This is why I bought an M10R

[RS-Colo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A year ago I had a Monochrom 246 with "only" three lenses and an extensive micro four thirds system (many lenses). Then I moved on to my third Monochrom model, M10-M. The last color Leica I had was a film CL from decades ago. But three things happened that got me thinking. First, I began to consider, as I got older, how nice it would be to not carry around two systems. Maybe I should get an M10 to use the same lenses as my Monochrom. Then Panasonic started making precious little for micro for thirds and Olympus sold their camera division off. The obvious third thing was Leica came out with a "color Monochrom" camera.  Two cameras with the same basic interface and the same sized sensor using my same lenses was just too hard to pass up. I'm sure the M11 and M12 will be so much better, but I don't think I'll care. This system is just too perfect for me.

My MFT system was nice. It was great at taking BIFs (birds in flight). But I rarely did anything like that. My thing is taking landscapes. And I like what I call still-lifes: leaves, flowers, etc. I also do some street, portrait and architectural photography, but that was always with my Monochrom cameras. My main color work is landscapes and often panoramas. For these I tend to emulate the gang of f64 (Adams, Weston, et.al.) and make everything as sharp as I can make it. My panorama prints, up to four by eight feet, are sharp enough to walk up to and see good detail. But to get there with MFT I usually would use a longer lens and take a lot more shots to stitch. None of my "color" lenses were as sharp as my Leica lenses.

I have gotten out to take photos very little over the past year. And I haven't had any experience taking color images with a digital Leica. But I can say that the M10-M / M10-R combination with my 28mm, 50mm and 90mm Leica glass is a wonderful kit to carry around.

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

2 hours ago, RS-Colo said:

 

I have gotten out to take photos very little over the past year. And I haven't had any experience taking color images with a digital Leica. But I can say that the M10-M / M10-R combination with my 28mm, 50mm and 90mm Leica glass is a wonderful kit to carry around.

perfect kit .  . . you just need to add a 35 APO when the funds permit!

[Tailwagger]

On 3/29/2021 at 5:08 AM, jonoslack said:

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).

As am I.  What those in the  '24MPx is enough' crowd should be clamoring for, channelling the SL family, is an M10-S. 

Regardless, and to bolster the truth behind your original point, a couple of weeks ago while out with my recently acquired 28mm 'lux, I accidentally wound up doing something similar to your original example.  I had inadvertently managed to set the ISO to 500.  The before/after shot below (converted to B&W for emphasis) was taken at 1/4000" with aperture being reported at f4, though it was certainly no more than f2.8, likely f2 (just can't recall the precise stop in this case).  With the mistake recognized, the 'correct' exposure, provided below the comparison, was at 1/4000", ISO 100, same f4 reported, though I think I may have stopped down slightly.  As can be seen, while the snow left of the subject exhibits some loss of detail, nothing per the histo is blown. Note the ability to recover the sky, tree branches, even a wisp of cloud.  With the M10, none of this would have been even remotely possible.  The 10-R's ability to recover highlights, while not fully capable of saving a buffoon such as myself, is indeed real and quite valuable AFAIC. 

Before/After processing:

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!

Mistake recognized, alternate shot SooC for reference:

Edited March 30, 2021 by Tailwagger

[dkmoore]

On 3/29/2021 at 5:08 AM, jonoslack said:

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).

 

Hello, 

I do have to be more careful with technique when shooting down to 1/60 with the R as compared to being able to be lazy with the M10P. 
 

Seriously question because I don’t understand the concept. Why would I want to downsize an image to match the M10 or some other format? I’ve read this so many times over the years but never took the time to understand it or even how to do it. I have no clue how I’d even shrink the file unless this refers to when I export an image to JPEG and I pick the size for web viewing? Is that all this means?

Sorry!

[Tailwagger]

17 minutes ago, Steven said:

The thing that worries me a tiny bit is the different colours. They look a little more neutral maybe ? 

Perhaps, but if so I'd wager this supposition is more a consequence of what is behind Jono's and my example, as opposed to something more sinister... the change in response curve.  With the 10, we preferred underexposure to save highlights, thus generically there is more black content resulting in the colors appearing deeper. The neutrality of the 10-R means you have more latitude to go either direction, but the SooC results to some are perhaps too pastel. I suspect that there might have been a change in auto WB between the two as well which might be influencing the perception as well.  Regardless, there's certainly no difficulty when playing with curves and saturation to go full on pop, if thats what anyone's after.  Only takes a few seconds to achieve.  As with any change of sensor/camera, there is a bit of a learning curve around figuring out how to get the most of it. 

