Future implications for M10/M10-R of the SL2/SL2-S paradigm?

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, Steven said:

...if it was defective indeed though, I would be even more pissed at Leica... 

I suspect that it wasn't defective; but is there any way to get St. Honoré to check?
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

43 minutes ago, Steven said:

After another full day of shooting my te acquired m10p, I’m more and more convinced of that too. Because the difference is so big that it’s shocking. It had almost made me believe that I couldn’t take a photo anymore. 
 

if it was defective indeed though, I would be even more pissed at Leica. Because on top of being the most expensive body I’ve ever paid for my a large margin, it would also be the first with a production issue. One so unlikely that it made me waste 2.5k, to not even change camera at the end of the day. Pffff. 

If defective, a good dealer would have replaced it.  Worst case, Leica would have tested it and fixed as needed under warranty. Stuff happens. But good that you found a solution that works well for you.  Happy M shooting.

Jeff

[dkmoore]

7 hours ago, Knipsknecht said:

@rcusick Please accept that we are all different people with different bodies, minds and different experiences and expectations when it comes to photography. Steven has made his point very clear and personally I can understand his argument and his reaction to his personal experience. And even if I couldn't - it's pointless to discuss the personal decision of an individual when it comes to his or her experiences and findings. 

If the M10-R works fine for you and your way of taking photos it's great, and no-one doubts this! But please accept, that other people made different experiences - and they neither need to be schooled nor scolded.

Thanks😉!

Steven was originally claiming the M10R was flawed and only good for landscape...I think that certainly justifies a rebuttal as it was completely non factual. 

If commentary is pitched as opinion only, then I have no qualms. I try to hold myself to these same standards when posting. Of course everyone has their own tolerances for steadiness, etc. However, the 250 shutter speed myth was also quoted. This is simply conjecture and repeating rumor. 

Either way, it is not a big deal because he is happy and shooting the M10P, another fabulous camera.  I think it is reasonable to assume there was something wrong with the RF or sensor of his camera. Either could have been out of tolerance, or maybe both. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by dkmoore

[rramesh]

Try a blind test of pictures from the 2 cameras (old model vs new model). Look at the whole picture at a normal viewing distance and not at a crop or pixel level.

If you can't distinguish one from the other, don't bother upgrading.

 

[astrostl]

2 hours ago, rramesh said:

Try a blind test of pictures from the 2 cameras (old model vs new model). Look at the whole picture at a normal viewing distance and not at a crop or pixel level.

If you can't distinguish one from the other, don't bother upgrading.

This advice doesn't work for me as 99% of my image viewing is on a 27" 5k monitor and because I do value cropping. I'm still not super-motivated to upgrade my base M10 to an M10-R, but resolution would be #1 with a bullet and #2 would be highlight recovery.

[Alistairm]

The wider dynamic range of the M10R, especially highlight recovery, and also the improved ISO performance was enough to make me very happy after upgrading. The resolution is a bonus too, although not game changing for me. I find it no different to my M10 in terms of shutter speed required, or at least not so different I’ve ever noticed or thought about it. I shot a party on a boat last week and motion blur from moving people caused more unsharp images than anything else. Everyone is different, but the M10M and M10R got me shooting M again after the M10 gathered dust once the SL2 arrived. At the end of the day, these are all amazingly capable cameras and if one talks to you and makes you want to shoot it, that’s “the one” for you. The spec sheet doesn’t really matter much unless you’re shooting brick walls.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Steven said:

...I'm a 24MP shooter. It's my sweetspot...

Steven - I started this thread with the premise that I didn't need the M10-R simply because my M10 photography didn't need more resolution, even for large prints. Some M10-R owners feel that the M10, apart from greater resolution, gives them more dynamic range and some even say more highlight recovery; and that the M10-R doesn't create a problem with needing a higher minimum shutter speed for reliable, handheld camera shake-free shooting than the M10.

I understand that these views reflect their experience. However, I remain skeptical that  the M10-R has better dynamic range than the M10, considering that the graphs for the two cameras on photonstophotos.net indicate that the M10 may actually have a small advantage in this respect: this is looking at the Photo Dynamic Range Chart and, particularly, the Photo Dynamic Range Improvement chart. This point has been raised in other threads, but no explanation has emerged on why these charts don't show the superiority of the M10-R in terms of dynamic range.

The other premise of my OP is that the introduction of the SL2-S with 24 MP augurs well for there being a successor camera to the M10/M10-P with a sensor of around 24 MP, rather than a sensor with much higher resolution. It is interesting that the Sony A7S III was introduced in July with a 12.2 MP sensor and a pixel pitch of 8.32 µm. I learned about this camera yesterday, when I was looking for a youtube video by "Lintaro" on the Ricoh GR III, and found his video about a recent  outing in the Bavarian Alps just to try out the Sony. Although the A7S III is apparently aimed at video, about which I know zilch, it's interesting to see that Sony is countering the market push towards more and more megapixels. As mentioned earlier, the the 24 MP M10 has a pixel pitch of 6.00  µm and the M10-R, 4.78  µm — that is a large enough difference to have some impact on the general need for more care in the minimum shutter speed for handheld photography as discussed in the Ming Thein link I posted earlier, the rationale for which is particularly well illustrated in @adan's post above. 

