M10 Upgreade to M10-R or not?

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

Hi RayD28,

I don't have the R but have used the M246 for a few years and currently have shot about 10k frames on my M10P. My(free😀)advice is that if you tend to crop a lot then the M10R will be a worthwhile move for you.I have never had an issue with blown highlights on either the M246 or he M10 P and I generally overexpose by a half stop. 

All the black and white images on my site (link below) were shot on the 246. The color images are from various digital M cameras  - link takes you to an M10 image followed by about 5 more.

If on the other hand you are routinely having exposure problems then the M10R is worth considering 

the shot of the muslim girls with their baby in front of the hundred of American flags  👌🏼

[Kwesi]

9 minutes ago, Steven said:

the shot of the muslim girls with their baby in front of the hundred of American flags  👌🏼

Thanks! That photo works for me on so many levels - especially living here in the States

[RayD28]

24 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

Hi RayD28,

I don't have the R but have used the M246 for a few years and currently have shot about 10k frames on my M10P. My(free😀)advice is that if you tend to crop a lot then the M10R will be a worthwhile move for you.I have never had an issue with blown highlights on either the M246 or he M10 P and I generally overexpose by a half stop. 

All the black and white images on my site (link below) were shot on the 246. The color images are from various digital M cameras  - link takes you to an M10 image followed by about 5 more.

If on the other hand you are routinely having exposure problems then the M10R is worth considering 

Thanks for the feedback. Did you migrate to the 10-p from a 240?  If so did you see a useful improvement in iso performance?

I am using my phone and can’t see the links you mention. 

thanks for your help. 

[Kwesi]

I did notice a significant jump in high ISO improvement. I went from the 240 P to the M10P. the 240 was ok at 3200 the M10P shines at 6400. I haven't needed to go beyond 6400.

this was shot at 6400

 

[AlanJW]

On 11/10/2020 at 8:00 AM, RayD28 said:

I'm using an M246P and trying to decide on an 10-P or 10-R.  The higher mega pixels will come in handy for cropping but I'm mainly after better highlight recovery and ISO performance.  An upgrade to the P is in my budget but to the R it's doable but is at the ceiling.  Is the ISO performance of the R so much better than the P that you would recommend the R?  Do you get an additional full-stop?  From a practical standpoint, is the improved ISO/noise reduction performance a tipping point?  

BTW, I live in an area that it's impossible to do a hands-on comparison.  I do not think the ISO performance is a tipping point.   The M10P is a perfectly good if not great camera.   But the sensor DR in the 10R is different.  The ability to recover highlights is exceptional and noticeably better than the 10P.  Whether that is a tipping point for anybody else, I don't know.  It was enough for me to make the change, along with the ability to crop, and I have no regrets. But YMMV.

 

 

"so much better" is so broad, that I can't answer for you - or anyone else. 

[RayD28]

I coughed up the subscription price for Sean Reid's site.  I forgot how much I enjoy his work.  I plan to re-read the M10R articles but at first impression the R's ISO is more controllable at high ISOs (6400 or more) but I'm not sure if that is relevant to what I do.  Like I said above I do some cropping (sometimes heavy) but I wonder if I can solve that by quickly using my feet and get closer.  

Thanks for everyone's feedback.  

 

 

[robsonj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Something else to consider is the M10-R’s native base iso of 100. To me that’s as appealing as the performance at 6400

[budjames]

I love the increased resolution, higher dynamic range and less noise at higher ISOs of my M10R as compared to my M10P. 

I also own the SL2. Images compare favorably to those produced with my M10R. 

Now my M10P (factory converted from an M10) sits on a shelf. I think that I'm going to sell this body as it is too expensive to not be used.

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Chaemono]

DR and exposure latitude of the M10-P at ISO 200 is good enough. Therefore, I didn't get the M10-R.

M10-P as shot

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!

M10-P processed

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!

 

[Twasi]

With 40 megapixels (and a good lens) you can crop away half the frame and still have 24 MP left over. I'm one of those people who doesn't stand close enough. No matter how close I get, still it seems I can crop out half the frame and have a better picture. 

[Guest]

A personal view for sure, but when I look at work posted here on the M forum I've yet to see anything that justifies the upgrade to the R from the P.........

[jplomley]

4 hours ago, petermullett said:

A personal view for sure, but when I look at work posted here on the M forum I've yet to see anything that justifies the upgrade to the R from the P.........

It’s very visible in print, particularly for subjects with fine details. Shockingly so. In fact I don’t think I’ll ever go back to 24 MP, but then my standard print size is 16x24. YMMV. 

[Steven]

I don’t print, so 24 is fine with me. 
Although sometimes I wonder if I should make my photos future proof for printing, but hated the R too much to do it. 

[robsonj]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

I don’t print, so 24 is fine with me. 
Although sometimes I wonder if I should make my photos future proof for printing, but hated the R too much to do it. 

Future proofing has always been my mantra for digital photography, those 16k displays will be here eventually. What didn’t you like about the R that made you ‘hate’ it?

[Steven]

1 minute ago, robsonj said:

Future proofing has always been my mantra for digital photography, those 16k displays will be here eventually. What didn’t you like about the R that made you ‘hate’ it?

There’s a 20 pages discussing it but basically all my images were blurry if I was under 1/250th of a second. That’s the problème with high res sensors. Works for some, but didn’t work for my style of shooting. Mainly handled on the go. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[robsonj]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

There’s a 20 pages discussing it but basically all my images were blurry if I was under 1/250th of a second. That’s the problème with high res sensors. Works for some, but didn’t work for my style of shooting. Mainly handled on the go. 

