Will you buy M10R BP instead of buying M11?

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Herr Barnack said:

But if it rains diamonds at my house, I'll get one of each. 

When that storm blows over your home, send it my way.  Then I too can buy one of each.  But I'd probably put all the new ones in my camera drawer, and continue using my M10.  If it wasn't for infrared, I doubt I'be doing much with my M8.2 in the future.

A shiny (gaudy?) black finish is lovely to drool over, but when I'm out in a crowd, I prefer a camera nobody pays much attention to.

 

You know, if I was more of a Leica fan, I wouldn't be saying these things.  That's why I bought black cameras before they became fashionable, as regular people didn't notice them.  That's as true today as a lifetime ago.  By comparison, with the -R, my old M10 looks like it's from the 1980's or so, and most people still think it's an old film camera when they see it.  That's fine by me.   My reasons for liking, and preferring, Leica cameras go way back, because they were the best for applications like news photography.  This makes for interesting reading, but I remember all the regular photographers who preferred the very rugged Leica cameras...   Leica M3D-2    I remember how "simple" my M3 and my M2 were/are.  Photographers concentrated on the picture they were taking, not the camera.  I'm in no way in the same category as they were, but it has always stuck with me as my "ultimate goal".

Of course, nowadays, I'm totally spoiled by "digital".  The camera is essentially the same, and once the image is processed, again things are mostly the same, but I no longer have a darkroom and all the gear I grew up with.....

 

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!

[MikeMyers]

18 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

I thought my photographs would show a remarkable improvement when I went from 3 to 6MP, again when I went from 6 to 12...then to 16, then 24, and now 40.  But no, nothing! I'm sure there's a sweet spot somewhere.

I no longer think upgrading cameras makes much of a difference, as long as the "heart" of the camera stays the same.  It's a struggle, but I can still do just fine with my M8.2, as long as I stay within the limitations.  Leica has already reached the "top", and all the newer "upgrades" seem like adding more icing to the cake.  The cake is already perfect.

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

One last question - one of the most important things to David Douglas Duncan and the other war photographers, was "shutter lag time".  Lots more about that can be read here - shutter lag time, and more .  Quoting from that:

"On top right area of the Leica M3D-2 is the shutter release button, with a shutter lag time of only 12 ms, a side in which this mirrorless with rangefinder camera built 59 years ago clearly outperforms superb professional digital full frame present dslr cameras like the Nikon D800, Nikon D800E, Nikon D4, Nikon D4s, Nikon D850, Canon EOS 1DX, Canon EOS 5D Mark III, mirrorless full frame digital cameras without rangefinder like the Sony A7III, Sony Alpha 7R III, Sony Alpha 7S, Sony Alpha 9 and others, Fujifilm mirrorless X series cameras like the Fuji XT-2, X-Pro 2, XH-1 featuring excellent APS-C X-Trans sensors and mirrorless Micro Four Thirds top of the line cameras like the Olympus EM-1 Mark II, E-M5 Mark II, Pen-F, Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5K, Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4K, Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 and many others.

This incredibly short shutter lag (time elapsed between the instant in which the photographer presses the shutter release button and the exact moment when the exposure is made ) has been one of the historical hallmarks of the Leica M mirrorless with rangefinder System and a trait (among many others) of invaluable help which has enabled a high percentage of the best photographers in history to get with them many iconic images having defined the evolution of XX and XXI centuries, with a commendable transition from 24 x 36 mm format analogue models to digital ones with identical philosophy, handling, very small dimensions and weight for their full frame sensors and beautiful timeless classicism of lines like the Leica M9, Leica M9 Titanium, M9-P, Monochrom, Leica M Type 241, Leica M10 and so forth."''

 

Anybody here know the shutter lag time of the newer Leica M cameras?

[Sjz]

That’s a lovely looking camera Mike 🙂 thank you for sharing.

I recognise what you say, especially the ‘icing on the cake’ and ‘form follows function’,   I do not think that the cameras would allow me to become a better photographer, that has to come from within, I do think they could allow me to take clean images where I would otherwise be unable to do so.  How much that is worth to me, how much the pretty paint is worth to me - I don’t know which is why I am typing here as opposed to buying it.

