To P or to R, that is the Question

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, RayD28 said:

1600 iso.  Probably could use LR and DNoise to use 3200 but I don’t like fiddling in PP.   

Given that there's such a small difference in price between the P and the R I would strongly suggest going for the R

[Crem]

Both are great cameras and I went with the R. Mine is on order before the price increases tomorrow. My plan was to buy a used P or a new R. I think both of those options make sense. I don’t think buying a new P makes financial sense so long as you order the R before April 1st. Main reasons I went R:

1.  I didn’t find a used P for a price I was willing to pay. 
2. The R sensor is much newer technology with base ISO of 100 and significantly better highlight recovery. Both of these combined means less need for ND filters when shooting wide open in bright sun. It also means less of a chance of blowing out the highlights if you expose wrong.
3. Expected better resale value for the R when if you go to upgrade it someday. 
4. I played with the raw files from both and really liked what i saw with the R. 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Crem

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, Crem said:

Both are great cameras and I went with the R. Mine is on order before the price increases tomorrow. My plan was to buy a used P or a new R. I think both of those options make sense. I don’t think buying a new P makes financial sense so long as you order the R before April 1st. Main reasons I went R:

1.  I didn’t find a used P for a price I was willing to pay. 
2. The R sensor is much newer technology with base ISO of 100 and significantly better highlight recovery. Both of these combined means less need for ND filters when shooting wide open in bright sun. It also means less of a chance of blowing out the highlights if you expose wrong.
3. Expected better resale value for the R when if you go to upgrade it someday. 
4. I played with the raw files from both and really liked what i saw with the R. 

The M10-R probably makes more sense if you are getting your new M camera

you still need ND on noctilux if you want to shoot wide open.

I find under exposure is a common routine for q2 SL2 and m10-p to save highlights.

 

If you are still looking for M10-p I am feeling my camera for about $5000

[Crem]

7 hours ago, Photoworks said:

The M10-R probably makes more sense if you are getting your new M camera

you still need ND on noctilux if you want to shoot wide open.

I find under exposure is a common routine for q2 SL2 and m10-p to save highlights.

 

If you are still looking for M10-p I am feeling my camera for about $5000

Fortunately (unfortunately?) I don’t think I’ll be getting a noctilux due to cost and size. My original ND filter comment was more about the F2 and F1.4 lenses and I do think the R makes a significant difference there. Roughly 1 to 3 stops worth when it comes to skipping the ND filter.

 I do agree with you on underexposing with the P. It has great shadow recovery so it’s not a big deal to then fix in post processing. I believe it’s common with the P to leave the exposure compensation at -2/3rds when shooting in bright light?

$5000 sounds like a good price. I think you can sell it fairy easily if you list it on this forum and a few others. I’m no longer looking for a P now that I ordered the R. 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Crem

[Herr Barnack]

I would get the M10R.  It has advantages and upgrades that the M10P lacks, as others have already observed.

[Crem]

38 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

I would get the M10R.  It has advantages and upgrades that the M10P lacks, as others have already observed.

Has the chicken ever given bad advice? I believe the answer is no. Everyone should go R. 

[mujk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To R is human, to P is, well, a necessity.

[Herr Barnack]

4 hours ago, mujk said:

To R is human, to P is, well, a necessity.

Coming soon to Leica stores:  The Leica M10-Pee Urologist Limited Edition, resplendent in a sumptuous yellow leather covering hand crafted by Hermes.

This camera will be a milestone in the M lineup, as it will will be the first M to feature the IP-52 rating for protection against "spray water" as it is called on Leica's Q2 page.

[jscottyk]

Around here, threads don’t “jump the shark” they “jump the chicken”! 🤣

[jdlaing]

Jump the chicken. 
 

It doesn’t sound right.

[colonel]

On 3/29/2021 at 9:50 AM, jonoslack said:

Hi There Ray

When I was first sent the -R to test I was quite certain that I didn't need or want the extra resolution. However, when I uploaded the first card the immediate response was 'F&*k Yes' The files are just much nicer - although the colour is a little different, something to get used to.

So, in my book the real advantage of the R is in the handling of highlights, which was always the weakspot of the M10 sensor - I feel that there is a stop of recovery in the M10-R, and then add in the fact that the base ISO is half that of the M10-P and you have nearly 2 stops more headroom, which is really significant shooting wide open in bright sunlight. 

It also means that when shooting in contrasty situations you don't need to protect the highlights, and that in turn makes it less likely that you will block in the shadows - so you have an obvious noise advantage here as well.

Then - let's talk ISO - I think that Sean and I came to the same conclusion, which is that the noise levels were about the same at 100%, but of course that gave the M10-R a significant advantage because of the higher resolution. So, Yes to your question, when you match the file dimensions the M10-R has a significant advantage with ISO (maybe 1/2 stop, but taken in conjunction with the highlight advantage it's significant).

