M10 - R: too many pixels?

[kengai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

on the one hand the great performance of this camera, on the other hand the problems that 40 MP gives in usual photography, i.e. street and travel.
What are your experiences?

[elmars]

I don‘t know what the problems in „usual photography“ should be. 

[lanetomlane]

I have an SL2 which I use when I need a high resolution camera, for large prints and cropping, but it doesn’t get used as much as my original SL, or M10. In my opinion the rangefinder camera isn’t the type of camera that needs 40mp, 24 being the sweet spot. To get the full advantage of the SL2 I sometimes use it on a tripod (nowhere as often as I should do), whereas the M10 and SL are handheld for street and candid shots.

I do like the high resolution of the SL2 but would mention that I do have a 2metre x 1metre print, from the original SL, mounted on a conference room wall in Denmark which looks superb.

Just my thoughts.

https://photographybytomlane.com

[84bravo]

I have no problems with 40mp with the M10-R. The ability to crop when needed is worth the money. I do find that I need to upgrade my computer to keep up a bit better, but that's a normal turnaround for me every three years or so.

[chris_tribble]

No problem for me - though the improvement in low light performance, better colour chemistry, and the reduced vulnerability to blown highlights were my reasons for switching from my very well used M10s.

[IkarusJohn]

These high resolution, high performance cameras are a step too far for me.  The A7r and D800e, while only 37.5MP, didn’t work for me - can’t explain it, but 24MP M10 & SL, 18MP Monochrom & the 50MP X1D II were as much as I needed.  It’s not about the number of pixels, it’s their size, quality and the gaps between them, it seems to me.

If Leica released the S3 sensor in a Q3 with a nice 30mm f/2 APO Summicron lens, I’d be in like a shot …

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

If Leica released the S3 sensor in a Q3 with a nice 30mm f/2 APO Summicron lens, I’d be in like a shot …

As you probably know, the M10-R and M10 Monochrom share the S3 sensor architecture (albeit with obviously smaller sensor). I still have the M9 Monochrom, but now also use the M10 Monochrom.  I find that I can get desired and similar print results with each, the primary differences being the M10 platform improvements, the higher ISO capability (which I don’t generally need), and greater file editing flexibility.  I don’t print large enough to care about the increased resolution, but it does provide cropping capability in a pinch.  The S3 sensor improvements (dual gain tech, 10% greater photon gathering, refined pixel shape,  etc), which Stefan Daniel discusses, must be doing something right, but regardless, I haven’t been turned off by the greater MP.  
 

Jeff

[SrMi]

17 hours ago, kengai said:

on the one hand the great performance of this camera, on the other hand the problems that 40 MP gives in usual photography, i.e. street and travel.
What are your experiences?

Can you enumerate the problems with 40MP? I have not noticed any issues when switching between a 24MP and +40MP cameras. I find +40MP cameras are more flexible.

Edited October 28, 2021 by SrMi

[grahamc]

Ok second that. Genuine question what are the “issues” with higher megapixels ? I would assume that it’s more unforgiving of technical (focussing) errors ?
 

Also - How about lenses ...  does a higher Mp count reveal imperfections in vintage glass that previous resolutions didn’t?  I ask this because a recent seller of a 50:1.4 pre-ASPH mentioned that the reason for sale was he was using m10R and as a result had switched to the latest and greatest lenses (namely APO in his case ).  I don’t necessarily think that’s valid logic but would appreciate opinions. 
 

my only experience of high megapixels is Sony A7Riv 63MP.  I really like it and haven’t experienced any issues but let’s be honest those cameras drive themselves - very hard / impossible to go wrong. 
 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by grahamc

[IkarusJohn]

47 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Ok second that. Genuine question what are the “issues” with higher megapixels ? I would assume that it’s more unforgiving of technical (focussing) errors ?
 

Also - How about lenses ...  does a higher Mp count reveal imperfections in vintage glass that previous resolutions didn’t?  I ask this because a recent seller of a 50:1.4 pre-ASPH mentioned that the reason for sale was he was using m10R and as a result had switched to the latest and greatest lenses (namely APO in his case ).  I don’t necessarily think that’s valid logic but would appreciate opinions. 
 

my only experience of high megapixels is Sony A7Riv 63MP.  I really like it and haven’t experienced any issues but let’s be honest those cameras drive themselves - very hard / impossible to go wrong. 
 

