Is the M10-R a Success?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, setuporg said:

Sorry to say so, but the M10 and M10P holdouts trying to reassure themselves that their generation is enough is just like any talk here -- anger, denial, bargaining, and acceptance is coming soon.

If something works for you, there is no reason to put others down who find differently... And you are cpmpletely  wrong to boot. The quality of photographs does not come from spending on the newest and shiniest. It comes from using the gear that is suited to one's style and needs, be it a Barnack, Digilux2 or newest Sony, and knowing how to handle it. It may well be that one's photography benefits more from investing in an inspiring workshop (when that is possible again) than spending on the newest megapixel monster which will be “obsolete” in a few months anyway. 

[Advertisement]

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

[kegon]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

The quality of photographs does not come from spending on the newest and shiniest.

Yes, one might have a look at the video linked below... 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Yes, the fact is that the M10-R is THE BEST LEICA M ***SO FAR*** period.
But whether you need or want the best Leica so far is another question. Some do, some do not. No need to put anyone down for either.

Respectfully, that cuts both ways.............

[jaapv]

It is worth remembering that we had a megapixel race, driven by Canon, a couple of decades ago, when camera makers needed to boost sales over film cameras. Now camera sales are falling off and they have reached for the same marketing weapon on a different level, this time driven by Sony - and it works. The Leica Q points the way: We will be able to dispense with long focal lengths altogether and rely on cropping only when we have reached 1000 MP sensors. The bonus will be that pixel binning at wider crops will boost noisefree ISO to 1.000.000 or more.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, kegon said:

Yes, one might have a look at the video linked below... 

 

Thanks for this, but I don't know if you noticed that many of the photographs shown in these collections were out of focus or not sharp at all and really would have benefitted I think if they had better gear.....................

[kegon]

vor 53 Minuten schrieb petermullett:

Thanks for this, but I don't know if you noticed that many of the photographs shown in these collections were out of focus or not sharp at all and really would have benefitted I think if they had better gear.....................

No doubt about that... But it doesn't work the other way (vice versa..)... All I need to do, is to look at my own shots :-) 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, petermullett said:

Thanks for this, but I don't know if you noticed that many of the photographs shown in these collections were out of focus or not sharp at all and really would have benefitted I think if they had better gear.....................

Benefited technically or aesthetically? 

[budjames]

On 2/9/2021 at 9:47 PM, Raid Amin said:

I was unsure which to get; the M10 or the M10-R.  After some thinking, I decided that the M10 was sufficient for my needs.

I traded an M10 in for the M10-R. Now I have an M10-P (the first factory conversion of an M10 in the USA), M10-R and SL2. Since getting the M10-R, my M10-P sits on a shelf. I won't sell it because this is my first Leica so I'm keeping it for sentimental reasons, totally impractical.

Other then the increased pixel density and larger resulting DNG files, the M10-P and M10-R feel like the same camera. A significant advantage of the M10-R is the increased "crop-ability" of the larger files, kind of like how the Q2 works. And, a slight increase in dynamic range, which is always welcome.

I also notice increased detail in prints that I make from M10-R images, especially on larger 16" x 20" prints.

Given the above, I would definitely choose the M10-R over the M10. If you still want an M10, the Leica dealers all have a huge supply of M10s from trade-ins on the M10-R. These can be purchased for half the cost of a new M10. For the M10-R, you are going to pay full retail price.

Good luck with whichever model you choose. They are both great.

Regards,
Bud James

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

Edited February 14, 2021 by budjames

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Benefited technically or aesthetically? 

It was a tongue-in-cheek joke jaapv..............sorry, perhaps too oblique

Edited February 14, 2021 by petermullett

[Guest Nowhereman]

8 hours ago, setuporg said:

...The blown highlights, the Achilles foot of Leica, are gone...There's absolutely no downside...

32 minutes ago, budjames said:

...And, a slight increase in dynamic range, which is always welcome...

I understand fully why people have bought the M10-R, but forgive me for a bit of skepticism about the claims of greater dynamic range of the M10-R over the M10-P/M10. First, the photonstophotos.net dynamic range graphs show that the dynamic range is essentially the same, with a minuscule advantage to the M10 — and this actually highlights the major achievement of Leica with the M10-R — to be able to do that despite the higher pixel density and smaller pixel size of the M10-R.