. . . and the cropping - is really useful - especially in close up situations, and also using wider lenses. I've always been a 50mm guy, but with both the SL2 and the M10-R I've found myself shooting wider - cropping to 50 is no disadvantage compared to the M10-P but if you don't need to then you have more resolution. 

But it's the 'look' of the files which really gets to me every time I shoot with both - I have a much loved M10 as well, and tend to shoot it together with the M10-R with different lenses).

It seems to me that the £600 extra for an M10-R is the best money you can possibly spend right now!

Sorry - that doesn't sound very measured or restrained! but I feel quite strongly about it!

All the best

Jono

sensible advice for new perhaps in terms of price, but I still think that the high resolution is lost much of the time at low hand held speeds. Of course its worth having the extra headroom and resolution when needed, no question

but the M10 is fine for me now. DR at the top and bottom is excellent

from:

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!

to:

And believe me I was being pretty conservative as I wanted to maintain the dark look under the bridge. I could have made it like the beach

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by colonel

[setuporg]

On 4/1/2021 at 4:01 PM, Herr Barnack said:

IP-52

With a free waterproof bag for the senior buyers over 52.

[Lee S]

On 3/29/2021 at 9:50 AM, jonoslack said:

Hi There Ray

When I was first sent the -R to test I was quite certain that I didn't need or want the extra resolution. However, when I uploaded the first card the immediate response was 'F&*k Yes' The files are just much nicer - although the colour is a little different, something to get used to.

So, in my book the real advantage of the R is in the handling of highlights, which was always the weakspot of the M10 sensor - I feel that there is a stop of recovery in the M10-R, and then add in the fact that the base ISO is half that of the M10-P and you have nearly 2 stops more headroom, which is really significant shooting wide open in bright sunlight. 

It also means that when shooting in contrasty situations you don't need to protect the highlights, and that in turn makes it less likely that you will block in the shadows - so you have an obvious noise advantage here as well.

Then - let's talk ISO - I think that Sean and I came to the same conclusion, which is that the noise levels were about the same at 100%, but of course that gave the M10-R a significant advantage because of the higher resolution. So, Yes to your question, when you match the file dimensions the M10-R has a significant advantage with ISO (maybe 1/2 stop, but taken in conjunction with the highlight advantage it's significant).

. . . and the cropping - is really useful - especially in close up situations, and also using wider lenses. I've always been a 50mm guy, but with both the SL2 and the M10-R I've found myself shooting wider - cropping to 50 is no disadvantage compared to the M10-P but if you don't need to then you have more resolution. 

But it's the 'look' of the files which really gets to me every time I shoot with both - I have a much loved M10 as well, and tend to shoot it together with the M10-R with different lenses).

It seems to me that the £600 extra for an M10-R is the best money you can possibly spend right now!

Sorry - that doesn't sound very measured or restrained! but I feel quite strongly about it!

All the best

Jono

‘in the fact that the base ISO is half that of the M10-P’

Is that really the case? It seems to me Leica tried to fool customers into thinking the ISO performance is better than it actually is on the M10. You obviously rumbled Leica through your testing that ISO 100 was a pull ISO that clipped highlights. 

Looking at DXOmark it’s clear whilst the camera states ISO200 it’s an actual measured sensitivity is ISO100 and so on up the ISO range. I have also tested this side by side with other cameras using adapted M lenses. 

Wonder if they fixed it on the M10R and ISO 100 on the dial is closer to ISO 100 in real life. Feels like the VW diesel scandal to me. 

That said I love my camera but feel Leica could have been straight with their customers. 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Lee S
Update

[M11 for me]

it is indeed a pain to see in DxO that there is an ISO deviation of nearly one stop compared to other non-M Leicas or other brands. 

But unfortunately I remind you of a discussion a while ago as some friend here claim that there is no ISO definition (except for old film)  and so there is no right or wrong.

My personal point is that after all DxO is a most valuable database (with certainly some weeknesses as we all know) that they constantly update for us at no cost.

In fact I set my base ISO on my M10 always to 200 (according to Jono Slack) knowing that it is probaly around 100. 

The blogger Tony Northrup made an excellent video about DxO database and how to use it. That is quite a while ago.

Edited April 4, 2021 by M10 for me

[Guest Nowhereman]

Generally M10-R users praise their cameras for better highlight rendering than that of the M10. They're talking about SOOC, I believe. However, the graphs on https://photonstophotos.net show that the dynamic range of the M10-R and the M10 is virtually the same (with the M10 having the a slight advantage at lower ISO), and that the shadow recovery of the M10 is substantially better than that of the M10-R (see below).