 

HI Graham,

I think this is more complex than it first appears, and certainly more complex than a lot of the trading blows posts you’ll read here - it’s true! It’s fiction! You don’t know what you’re talking about! Internet myth! Etc etc

The 18MP M9 and 24MP M(240)/M10 were considered to be the “sweet spot” for handheld 135 format digital.  At that time, Sony released its 37.5MP sensor (when Leica had “only” 37.5MP in its S2).  The cameras that first sensor was in (the Sony A7r and the Nikon D800e were two I had) were a nightmare to get sharp.  Many will deny this, but I can say from my own experience, that something was going on, and it wasn’t good.  At the time, the assumption was that it was motion blur, making it very hard to get a sharp image (that was certainly Ming Thein’s conclusion).  I suspect it was a combination of shutter slap and the sensor site designs.  Both of which appear to have been solved.  I have great faith in Jono’s reviews, and he has said more than once that the M10-R doesn’t suffer from pixel level blur.

That said, if I want greater resolution (which I don’t), I would go for a larger sensor over more pixels in a smaller sensor - there are so many advantages to medium format - sadly, size isn’t one of them, and bigger pixels seem to work better than smaller ones ...

As to lens performance, it is very unlikely that any lens is outperformed by the sensor, in that an improved sensor makes an image worse.  I doubt this is actually possible.  Improve either the sensor or the lens, and it is likely the image will be better, even if it’s just to show the lens limitations more clearly.  If you have an M10-R, there is little doubt that a 50 APO Summicron will give you better images than the previous pre-Asph 50 Summicron or Summilux lenses, though some may prefer the older lens rendering.

Each to their own, I guess.

[grahamc]

12 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

HI Graham,

I think this is more complex than it first appears, and certainly more complex than a lot of the trading blows posts you’ll read here - it’s true! It’s fiction! You don’t know what you’re talking about! Internet myth! Etc etc

The 18MP M9 and 24MP M(240)/M10 were considered to be the “sweet spot” for handheld 135 format digital.  At that time, Sony released its 37.5MP sensor (when Leica had “only” 37.5MP in its S2).  The cameras that first sensor was in (the Sony A7r and the Nikon D800e were two I had) were a nightmare to get sharp.  Many will deny this, but I can say from my own experience, that something was going on, and it wasn’t good.  At the time, the assumption was that it was motion blur, making it very hard to get a sharp image (that was certainly Ming Thein’s conclusion).  I suspect it was a combination of shutter slap and the sensor site designs.  Both of which appear to have been solved.  I have great faith in Jono’s reviews, and he has said more than once that the M10-R doesn’t suffer from pixel level blur.

That said, if I want greater resolution (which I don’t), I would go for a larger sensor over more pixels in a smaller sensor - there are so many advantages to medium format - sadly, size isn’t one of them, and bigger pixels seem to work better than smaller ones ...

As to lens performance, it is very unlikely that any lens is outperformed by the sensor, in that an improved sensor makes an image worse.  I doubt this is actually possible.  Improve either the sensor or the lens, and it is likely the image will be better, even if it’s just to show the lens limitations more clearly.  If you have an M10-R, there is little doubt that a 50 APO Summicron will give you better images than the previous pre-Asph 50 Summicron or Summilux lenses, though some may prefer the older lens rendering.

Each to their own, I guess.

Thanks John, 

Very interesting and all makes sense - I hadn't known about those earlier issues with the larger MP digital cameras.  I'm really happy with my A7Riv although naturally it's had very little / no use since I wandered into a Leica store and picked up an M

But it is really impressive. 

In practical terms I doubt that I need higher than 24MP in an M at this point ... even the noticeably quicker download to my computer and pain free editing makes the experience match the M system really well IMO (simplicity/compactness/lightness).   This may change in the future but right now very happy. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by grahamc

[IkarusJohn]

It isn’t a driver for me.  If I want another M camera when my current Ms die and can’t be repaired, I will just take whatever MP is offered.

[trickness]

On 10/28/2021 at 1:51 AM, kengai said:

on the one hand the great performance of this camera, on the other hand the problems that 40 MP gives in usual photography, i.e. street and travel.
What are your experiences?

I set the correct shutter speed and have no “problems” with my high resolution Leicas for street use. Unless I intentionally want some blur, which is a creative decision 

[aristotle]

6 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

HI Graham,

I think this is more complex than it first appears, and certainly more complex than a lot of the trading blows posts you’ll read here - it’s true! It’s fiction! You don’t know what you’re talking about! Internet myth! Etc etc

The 18MP M9 and 24MP M(240)/M10 were considered to be the “sweet spot” for handheld 135 format digital.  At that time, Sony released its 37.5MP sensor (when Leica had “only” 37.5MP in its S2).  The cameras that first sensor was in (the Sony A7r and the Nikon D800e were two I had) were a nightmare to get sharp.  Many will deny this, but I can say from my own experience, that something was going on, and it wasn’t good.  At the time, the assumption was that it was motion blur, making it very hard to get a sharp image (that was certainly Ming Thein’s conclusion).  I suspect it was a combination of shutter slap and the sensor site designs.  Both of which appear to have been solved.  I have great faith in Jono’s reviews, and he has said more than once that the M10-R doesn’t suffer from pixel level blur.