It's probably also with mentioning though, that the overall DR of the 10-R is about the same as the 10's. There's no free lunch here, what we've gained on the right, we lost on the left. Get it wrong and the shadows are noisier then before. 

[Tailwagger]

5 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

 I have no clue how I’d even shrink the file unless this refers to when I export an image to JPEG and I pick the size for web viewing? Is that all this means?

That's my understanding... and when printing as well. 300 DPI is 300 DPI.  10 inches is 3K pixels regardless of how many you started with.  So if you export a ~6k by 4k file from the 10-R to the native equivalent from a 10 the supposition is that you will see roughly the same thing.  Generically, it's difficult to compare, but my impression is one will see similar results at 100% (as opposed to being normalized),  within a stop of the 10.  I.E. where I could on my best day pull off something credible at a 1/3" with the 10, say 28mm at 2-3m, it now requires 1/6".  More typically, I find a good rule of thumb when excising modest care is shooting at roughly 1/2 focal length with the 10-R.

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

That's my understanding... and when printing as well. 300 DPI is 300 DPI.  10 inches is 3K pixels regardless of how many you started with.  So if you export a ~6k by 4k file from the 10-R to the native equivalent from a 10 the supposition is that you will see roughly the same thing.  Generically, it's difficult to compare, but my impression is one will see similar results at 100% (as opposed to being normalized),  within a stop of the 10.  I.E. where I could on my best day pull off something credible at a 1/3" with the 10, say 28mm at 2-3m, it now requires 1/6".  More typically, I find a good rule of thumb when excising modest care is shooting at roughly 1/2 focal length with the 10-R.

This makes a lot of sense to me as far as your rule of thumb with speeds. 
 

Thanks also for responding. 
 

When printing I never adjust size regardless of paper size. Maybe that is an error unless between LR and the Epson P900 does it for me?

[mike3996]

38 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

 

Seriously question because I don’t understand the concept. Why would I want to downsize an image to match the M10 or some other format? I’ve read this so many times over the years but never took the time to understand it or even how to do it. I have no clue how I’d even shrink the file unless this refers to when I export an image to JPEG and I pick the size for web viewing? Is that all this means?

Do you intend to enlarge your print sizes now that you have more pixels? If the answer is "NO" then congrats, you have in a way "downsized" the image to match M10. Your print will have more PPI but usually they're still viewed from the same intended distance all the same.

Same story with instagrams and others. If you export your files at 1920 pixels wide side or whatever, you're matching M10, and more.

If you match the viewing parameters, (in theory!) there shouldn't be any differences on motion blur between the cameras.

That's all there is to this whole brouhaha.

 

Instead if someone is upgrading cameras to more megapixels with every intention to print larger than before, then we are indeed in the territory of witnessing more adverse effects of micro blur or whatever might be the proper term to describe the phenomenon.

Edited March 30, 2021 by mike3996

[Tailwagger]

1 minute ago, mike3996 said:

If you match the viewing parameters, (in theory!) there shouldn't be any differences on motion blur between the cameras.

And... gulp... noise levels as well. 

[mike3996]

Just now, Tailwagger said:

And... gulp... noise levels as well. 

That's the theory but of course sensors are all different so there's great variance. Maybe too great to say anything definite about noise levels.

In theory M4/3 crop sensors suffer a 2-stop noise hit compared to FF. In practice compared new-against-new the difference is around 1 stop, to my eye at least. Compare a new M4/3 body to my trusty M240 they are practically even, not even joking.

The theory might apply well when discussing results from a same camera sensor but hardly ever when comparing different sensors, same manufacturer or different one.

[Jeff S]

I don’t doubt the benefits of the improved M10-R sensor, but I’ll stick with the M10, which meets most all of my needs (and my print sizes will remain the same), and see what the M11 brings. A comparable or better sensor than the M10- R is a given, along with whatever else.
 

On the other hand, after renting an M10 Monochrom for a week, I found the benefits over my M9 Monochrom (both sensor and expected platform-based improvements) compelling enough to make the switch now rather than wait for an M11 version.  
 