The difference in the SOOC DNGs is , I think, that the contrast curve applied in the M10 distribute relatively more of the available dynamic range to the the shadows than to the highlights, while this distribution is the opposite in the M10-R — with relatively more of the available dynamic range being applied to the highlights. This is why, when shooting into the light or with strong sidelight with the M10, it's necessary to underexpose so much and then lift shadows accordingly in post-processing. Indeed, I wish Leica had let the M10 SOOC DNGs have less contrast.

I  think that Leica has had quite an achievement in being able to have virtually the same dynamic range in the 41 MP M10-R as in the 24 MP M10, though I'll stick with my M10.

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 and Instagram

[M11 for me]

Thank you for this contribution. Is this considering the different resolution.

DxO would distinguish between "screen" resp "print" (pixel based vs. same size final image). Unfortunately in DxO the M10-R is not listed (yet).

Edited April 4, 2021 by M10 for me

[jonoslack]

8 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Generally M10-R users praise their cameras for better highlight rendering than that of the M10. They're talking about SOOC, I believe. However, the graphs on https://photonstophotos.net show that the dynamic range of the M10-R and the M10 is virtually the same (with the M10 having the a slight advantage at lower ISO), and that the shadow recovery of the M10 is substantially better than that of the M10-R (see below).

The difference in the SOOC DNGs is , I think, that the contrast curve applied in the M10 distribute relatively more of the available dynamic range to the the shadows than to the highlights, while this distribution is the opposite in the M10-R — with relatively more of the available dynamic range being applied to the highlights. This is why, when shooting into the light or with strong sidelight with the M10, it's necessary to underexpose so much and then lift shadows accordingly in post-processing. Indeed, I wish Leica had let the M10 SOOC DNGs have less contrast.

I  think that Leica has had quite an achievement in being able to have virtually the same dynamic range in the 41 MP M10-R as in the 24 MP M10, though I'll stick with my M10.

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 and Instagram

Hi There

This is good information, and I think it very well bears out what I would say: I never felt that the Dynamic range in the M10-R is better than the M10 (it would be an achievement with the smaller pixels). But it does have two advantages:

1. It handles highlights much better

2. the base ISO is 'about' 100 whereas that in the M10 is 'about' 200

But it would be sad If Leica hadn't improved things for the M10-R sensor!

But as stated elsewhere, I think the M10-R is a substantial improvement in that it gives you almost 2 stops more leeway shooting wide open in bright and contrasty conditions (1 because of the base ISO, another because of the better highlight management). . . . . . and it has the croppability of the larger sensor, and I can't remember how long ago it was that I wanted to get more details out of the shadows!

 

 

[Lee S]

8 hours ago, M10 for me said:

it is indeed a pain to see in DxO that there is an ISO deviation of nearly one stop compared to other non-M Leicas or other brands. 

But unfortunately I remind you of a discussion a while ago as some friend here claim that there is no ISO definition (except for old film)  and so there is no right or wrong.

My personal point is that after all DxO is a most valuable database (with certainly some weeknesses as we all know) that they constantly update for us at no cost.

In fact I set my base ISO on my M10 always to 200 (according to Jono Slack) knowing that it is probaly around 100. 

The blogger Tony Northrup made an excellent video about DxO database and how to use it. That is quite a while ago.

It looks like ISO standards for camera sensitivity was published in 2019!

https://www.iso.org/news/ref2375.html

Does seem odd most camera manufacturers were in the ballpark regarding ISO before this standard and even Leica (except it seems for digital M10?) 

Yes, thanks to Jonos findings who I respect immensely as a photographer and in terms of technical knowledge, I use ISO200 as the base on my M10.

It seems cost between the 24MP M10 and M10R is minimal so if that’s the case the M10R would probably be a better bet in resale value alone, as Jono said the output files are nicer regardless of DR differences and if you downsample images the noise looks better. 

In my experience I needed a better laptop for my 47MP Sony Raw files however lightroom mobile on my old iPhone 7 still worked well.

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Lee S

[hdmesa]

8 hours ago, Steven said:

Quick question. How does one downsamples the M10R file to a 24mp photo ? Can this be done in Lightroom ? 

When you export* your images, there’s a place where you can enter in the long side pixel width of the M10-P. Also add the appropriate sharpening option on export (for screen, etc.). Re-import the image back into LR if you want to compare it against an M10-P shot (or export the M10-P shot the same way and open both in PS).

*Export to TIFF or PSD to retain the highest quality if the goal is to compare with an M10-P DNG. 

Edited April 5, 2021 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

50 minutes ago, Steven said:

I only see the option to reduce the size if exporting to JPEG. Which to me, is not exactly downsizing. Just exporting a low quality preview. 

Hi Steven

The point of lightroom is not to do any 'converting' but editing without changing the original - at least that's how I see it - you can export to a different resolution and then re-import so you have 2 'originals'. If you want to downsize an image you're better to do it in Photoshop (which has special algorithms for the job)

best