M240 to the new M10-R , Is it really worth the upgrade?

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No , you don’t see a DNG. That is not an image file   You see a conversion of the DNG based on the sidecar file of the DNG And your postprocessing presets. Change the presets and your postprocessing program will produce a different output. There are specialized programs like Accuraw or Rawdigger that allow you to delve deeper, but still the DNG needs to be converted to something that can be displayed on your monitor. As I said, the raw file is just a container format for the out of camera data as processed by the firmware. In the case of DNG simply TIFF. 

I don’t use presets.

[jaapv]

No, of course not, but your postprocessing program has its default setting AKA preset, as has your camera for the IMX file, like white balance or lens profile. Otherwise you could not display your image.

[lct]

Not interested in high rez sensors but the way the M10R manages red edges and other color shift issues is impressive according to Reid reviews. 

[Martin B]

I just bought a mint "used" M-E 240 a few months ago, and I am very happy with it so far in combination with all kind of M and LTM lenses. I am not a high ISO shooter, so the realistic cap of ISO 1600 is not an issue for me. I just wish the M 240 had a bit better low ISO performance with real ISO 100 and pushed ISO 50. But I have my workarounds for this, so I am fine here, too. Regarding resolution, I am using also the 36 MP FF Sony A7R in parallel - one reason why I bought the M-E 240 is ideal performance with wide and ultra-wide lenses which gave me issues on the A7R. Even the M-E 240 is only 24 MP, photos taken with wide M and LTM lenses are better in resolution especially in the corners of the frame than on the higher resolution A7R camera. But yes, there is a difference in resolution when looking at image details in 200% on a large screen. But the difference is not huge either. I can print 20x30" with photos from both cameras easily. 

I admit that the M10R is my "dream" camera, but I cannot justify its severe price tag. Getting the M-E 240 for less than 1/4th of the price of a new M10R was a no-brainer for me. I would benefit in my style of photography from the higher resolution and DR of the M10R but honestly a camera never holds me back from getting the shot done. The M 240 series is pretty good in pushing shadows already just has the limitation in highlight DR. I simply use exposure bracketing here when this is needed and use HDR in a realistic way to post-process these digital files. I don't expect M10 series prices to drop significantly to the level where I would consider buying for several years to come. I personally believe that the M 240 series currently has the best price/quality ratio when interested in buying a digital Leica M. There likely won't be much future depreciation in value of several years for what I already got my M-E 240 for. Just my 2 Cents. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Martin B

[epand56]

The day I will change my M240 (and spend a monstrous amount of money) I will want much more than a doubled resolution pictures whose only effect is to fill my external hard disks twice as fast. I expect miracles such like some revolution in the grain aspect of the sensor (more similar to film, for example). I don't really mind size, my M240 has more resolution than any 35mm film I've used in the past.

[Martin B]

On 12/23/2020 at 11:45 AM, epand56 said:

The day I will change my M240 (and spend a monstrous amount of money) I will want much more than a doubled resolution pictures whose only effect is to fill my external hard disks twice as fast. I expect miracles such like some revolution in the grain aspect of the sensor (more similar to film, for example). I don't really mind size, my M240 has more resolution than any 35mm film I've used in the past.

I have experience with both, 24 MP and 36 MP FF sensors (high MP sensor with Sony A7R) as I mentioned earlier. The hard drive space aspect is no longer an issue IMO since it has become very affordable to purchase more. Buffer speed/RAM is important with larger file sizes. This said, it is hard to go back to 24 MP after you are used to 40 MP files. But the main difference is not even the resolution, it is the higher dynamic range what also the M10 and M10-R seem to offer - this makes a big difference. But I was also not willing to spend > 3x the amount of money for the M10R just for this reason. The M 240 is for now a good compromise for me regarding price/quality. 