I think that, while the M10-R and the M10 have virtually the same dynamic range, the distribution of this range is different in the respective DNGs: the contrast curve applied by the firmware in the M10 allocates a larger proportion of the available dynamic range to shadow tones than to highlights, while the M10-R gives a larger proportions to the highlights than to the shadows. This is why people are finding, SOOC, that the M10-R renders the highlights better than the M10: in other words, when shooting into the light, or with strong sidelight, one doesn't have to underexpose (and lift shows in post) as much with the M10-R as with the M10. (Another set of graphs on the photonstophotos website bears this out in showing that the M10 has significantly more shadow recovery than the M10-R: look at the Photographic Dynamic Range Shadow Improvement graphs.)

That "blown highlights...are gone" with the M10-R is clearly an overstatement: they could possibly be "gone" only if one if one never were to shoot into the light or with strong sidelight — even negative B&W film will sometime blow the highlights if the light in such conditions is strong. As to there being "absolutely no downside" to the M10-R: that has been dealt with in earlier statements about the limitations on handhold shooting, even at shutter speed of 1/250 and 1/125 seconds...
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[budjames]

2 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

I understand fully why people have bought the M10-R, but forgive me for a bit of skepticism about the claims of greater dynamic range of the M10-R over the M10-P/M10. First, the photonstophotos.net dynamic range graphs show that the dynamic range is essentially the same, with a minuscule advantage to the M10 — and this actually highlights the major achievement of Leica with the M10-R — to be able to do that despite the higher pixel density and smaller pixel size of the M10-R.

I think that, while the M10-R and the M10 have virtually the same dynamic range, the distribution of this range is different in the respective DNGs: the contrast curve applied by the firmware in the M10 allocates a larger proportion of the available dynamic range to shadow tones than to highlights, while the M10-R gives a larger proportions to the highlights than to the shadows. This is why people are finding, SOOC, that the M10-R renders the highlights better than the M10: in other words, when shooting into the light, or with strong sidelight, one doesn't have to underexpose (and lift shows in post) as much with the M10-R as with the M10. (Another set of graphs on the photonstophotos website bears this out in showing that the M10 has significantly more shadow recovery than the M10-R: look at the Photographic Dynamic Range Shadow Improvement graphs.)

That "blown highlights...are gone" with the M10-R is clearly an overstatement: they could possibly be "gone" only if one if one never were to shoot into the light or with strong sidelight — even negative B&W film will sometime blow the highlights if the light in such conditions is strong. As to there being "absolutely no downside" to the M10-R: that has been dealt with in earlier statements about the limitations on handhold shooting, even at shutter speed of 1/250 and 1/125 seconds...
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

My practical experience with both cameras doesn't match up with your explanation. It's an incremental improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. And, the crop-ability of the denser files is welcomed.

Regards,
Bud James

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

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, petermullett said:

It was a tongue-in-cheek joke jaapv..............sorry, perhaps too oblique

Reminded me of this...

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html
 

Jeff

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Reminded me of this...

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html
 

Jeff

Yes, that beach shot is really messed up, they should re-shoot it.........

[jplomley]

44 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

As to there being "absolutely no downside" to the M10-R: that has been dealt with in earlier statements about the limitations on handhold shooting, even at shutter speed of 1/250 and 1/125 seconds...
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Not my experience at all, and frankly I'm getting a bit tired of hearing this same rhetoric from the same people. If you can't get sharp images at 1/15th - 1/30th with the M10-R hand-held, move on, its not the camera for you if you need to shoot at these speeds. I have no problems achieving sharp images at these shutter speeds. Before purchasing, this was the first test I did on my dealers demo copy due to the accounts reported from the same few on this forum. Completely unfounded based on my experience. I'm no surgeon, so don't think my hands are any steadier than others.

Edited February 14, 2021 by jplomley

[Jeff S]

Opinions on the topic reside firmly in two camps: either a distinct issue regarding shutter speed requirements; or, no issue at all (at same magnifications). The former camp, besides those chiming in here regularly, include Hugh Brownstone (in his Three Blind Men video reviews, including the M10 Monochrom) and the guys from Leica Miami (David Farkas and Josh Lehrer in their Red Dot Forum YouTube videos).  
 