M10R BP or M11? Or indeed any incarnation of the colour Ms.  A very nice decision to make, or prevaricate over.  I do know I am happy with what I have and will be happy with whatever additions I make.  I simply enjoy photography and that includes learning how to use a camera, learning how to use each lens, learning how to process photographs AND getting my backside off the chair and going out and taking photographs. It all falls apart for me if one of those is not happening. 

[grahamc]

20 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Not sure why I even read this thread, as "all" I've got is a standard M10.  For me, all these discussions come down to "form follows function", and while the newer M10R-BP would give me the possibilities of larger images, it would create other problems in my workflow.  I thought 16megs was all I needed, and 24 is already over that.  As to the BP, I'll agree, it's gorgeous, but I prefer the M10 just the way it came, with a "flat" black finish.  I don't like cameras that generate attention, one reason why the logo is covered with a piece of black electrical tape.

"Need" vs. "want".....   I guess I'd gladly accept the additional features of the R, and ditto for the 11, but it would mostly be wasted on me, for the reasons others have posted.  

I got my M10 from B&H Photo as an "open box sale", so it was new, but had been used as a demonstrator.  I knew I'd never get another chance to buy a new M at the price they gave me, which was before Covid turned my world upside down.  

 

Nobody listens to me, but my advice to Leica would have been to keep the previous M10 cameras available, and let buyers select what best fits their needs.  For the same price, I'd probably buy "the best" and ignore the features that I had no interest in, but to save $2,000 or so and get a brand new M, that's what I would buy tomorrow, if given the choice.  It's like with cars, where you can double the price of the car with add-ons.  If I was rich, I might buy one of each - which as a photographer, would be quite silly.  

Also - the reason I'm shooting with my M10 instead of my D750 is because I enjoy using Leica M cameras.  By the time all those add-ons come into the picture, and I think about Live View, my reaction is I might as well be using my Nikon which has a far better "live view".  The Leica is far better than the Nikon DSLR when used the way Robert Capa did things, and if I want to carefully compose and set up a still shot, the Nikon is far superior.  I like the rangefinder, the weight of an M, the way it feels in my hands, and the "connection" between my brain and what the camera does.....    but this is for the type of photography 35mm cameras were originally designed.  With all those options, especially with the M11, my gut feeling is I might as well use my D750 (or buy a D850 as so many of my friends insist I do...).  As for lenses, with wide angle lenses, and normal, I like all these cameras, but when I put my 135 TeleElmar on my M10, I'm thinking to myself - why?

(I'm "cheating" in a way, as I so much prefer the grip of my Nikon in my hand, that I ordered the Leica hand grip.  I'm way too stubborn, and I try to do things with my M10 even when I "know" it would be easier with the Nikon.)

It's funny, I went out with my 10-D today and am really questioning whether I need a 10R.  Well , of course I don't 'need' one - that's obvious, but you know what I mean. 

I share your views on the M11 seeming now a little too close to other brands that we have chosen M over.   I have the Sony A7Riv and it's metering and dynamic range capabilities are extraordinary, IMO .  So for certain types of shooting - be it landscape, or challenging contrasting light.. you have an extremely malleable file to recover and/or play with in post production.  

One of the joys of the M for me (and I only 'know' M since the M10 generation) is that it takes more thought and undoubtedly more skill than my previous camera.  This is part of the joy and why if I did go with a high resolution M I would choose the 10R over 11 currently .  It would remain more in tune with my film m and as I am still learning exposure etc it would in turn make me a 'better' photographer I think .  

Whatever 'better' means in this world where we are assisted with so much technology.  In a previous lifetime I was a working (and sometimes touring) DJ and I also lost interest as soon as things shifted from vinyl decks to CD and then further tech improvements where the CD decks seemed to drive themselves.  The 'art' of learning the craft was lost, however the reality was that people coming through into the industry didn't actually need to know that craft anymore in order to produce the best work . 

