wouldn’t dare to raise that topic here. 

As I mentioned above, this is a non-issue. There are zero posts out on the Internet about downsized high-res files having too much detail for portraits versus the native sensor in the downsized size. If that were the case, it would be talked about all the time.

//

If you downsized the R files to P size and STILL saw more motion blur than on the P, then something is different with the R shutter sequence, the shutter dampening, the R sensor's mount stability, etc. And since you didn't notice an issue with the M10M, that kind of reinforces the possibility something might be different with the M-10R. But how would you ever know? Leica would never investigate based on a few random claims. If this happened in Canonland, you'd have plenty of geeks in forums to figure it out. The Leicaverse is often too small for that.

One thing I did think about the other day with regard to the R motion blur issue you had: Did you notice more blur using the LCD or Visoflex versus the rangefinder? Reason I ask is I remember Lloyd Chambers discussing that the M240 had an issue with blur when shooting Live View because the shutter has to close before the exposure sequence starts (the shutter can't open if it's already open – that would be EFCS and the M has no electronic shutter ability). The M10/P/R has a much more dampened shutter than the M240, but maybe the M10R lost some dampening due to some other physical constraint necessitated by the new sensor hardware. // Another question: Were you exclusively using the rear LCD when you tested the R? I have noticed shooting the M-10R I lose almost two stops of stability if I'm shooting with my arms out looking at the LCD versus it being braced against my face with the rangefinder.

Edited March 28, 2021 by hdmesa

[mike3996]

8 hours ago, hdmesa said:

If you downsized the R files to P size and STILL saw more motion blur than on the P, then something is different with the R shutter sequence, the shutter dampening, the R sensor's mount stability, etc. And since you didn't notice an issue with the M10M, that kind of reinforces the possibility something might be different with the M-10R. But how would you ever know? Leica would never investigate based on a few random claims. If this happened in Canonland, you'd have plenty of geeks in forums to figure it out. The Leicaverse is often too small for that.

This is exactly how I reason about these posts about M10R needing 1/5000000 sec shutter speeds to be "sharp". It's about the "magnification" due to pixel count (when one peeps at 1:1) and the circle of confusion.

The best way to combat this would be to shoot as you'd shoot a 24-megapixel camera and use slow shutter speeds and print comparative prints at 10 inches between the cameras and see what happens.

 

At the same time this FUD around blur will definitely help me with my GAS and I'll happily wait for what M11 has in store. 😎

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

In the original post I was guilty of expecting people to read between the lines (which was unreasonable as well as unrealistic). 

The better highlight situation means that you can expose more to the right - and of course that has a positive effect on noise levels in the shadows.

As for unsharp images - in my own experience (now shooting M10 and M10-R side by side for more than a year) I don't believe that there is any more shake than you would expect (so that if you downsize the higher resolution images then they're the same as the lower in terms of shake). 

But the lower base ISO and better headroom means that you have more scope with exposure - I use the Xfocal length option in the ISO settings to get the shutter speed as fast as I reasonably can. 

I'm still absolutely convinced of the benefits of the M10-R (even if I don't need the extra resolution). it's just a better sensor (and why wouldn't it be, two/three years on from that in the M10-P).

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by jonoslack