That said, if I want greater resolution (which I don’t), I would go for a larger sensor over more pixels in a smaller sensor - there are so many advantages to medium format - sadly, size isn’t one of them, and bigger pixels seem to work better than smaller ones ...

As to lens performance, it is very unlikely that any lens is outperformed by the sensor, in that an improved sensor makes an image worse.  I doubt this is actually possible.  Improve either the sensor or the lens, and it is likely the image will be better, even if it’s just to show the lens limitations more clearly.  If you have an M10-R, there is little doubt that a 50 APO Summicron will give you better images than the previous pre-Asph 50 Summicron or Summilux lenses, though some may prefer the older lens rendering.

Each to their own, I guess.

I guess I'm one of those who deny this   I still have my D800e and 100% crops from that are as sharp as from most anything that I've used.  Even though the AA filter was removed from the 800e, there is still a low pass filter (albeit weaker than the AA filter in the original D800) so that does blur things a bit in comparison with the D850 for example, but that's not the result of having "more pixels"....the 850 actually has "more".

I tend to do physical prints, so in theory higher resolution would benefit me by allowing more crop flexibility while maintaining a good print resolution.  Practically, 24MP is plenty for that though.  But also practically, even with my older computer systems, 40-50mp doesn't bog anything down for me, and there seems no downside to having higher resolution sensors.

The irony is that for applications where the additional resolution would theoretically benefit (BIF or wildlife from afar), I'm typically handheld with a long telephoto doing my best to keep up with the subject.  In those cases, regardless of IS or technique, the extra resolution doesn't often buy you what you'd like.  On the other hand, for landscapes or other scenes that are composed, one can often define the framing and perspective as desired and even though the capability exists to cut way into the image, it's not needed and you end up throwing resolution away by the time you adjust for print.  There are definitely some nature applications though where it is beneficial to crop into the scene because you can't physically get to where you want to.  All in all, I'd take more resolution whenever it's available.

[tom0511]

for me no problem, just advantage.

I dont need to shoot at ISO 125000 

[Luke_Miller]

Still shooting with the M240/M246 so no experience with the M10-R.  That said, I find that the additional resolution makes it attractive.  My passion is event photography and normally I shoot it with the Nikon D850 and either a 24-70mm or 70-200mm lens. The D850's 45 mpx allows me to crop to get the tight framing I like when 200mm is not long enough.  I have M glass that covers the 21mm to 90mm range.  With 24 mpx that is very limiting for my event work.  A higher resolution M would be much more useful to me.  Another factor is high ISO noise performance.  With my D850 I find that in low light and high ISO settings I can duplicate the ISO performance of my D5 by resizing the D850 images to the 20 mpx size of the D5.  So my next M with be the model with the highest resolution available.

[duoenboge]

Lately I've mostly been going for the R. The P has been staying at home recently. It's not the higher resolution, but the much better sensor. If the P had a sensor on the same level as the a7c, the R would probably be left behind.

[SrMi]

When comparing cameras with different MPs, it is erroneous to compare them with varying sizes of output (or pixel peeping). This is because any focusing issues or camera body movements have the same effect at the same output size, regardless of MPs. However, a higher MP camera has the potential to create a larger print or allow for better image processing (e.g., perspective correction). 

[rcusick]

I was surprised... The M10-R is a better camera in every way to the M10.  1-2 stops better low light performance.  1-2 stops of better shadow and highlight recovery.  Better colors.  I love being able to crop (admittedly that's lazy).  I'm not trying to be provocative.  I've owned both and the difference was much more than I would have anticipated.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

On the vintage lens question, its winds up essentially the same as the noise issue. If you mag to 100% you may more easily notice flaws in the lens, just as you'd see higher noise levels on a pixel to pixel basis.  But viewed at a similar resolution  to the M10, there's not much different.  When I first got the 10-R, first week of release, I did some test shots, which of course I s[ent time viewing at 100%. I was annoyed to see in some shots with an early 35mm lux shot wide open that there was a quite a bit of ghosting present in the corners at close distance when shot wide open. I one case I recall seeing concentric circles in the corner, flaws in the lens grinding. After carping about it here, it was suggested by some hat these were merely properties of the lens, nothing to do with the 10-R. I went back and checked various shots done with the M10 and sure enough, same thing.  I just hadn't noticed as a I wasn't specifically looking closely enough.