Every generation offers something more.  Just depends on whether that something is useful...or enticing ...enough.

Jeff

[Tailwagger]

1 minute ago, mike3996 said:

That's the theory but of course sensors are all different so there's great variance. Maybe too great to say anything definite about noise levels.

Indeed. Hence my use of ...gulp... definitely a controversial subject. 

[Tailwagger]

12 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

When printing I never adjust size regardless of paper size. Maybe that is an error unless between LR and the Epson P900 does it for me?

Nor do I... I've assumed, and the results seem to indicate, that PS and the P900 handle things related to scaling dots without any need for me to intervene and screw things up.  Perhaps those more expert in printing do things differently.  

[Tailwagger]

20 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I don’t doubt the benefits of the improved M10-R sensor, but I’ll stick with the M10, which meets most all of my needs (and my print sizes will remain the same), and see what the M11 brings. A comparable or better sensor than the M10- R is a given, along with whatever else.

Nothing the least bit to apologize for in that.  I do suspect, though, given the cost and time frames involved, that the current sensor will remain top of the mark for another couple of years at least. Perhaps the development pace will hasten or maybe a supplier change, but the cadence in the past has been on a four year cycle.  Given the sensor will turn four in Jan 2024,  If an M11 does arrive well before then, I'm betting it will be more about having a different form factor, more powerful processor, etc wrapped around largely the same sensor.  

Edited March 30, 2021 by Tailwagger

[RS-Colo]

18 hours ago, jonoslack said:

perfect kit .  . . you just need to add a 35 APO when the funds permit!

I truly don't know why, but I have never been a 35mm photographer. Maybe if I want something wider than 50mm I want more. I probably take 60-70% of my shots with my 50mm. The fact it is the APO Asph probably has something to do with it beside the focal length. But I have always been mostly a 50mm photographer.

[Jeff S]

30 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Nothing the least bit to apologize for in that.  I do suspect, though, given the cost and time frames involved, that the current sensor will remain top of the mark for another couple of years at least. Perhaps the development pace will hasten or maybe a supplier change, but the cadence in the past has been on a four year cycle.  Given the sensor will turn four in Jan 2024,  If an M11 does arrive well before then, I'm betting it will be more about having a different form factor, more powerful processor, etc wrapped around largely the same sensor.  

Sure, that’s what I meant by comparable (same) or better sensor.  It surely won’t regress. The M10 will be five years old next January, so we’ll see if that’s Leica’s time frame for platform refresh.  In any event, I’m in no rush.  My SL2 already can do things that my M10 cannot.  Any shortfalls are mine.

Jeff

[laurenince525]

I bought my first Leica camera around 1990... and I was ecstatic - words cannot describe how happy I was. Today, the models that are being released are not even close to the old classic models, which is really disappointing. I wanted to purchase the newly released version but I don't like the reviews at all.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Nor do I... I've assumed, and the results seem to indicate, that PS and the P900 handle things related to scaling dots without any need for me to intervene and screw things up.  Perhaps those more expert in printing do things differently.  

ImagePrint optimizes my print settings after choosing paper, size and profile. When testing and comparing gear, I just maintain same print size, although I rarely conduct such tests. In practice, it’s primarily the picture itself, not the camera resolution or other gear differences, that determine my chosen print size; the image dictates. Generally I prefer smaller prints. Resolution can at times, however, provide more cropping leeway.
 

Jeff

Edited March 30, 2021 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

On 3/30/2021 at 5:11 PM, laurenince525 said:

I bought my first Leica camera around 1990... and I was ecstatic - words cannot describe how happy I was. Today, the models that are being released are not even close to the old classic models, which is really disappointing. I wanted to purchase the newly released version but I don't like the reviews at all.

That's sad - the modern M cameras are wonderful, with all the tactile ergonomics and build quality to make you ecstatic and keep you that way. Not sure which reviews you've been looking at? but if you're talking of the M10-R it's a wonderful camera!

[ravinj]

It is hard to find a bad camera these days, all of them are really good. What matters is that a given camera and lens ("the system") works for you. If it works, no justification needed. If it doesn't, there are several other options to choose from.

@jonoslack - never commented on your reviews, but really like the superb pictures and commentary on the M10-R, Q2, SL2, the SL Summicrons and other gear  you have posted over the years.