My conclusion in all of this a) I like to make things difficult for myself and that is part of the fun of M. b) I don't need a 10R but may get one anyway .   Funnily enough I also share your feelings about the BP, it is a gorgeous finish but I may feel the need to baby it a bit more than I would like .  Today was a joy taking the Chrome M10-D to the beach and the finish is part of that experience - I am not thinking too much about it or treating it with kid gloves. 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by grahamc

[Sjz]

48 minutes ago, grahamc said:

It's funny, I went out with my 10-D today and am really questioning whether I need a 10R.  Well , of course I don't 'need' one - that's obvious, but you know what I mean. 

I share your views on the M11 seeming now a little too close to other brands that we have chosen M over.   I have the Sony A7Riv and it's metering and dynamic range capabilities are extraordinary, IMO .  So for certain types of shooting - be it landscape, or challenging contrasting light.. you have an extremely malleable file to recover and/or play with in post production.  

One of the joys of the M for me (and I only 'know' M since the M10 generation) is that it takes more thought and undoubtedly more skill than my previous camera.  This is part of the joy and why if I did go with a high resolution M I would choose the 10R over 11 currently .  It would remain more in tune with my film m and as I am still learning exposure etc it would in turn make me a 'better' photographer I think .  

Whatever 'better' means in this world where we are assisted with so much technology.  In a previous lifetime I was a working (and sometimes touring) DJ and I also lost interest as soon as things shifted from vinyl decks to CD and then further tech improvements where the CD decks seemed to drive themselves.  The 'art' of learning the craft was lost, however the reality was that people coming through into the industry didn't actually need to know that craft anymore in order to produce the best work . 

My conclusion in all of this a) I like to make things difficult for myself and that is part of the fun of M. b) I don't need a 10R but may get one anyway .   Funnily enough I also share your feelings about the BP, it is a gorgeous finish but I may be tempted to baby it a bit more than I would like .

 

You have summed up my feeling for me - thank you (including the part about babying the BP.

I do not come into this forum to argue (I have work for that) and so have avoided the rather heated ‘should I return my unused BP for a M11’ thread.  One point that is in the back of my mind is the profile of the M11 in Lightroom and C1 may be further refined and until that point, we will not know if it does in fact use it’s improved technical capability to create better images.  Jono and David Farkas M11 reviews (David moved away from the Lightroom M11 profile) have some amazing photographs and thank you to them for the great reviews, but I read them back to back with their reviews for the R and other than one photo from David F (100% crop of a street corner - which was amazing) I thought the R photos were not inferior to the 11s (Juno’s R photo in a kitchen is humbling).

I think as more and more standard 10Rs are appearing second hand I may go for one and enter colour M at a reduced cost and spend the savings on a 21 SEM.

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, Sjz said:

You have summed up my feeling for me - thank you (including the part about babying the BP.

I do not come into this forum to argue (I have work for that) and so have avoided the rather heated ‘should I return my unused BP for a M11’ thread.  One point that is in the back of my mind is the profile of the M11 in Lightroom and C1 may be further refined and until that point, we will not know if it does in fact use it’s improved technical capability to create better images.  Jono and David Farkas M11 reviews (David moved away from the Lightroom M11 profile) have some amazing photographs and thank you to them for the great reviews, but I read them back to back with their reviews for the R and other than one photo from David F (100% crop of a street corner - which was amazing) I thought the R photos were not inferior to the 11s (Juno’s R photo in a kitchen is humbling).

I think as more and more standard 10Rs are appearing second hand I may go for one and enter colour M at a reduced cost and spend the savings on a 21 SEM.

Thanks, it had crossed my mind to wait and see what I can pick up a standard-finish R for , also.    I change my mind often on this one because some days (like today) I just don't really think I need one.  In some respects, any camera that makes me use my M10-D less is a bad camera 😜

I think this is one of the challenges we have as Leica users, they are all extremely nice  

[grahamc]

For what it's worth, and as a former A7Riv user / still owner, I immediately thought the first images coming out of the 11 looked more Sony (particularly the Riv) than they did Leica.