Got it, fair enough

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jplomley said:

It’s very visible in print, particularly for subjects with fine details. Shockingly so. In fact I don’t think I’ll ever go back to 24 MP, but then my standard print size is 16x24. YMMV. 

No doubt there's something in what you say, but I've had printed, ( not myself as my printers limit me to A2 size max' ), to 24"x30" and even a 24"x 38" from the M10's 24mb sensors, ( M10-P and M10-D ), without any problem and the prints worked out very nicely indeed. So as far as printing is concerned I don't think that is a completely valid comparison, so much depends on who did the printing, on what printer and of course what the subject matter of the image was. There are other factors that make the M10-R not worth the investment for me, file sizes and the much mentioned "image/camera shake" problems that I too experienced when testing out a R for a couple of weeks....I was tempted for sure, but decided after the tests that my 24mp M's do everything I need them to do right now and probably going onwards for the foreseeable too.

Having said that, and whilst saying why the M10-R isn't for me and the two 24mp versions I presently own do everything I need at this time I still doff the cap to Leica for continuing to enhance the M line but at the same time I do regret the apparent cancellation of the 24mp sensors in favour of the R's.........Maybe next we can expect an M with the SL2-S's 24mb sensor that seems to be pleasing more than a few people?

 

[LeicaS2]

Steven is right about a high resolution sensors appreciating higher speeds, but fortunately they are also higher ISO so they can do that.

I have been using my M10M on auto ISO with a requirement that the Auto speed is set in the menu for  one divided by three times the focal length.( 1/3f ) rather than the usual 1/f.  Recently I did a test to see if 1/3f was adequate. So I compared it to 1/5f  on a 90mm lens. So my comparison was 1/250 (which is Steven's minimum that he doesn't like) versus 1/1000.  I braced the camera for this comparison and found that 1/1000 did not give me a better/ sharper shot. I suppose I could also do the test on a tripod some day.  I guess I should redo this test with my M-P reporter to confirm that 24 mp is perfectly good too, but I know comparing 24mp color to a 41mp mono is not a fair comparison at the extreme pixel peeping this test involved. I do appreciate the extra mp in B&W because I am shooting for structure, and I do crop in often in B&W. But the real advantage of the M10M to me is higher ISO allowing me to shoot very compact lenses without fast lenses. The collapsible  90mm macro-elmar is a favorite for compactness vs other 90mm options and was used in this shot. f4, ISO 160 and 500, yellow filter overcast day. 

The comparison of the two speeds1/250 vs 1/1000 is a 100% segment crop from a compressed for the forum full frame image included. The selected area of crop is marked by a white rectangle on the FF. The segment crop is one seventh linear crop. It demonstrates the sharpness of the collapsable 90mm lens as well as the resolution of the M10M.

But if you don't need this kind of resolution or don't print larger than 16x20 a M10-P is just fine and I am glad that Leica seems to be keeping the 24mp resolution camera in the line up. To address your initial question, do you need to upgrade from the M10 to the M10R, my answer would be no. I first bought the M10M and then for color bought the M10-P reporter rather than the M10-P R.  Different story if I had no M camera and wanted to get an M today. Even there, Steven would go for 24mp.

Jack

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!

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!

[Steven]

8 hours ago, LeicaS2 said:

Steven is right about a high resolution sensors appreciating higher speeds, but fortunately they are also higher ISO so they can do that.

I have been using my M10M on auto ISO with a requirement that the Auto speed is set in the menu for  one divided by three times the focal length.( 1/3f ) rather than the usual 1/f.  Recently I did a test to see if 1/3f was adequate. So I compared it to 1/5f  on a 90mm lens. So my comparison was 1/250 (which is Steven's minimum that he doesn't like) versus 1/1000.  I braced the camera for this comparison and found that 1/1000 did not give me a better/ sharper shot. I suppose I could also do the test on a tripod some day.  I guess I should redo this test with my M-P reporter to confirm that 24 mp is perfectly good too, but I know comparing 24mp color to a 41mp mono is not a fair comparison at the extreme pixel peeping this test involved. I do appreciate the extra mp in B&W because I am shooting for structure, and I do crop in often in B&W. But the real advantage of the M10M to me is higher ISO allowing me to shoot very compact lenses without fast lenses. The collapsible  90mm macro-elmar is a favorite for compactness vs other 90mm options and was used in this shot. f4, ISO 160 and 500, yellow filter overcast day. 

The comparison of the two speeds1/250 vs 1/1000 is a 100% segment crop from a compressed for the forum full frame image included. The selected area of crop is marked by a white rectangle on the FF. The segment crop is one seventh linear crop. It demonstrates the sharpness of the collapsable 90mm lens as well as the resolution of the M10M.

But if you don't need this kind of resolution or don't print larger than 16x20 a M10-P is just fine and I am glad that Leica seems to be keeping the 24mp resolution camera in the line up. To address your initial question, do you need to upgrade from the M10 to the M10R, my answer would be no. I first bought the M10M and then for color bought the M10-P reporter rather than the M10-P R.  Different story if I had no M camera and wanted to get an M today. Even there, Steven would go for 24mp.

Jack

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!

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!

Great post, thanks for your time. 
May I suggest this the ISO capabilities of the M10M are far superior as the one of the M10R? 
Cheers, 

Stev

[Jeff S]

14 hours ago, Steven said:

Great post, thanks for your time. 
May I suggest this the ISO capabilities of the M10M are far superior as the one of the M10R? 
Cheers, 

Stev

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2021/02/bw-iso-showdown-2021-leica-q2-monochrom-vs-m10-monochrom-vs-q2-vs-m10-r/
 

Jeff