I am afraid that the M10-R will only drop in price with the arrival of a successor (likely M11-R) with additional bells and whistles, for example IBIS. It will likely take years to come until the M10-R reaches a used price level which I am willing to spend money for (my golden rule since years is never to spend more than $2.5K for any kind of digital camera used or new). 

[epand56]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/20/2021 at 8:50 PM, Martin B said:

it is hard to go back to 24 MP after you are used to 40 MP files

Martin, though I'm using a 24 Mp M240, it's not at all a problem to me going back to the 10Mp files of my old trusty M8. It still takes great pictures and that's what I ask to a camera. I would rather invest my money (little) in lenses than in an awfully expensive camera that will quickly drop in price with time and just give heavier files. I'm not at all a get-the-new-camera guy and the next Leica M that will convince me to part from my M240 will have to provide me with much consistent features than 20 Mp more and some higher ISO. Maybe it will be the M15.

[Cobram]

epand56, I have very similar opinion. That's why I still use my M-E220. 

[Martin B]

14 hours ago, epand56 said:

Martin, though I'm using a 24 Mp M240, it's not at all a problem to me going back to the 10Mp files of my old trusty M8. It still takes great pictures and that's what I ask to a camera. I would rather invest my money (little) in lenses than in an awfully expensive camera that will quickly drop in price with time and just give heavier files. I'm not at all a get-the-new-camera guy and the next Leica M that will convince me to part from my M240 will have to provide me with much consistent features than 20 Mp more and some higher ISO. Maybe it will be the M15.

Agreed - just that I have seen the difference between 36 and 24 MP with full frame sensors, and it is hard to go back after upgrading to higher resolution and dynamic range. This said, I found my workarounds with my M-E 240 to compensate for its much thinner dynamic range. Its in-camera HDR file creation is pretty decent and helped me out in a couple of difficult lighting situations even without tripod. Where I find the M 240 files really shining is with colors and also with the in-camera monochrome mode. I bought my M-E 240 for a price where I don't expect much depreciation in upcoming years. Since I never made much use of high ISO performance, I am fully fine with the M-E 240, too (which I would consider the main reason to upgrade to M10 otherwise). As benefit my M-E 240 also received the same 2 GB memory buffer as in the M10 (the M 240 only has 1 GB).  

[colonel]

On 9/10/2020 at 3:19 PM, Torontoamateur said:

I predominately do prints. I like the 13x19 size bit sometimes go larger for wall display. My subjects are the family and landscapes. I have the Summulix new style lenses. Will I really benefit from the upgrade from 24MP to 41MP? What is your experience?

yes, if you have the money

no, if you don't

 

[leicaphilia]

On 12/23/2020 at 11:45 AM, epand56 said:

The day I will change my M240 (and spend a monstrous amount of money) I will want much more than a doubled resolution pictures whose only effect is to fill my external hard disks twice as fast. I expect miracles such like some revolution in the grain aspect of the sensor (more similar to film, for example). I don't really mind size, my M240 has more resolution than any 35mm film I've used in the past.

Agreed. 40 mpx is not really any significant upgrade on 24 mpx. I'm skeptical there's really any quantifiable difference between the the M240 and the M10r's output other than miniscule "100%" crop comparisons that are irrelevant in real conditions. 

At this point, IMHO, we've got all we need, and anything more is just chasing one's tail. Of course, manufacturers want us to think differently so We'll keep buying new things, but don't kid yourself that what's offered now, as opposed to what was offered 5 years ago, is a necessary upgrade. 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by leicaphilia

[epand56]

13 hours ago, Al Brown said:

The M10-R is not just higher resolution over M240. It is a better UX/UI experience, better ISO (easily up to 6400, whereas on my M240 I would not go over 1600) and last but not least, better dynamic range.

The only feature that could convince me to leave my M240 for a new M would only be a Better, much film-looking grain. That's the only feature i Would like. I don't mind 60.000.000 ISO or anything like that. I want My digital M looking as much possible at film M, not at a Nikon or a Canon. 