Jeff

[crf59]

2 hours ago, budjames said:

I traded an M10 in for the M10-R. Now I have an M10-P (the first factory conversion of an M10 in the USA), M10-R and SL2. Since getting the M10-R, my M10-P sits on a shelf. I won't sell it because this is my first Leica so I'm keeping it for sentimental reasons, totally impractical.

Other then the increased pixel density and larger resulting DNG files, the M10-P and M10-R feel like the same camera. A significant advantage of the M10-R is the increased "crop-ability" of the larger files, kind of like how the Q2 works. And, a slight increase in dynamic range, which is always welcome.

I also notice increased detail in prints that I make from M10-R images, especially on larger 16" x 20" prints.

Given the above, I would definitely choose the M10-R over the M10. If you still want an M10, the Leica dealers all have a huge supply of M10s from trade-ins on the M10-R. These can be purchased for half the cost of a new M10. For the M10-R, you are going to pay full retail price.

Good luck with whichever model you choose. They are both great.

Regards,
Bud James

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

Bud, you basically hit the thoughts that were in my mind on the performance of the M10-R. I said previously I had used the R for a week (a friend's) and it is technically a better camera, no doubt about it. My dilemma was whether to sell or trade my 10-P (I have lots of cameras, so don't need 2 M10s) and lose a few thousand dollars in the process. That value proposition was not compelling. Frankly the M10-P does not limit me (there are better photographers than I am without a doubt) so it was an easy decision for me. If I break or wear out my 10-P (not likely to happen), I would buy the 10-R, or whatever the latest generation is. I think perhaps people are just too hung up on chasing progress in today's camera market. But I enjoy the file quality of the R when I was using it. Wonderful camera.

[junix]

I can understand most owners of an M10 or M10-P don't feel that spending a couple of thousands EUR to upgrade to the M10-R makes sense.. but what if you come to your local Leica Dealer with the intent to buy a new M10-P and you can basically leave the store with an M10-R for a couple hundred EUR more?

This is what happened to me, I was an analog Leica shooter and decided to "make the big move" and buy a digital Leica, already owning a couple of 24MP cameras the M10-P seemed perfect.. but was it (..?) for roughly the same price as a newer and objectively better M10-R?

Would I have upgraded from an M10 (or M10-P) to an M10-R? Probably not, but as my first digital Leica it didn't make sense for me to spend almost the same amount of money to get an M10-P (which is a much prettier camera.. 😀)

Adding to what @jplomley wrote, I had the same test on my dealers demo copy, I did 5 shots at 1/30th with my Summilux 35 ASPH and 4 were tack sharp, 1 was acceptable. With an M10-P I scored 5 out of 5. I bought an M10-R. You definitely need a better technic with the R, everything has to be more critical, there is no denying.. but it also heavily depends on what and how you shoot.

Edited February 14, 2021 by junix
typo, corrected by Jeff :)

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, junix said:

I did 5 shots at 1/30th  with my SL 35 ASPH and 4 were tack sharp, 1 was acceptable. 

35 M ASPH, of course... although SL 35 on SL2 (with IBIS) would remove all doubt.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[junix]

2 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

35 M ASPH, of course... although SL 35 on SL2 (with IBIS) would remove all doubt.

Jeff

SL as short of SummiLux but yes, it is quite confusing.. will correct/edit it now, thnx.

[Kwesi]

On 2/9/2021 at 7:05 PM, jplomley said:

...or did Leica get it wrong? I'm not hearing a lot of fanfare on this 40 MP variant, and certainly not many users on this forum waxing lyrical. Even the number of posted images from the camera is rather dismal. My local dealer informs the M10M is easily outselling the M10-R. Not to mention the M10-R introduction by Leica was very low key, as if they did not want anyone to notice 🙂

So, did they miss the mark completely? And what does this mean for the M11? Curious to hear the forum feedback! 

 

 

I was under the impression your question was regarding wether the M10R was a commercial success for Leica - perhaps I'm wrong.

This thread seems to be devolving toward all the  M10 versus M10R threads that have come before it with absolutely nothing new being added to the conversation.