I also think your experience with the M10-R is compelling — and expensive for you. I mentioned that I felt it was unlikely that there was a problem with your camera that caused camera shake to be an issue for 80% of shots with shutter speeds below 1/250 sec. I concluded that the basis of what you said, but also on the basis of the feeling that you would have gone for a warranty repair or refund if there was really a problem specific to the camera the you bought. (BTW, when I clicked to follow you on Instagram (where I'm "mitchalland"), I was amazed to see that you have almost ½-million followers. C'est le cinéma, ça? I've only 180 followers, not enough to do anything for the sale of my book.)

While the image below has a lot of detail, I don't need feel it needs more resolution. In fact, the first version in my processing (using AnalogEfex) had a combination of more sharpness and contrast than the one below (using the VSCO  Neonpan 1600  preset without added grain), which I prefer. The shutter speed is roughly1/2f — if I were planning the shot, I would use a faster shutter speed; the area under the market awnings was dark (hence ISO 3200); before turning towards this subject I was shooting into a brighter area and reduced the shutter speed by one stopped just before pressing the shutter to get a spot-on exposure.  

M10 | Summaron-M 1:5.6/28 | ISO 3200 | f/5.6 | 1/60 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

[astrostl]

38 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

and some even say more highlight recovery

This has been widely confirmed with reviews and tests rather than just "said", no?

[Dr No]

11 hours ago, Steven said:

Couldn't agree more. And once again, the experience I shared is just my experience. The R is for sure an excellent camera. What I loved the most about it and that ill miss on my P was the base ISO at 100. But it wasn't for me. Just like the SL2 wasn't for me and now I love the SL2S. I'm a 24MP shooter. It's my sweetspot. 

The only camera I like with more MP is the Q2, but that's because what I expect from a Q2 is extreme versatility in a small package. 

If your pictures from the M10R were much more blurred than the M10 it's likely that something defective.

Was it motion blur or focus blur?

[jplomley]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Motion blur 

Sensor not securely mounted?

[oka]

On 12/20/2020 at 2:01 AM, Steven said:

Quick update: I took the m10p out to diner with my wife tonight. We walked around paris. My shots were so so so clean and so perfect that I’m starting to wonder if my R wasn’t deficient. The difference is just too big. It wasn’t an RF issue because live view still gave me bad results. 
In any case, I’m reborn. I gained my confidence back. I feel capable to taking out the M again for serious stuffs. 

It might be. My experience with M10/P vs M10R differs. As I posted crude test shots between M10P/M10R/SL2/SL2S on SL forum the M10/P shows worst performance in high iso by quite wide margin.

Also the highlights are much better in M10R than in M10/P in low iso.

M10R is currently in my opinion best balance between megapixels, sensitivity and dr on Leica line up.

Regarding the sharpness of the photos, I haven’t had any problems with the M10R. I usually shoot 1/60.

[pgk]

If we had had web fora back in the days of Kodachrome 25 and 200 I can imagine similar discussion taking place .....

[MrFriendly]

15 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

This point has been raised in other threads, but no explanation has emerged on why these charts don't show the superiority of the M10-R in terms of dynamic range.

Maybe the charts are wrong?  For example, isn't the SL2 advertised as 14 stops of dynamic range?  The chart, if i'm looking at it right, shows only 10-11 stops of dynamic range.

[adan]

Hmm - scientific test vs "advertising?" Which to believe?

Anyway, I don't know that Leica "advertises" 14 stops of DR.

They may well specify 14-bit data output, but that is just a "packaging" or envelope for the data (and pretty common these days for raw files) - it does not mean the camera/sensor is capable of filling the entire envelope.

[adan]

 

There seems to be some confusion about what dynamic range is. As it says right on the label - it is a "range."

It cannot be measured by looking at only one end of the range (e.g. blown highlights vs. no blown highlights). Any more than a piece of string can be measured by putting only one end on the ruler.

The M10-R may hold highlights better than the M10 (vanilla),

but:

1) unless one also looks at the amount of shadow detail in the same picture, one still does not know the "range."

2) there are many factors that go into how a digital camera renders tonal range. Metering calibration. ISO calibration. The analog-to-digital conversion process (turning charge or voltage into 1s and 0s). The tone curve applied to "delinearize" the sensor data, and make it look more like the S-shaped tone curve of film that we have been used to seeing for nearly 200 years.