[Martin B]

On 1/25/2021 at 11:53 AM, leicaphilia said:

Agreed. 40 mpx is not really any significant upgrade on 24 mpx. I'm skeptical there's really any quantifiable difference between the the M240 and the M10r's output other than miniscule "100%" crop comparisons that are irrelevant in real conditions. 

At this point, IMHO, we've got all we need, and anything more is just chasing one's tail. Of course, manufacturers want us to think differently so We'll keep buying new things, but don't kid yourself that what's offered now, as opposed to what was offered 5 years ago, is a necessary upgrade. 

 

The difference in resolution between 24 and 40 MP is clearly there. I can tell because I have the Sony A7R with 36 MP and the M 240 with 24 MP. When zoomed in on the screen at 100%, you can tell the difference in fine structures (tree leaves, branches, skin details etc). You won't see the difference in any kind of web-posted photo though. Biggest difference between the sensors is the increase in dynamic range with newer sensors which can be very beneficial. This said, the M10-R is far above what I am willing to spend for a digital camera, therefore it is not on my radar now. Otherwise it would be the camera I would go for most at the moment. 

[leicaphilia]

On 1/31/2021 at 11:44 AM, Martin B said:

The difference in resolution between 24 and 40 MP is clearly there. I can tell because I have the Sony A7R with 36 MP and the M 240 with 24 MP. When zoomed in on the screen at 100%, you can tell the difference in fine structures (tree leaves, branches, skin details etc). 

I understand there might be a difference when viewed at 100%. But that's really irrelevant to 99% of normal viewing situations. My point, I guess, is this: printed at anything less than 20x30 and viewed at a normal viewing distance (as photos are meant to be viewed) there would be no fundamental difference between the output of the 2 cameras. 

If marginal resolution differences on a 20x30 print viewed at 6 inches is a bargaining point when assessing a camera, I'd suggest your photographic priorities need rethinking.

[Martin B]

13 hours ago, leicaphilia said:

I understand there might be a difference when viewed at 100%. But that's really irrelevant to 99% of normal viewing situations. My point, I guess, is this: printed at anything less than 20x30 and viewed at a normal viewing distance (as photos are meant to be viewed) there would be no fundamental difference between the output of the 2 cameras. 

If marginal resolution differences on a 20x30 print viewed at 6 inches is a bargaining point when assessing a camera, I'd suggest your photographic priorities need rethinking.

Shooting with high res is for me like having a larger hard drive - it is very hard to go back to smaller size. I heard your reasoning every time higher resolution was made available. And I agree that some are fine using lower resolution which also has its benefits (smaller file size, better for video and street photography). What I don't understand is that some don't accept higher resolution is actually useful for others - it is just a different style and need in photography. If you shoot architecture and landscapes it is clearly beneficial. I applaud Leica that they went the Sony way offering low and higher resolution FF cameras in parallel. Because both target different group of users. This said, I am using my M-E 240 with 24 MP very differently than my Sony MLC with high resolution sensor. So I see both worlds but choose the camera depending on the situation where each tool is the better fit. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Martin B

[jaeger]

interesting takes, I switch between Nikon Z7 and M240 but I don't see anything I don't like.  M9 @18mp takes wonderful images, unless you crop a lot otherwise stop fed up with those numbers.  If you ask me, I can tell some differences or seeing step-up in digital medium format sensors.  I have feelings that FF is hitting its limitation. 

The funniest thing is why camera manufacturers keep using sensors that's reference to sizes of rollfilm... who cares really.  Why don't they make the sensor as big as the CPU can handle and break the curse of rollfilm...  Many years ago, I was tool the CPU in iphone 2 has more power than Apollo program right.  Probably it's not economical to make really bright lenses to fed lights into the enlarged sensor?

Edited February 5, 2021 by jaeger

[jaeger]

1 hour ago, jaeger said:

I was tool the CPU in iphone 2....

I was told*