All of those can be adjusted and tweaked in firmware, which sits in between what comes off the sensor and the final picture (even in .DNG/raw). And it is altogether possible that Leica "massages the data" differently in the M10-R than the original M10 - precisely because of negative comments about the sharp roll-off of highlights in the M10's calibration/conversion/curve.

The only way to know for sure is to make tests of each of the factors. Does the M10-R expose the same/correctly when metered with an independent light meter (i.e. hand-held). Is "ISO 100" actually "ISO 100" when exposed that way? What exposure actually reproduces a calibrated gray card as brightness/luminance value 120? What happens when a gray card is sequentially over- or under-exposed in 1/2-stop steps up to 8 stops each direction - and charted - and compared?

The plain M10 has plenty of DR (~11.5 stops) - but it is not evenly distributed around medium gray. 8 stops are in the grays darker than medium gray (tremendous capability for shadow recovery), with only 3.5 stops for the range above medium gray. That's different than the M (typ 240), which is more like 7/4. What does an M10-R chart look like? What shape is its "S."

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!

[Guest Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, adan said:

...The plain M10 has plenty of DR (~11.5 stops) - but it is not evenly distributed around medium gray. 8 stops are in the grays darker than medium gray (tremendous capability for shadow recovery), with only 3.5 stops for the range above medium gray. That's different than the M (typ 240), which is more like 7/4. What does an M10-R chart look like? What shape is its "S."...

Andy - It would be great if you could get a hold of an M10-R and plot the results on the chart above and see the distribution. Going by the photonstophotos curves, however, I suspect that the dynamic range would be similar, or a bit less than than that of the M10/M10-P, with the distribution around medium gray being more like the M240. In practical terms, my understanding is that this would mean no intrinsic advantage of the M10-R in terms of highlight rendering; that shooting the M10/M10-P generally by underexposing by ⅔ of a stop would protect the highlights sufficiently — and in extreme cases of contre-jour, exposing for the highlights, like slide film — would yield the same, or slightly better, results. 
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[SrMi]

10 hours ago, MrFriendly said:

Maybe the charts are wrong?  For example, isn't the SL2 advertised as 14 stops of dynamic range?  The chart, if i'm looking at it right, shows only 10-11 stops of dynamic range.

There are different kinds of DR measurements. Sony advertises 15 stop for a7rIV, with a footnote saying "Sony test conditions." When comparing, it is essential to use the same type of measurements.

[Tom1234]

On 12/19/2020 at 7:56 AM, Steven said:

Sorry mate ... it’s a great camera and I hope you enjoy it. 
I’m downgrading this afternoon, and the R journey cost me 2.2k in the process ! 
but I’m happy like this. I feel confident in my decision. 

Cost of journey... The TL2 small sensor journey cost me about $,1300.  I will never try another small frame camera... they just don't get the development and production money into them to create the best equipment. 

Glad you are taking this trial of s's and m's before me. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tom1234]

On 12/20/2020 at 5:36 AM, harmen said:

The sensor does not shake independent of the lens.  It is the entire system that shakes when not held steady.  Hence it is all about the degree to which the captured image shifts relative to the sensor.

Also like with TV, pixel reading routines may jump across the sensor then "stitch" the picture back together after the shutter closes.  If the pixel reading, two passes of it as in done with video cameras, is about the same speed as camera shake during hand held operation then you might get pixel-reconstruction-blur that looks instead like out of focus.  

Oddly similar to TV's problem handling patterns where it makes a complex reoccurring pattern "move" "dance" on the screen due to pixel and scan patterns that confuse the stitching software that puts the pixels back together to make the combined picture.  This looks like blur?

Film grains all did a "read" of the light at the same time and did not have this timing reconstruction problem that video has.   

It could be that 40meg high res cameras just happen to combine pixels and patterns at a similar speed to hand held vibration due to software processing routines inability to handle certain frequencies of vibration caused by certain lens angle changes and vibration frequencies.  So you need a faster shutter speed to give less information to the pixel software routine that it will only screw up anyway.  Just a thought to ruin the software writers day and give them bad dreams. 

It is no wonder the camera makers don't talk about this anomaly.  Why would they tell others companies how to fix it.  Why admit a problem with the camera that can be blamed on the user?  Only the forums wander across this truth.  Long live forums.

[MrFriendly]

12 hours ago, adan said:

Hmm - scientific test vs "advertising?" Which to believe?

Anyway, I don't know that Leica "advertises" 14 stops of DR.

They may well specify 14-bit data output, but that is just a "packaging" or envelope for the data (and pretty common these days for raw files) - it does not mean the camera/sensor is capable of filling the entire envelope.

I'm not talking about 14-bit color depth.  I saw on Leica Miami where it said in the description:

Quote

• 14 stops of dynamic range: Plenty of latitude in post-processing to push shadows and pull highlights even in difficult lighting