I don't want to start a debate on that as it's subjective and I am hardly an expert. But that was my initial gut reaction and the first thing I thought when viewing them 

I appreciate that profile improvement in LR and C1 will evolve and may change that, but it was interesting that it sprang to mind straight away when I saw them .  That's not to say that Riv files aren't extremely impressive , but they are certainly a very different look to M10 

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, grahamc said:

I appreciate that profile improvement in LR and C1 will evolve and may change that, but it was interesting that it sprang to mind straight away when I saw them .  That's not to say that Riv files aren't extremely impressive , but they are certainly a very different look to M10 

I stopped using Lightroom when I purchased DxO PhotoLab, and I expect that photos processed in one might appear different than photos processed in the other depending on the settings that were used.  I still have the Adobe software - every so often I find a need for Photoshop.

When you say "they have a different look to M10" is this because of the camera, or the settings used in processing?  Can anyone provide links to two similar images, one from each camera, that illustrate this difference?  Better yet, links to two similar images, one from each camera, that any of us can process with whatever tools we're used to using, that would show this difference?  Ideally, it would be take a memory card and shoot the same image with perhaps an M10, M10-R, and M11, using the same lens, that we each could process using whatever tools we prefer.

(I remember in a past life I used to use all these different B&W films, but they all got developed in the same chemicals, which was all I had at the time.)

[grahamc]

We should probably add a Sony Riv file to that list , for fun 

I think one thjngs for sure we have reached the point of diminished returns in the camera industry for rank amateurs such as myself 😂

And that’s lucky for us ! 

[grahamc]

6 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I stopped using Lightroom when I purchased DxO PhotoLab, and I expect that photos processed in one might appear different than photos processed in the other depending on the settings that were used.  I still have the Adobe software - every so often I find a need for Photoshop.

When you say "they have a different look to M10" is this because of the camera, or the settings used in processing?  Can anyone provide links to two similar images, one from each camera, that illustrate this difference?  Better yet, links to two similar images, one from each camera, that any of us can process with whatever tools we're used to using, that would show this difference?  Ideally, it would be take a memory card and shoot the same image with perhaps an M10, M10-R, and M11, using the same lens, that we each could process using whatever tools we prefer.

(I remember in a past life I used to use all these different B&W films, but they all got developed in the same chemicals, which was all I had at the time.)

It’s a fair point about the settings v profile v...... photographer (the most important part perhaps  ?).  I think undoubtably a big attraction of the Leica system is the famed “Leica look”. I am one who believes it exists. I felt at first viewing the 11 images lacked this, which surprised me.   But this is the first launch I have been engaged in so it may be that the first images circulating are always like this. As a Sony high-MP camera user I thought that I saw a similar overall feel to the images  

[joet]

3 hours ago, grahamc said:

For what it's worth, and as a former A7Riv user / still owner, I immediately thought the first images coming out of the 11 looked more Sony (particularly the Riv) than they did Leica.

I don't want to start a debate on that as it's subjective and I am hardly an expert. But that was my initial gut reaction and the first thing I thought when viewing them 

I appreciate that profile improvement in LR and C1 will evolve and may change that, but it was interesting that it sprang to mind straight away when I saw them .  That's not to say that Riv files aren't extremely impressive , but they are certainly a very different look to M10 

When I opened raws from m11, they feel more sony than leica as well  I believe M10 has a very magical sensor that is different to other cameras. Sometimes frustrating and othertimes a marvel that no other camera can replicate. While I see m11 a camera that can be more substitute to other mirrorless cameras than m10, I am still considering of buying one. 

[jaapv]

Use Adobe Standard instead of the embedded profile.

[jaapv]

I must say that this noise about "Sony rendering" has no basis in fact. Yes, the manufacturer is Sony, like it is for half the industry. But the basic sensor does not create any "rendering" Sony or otherwise. That comes from the Bayer filter and possibly the coating of the sensor stack. Those are made to the specifications of the camera manufacturer, in this case Leica. The rest of the colour rendering the viewer sees are created by the firmware (for a small part) and mainly by the choices made for the profile in the  postprocessing software. Those can be influenced by the user's choice (e.g. Adobe Standard or Vivid as opposed to Embedded) or by profiles created or bought by the user.

So it really makes no sense to talk of a "Sony look" when only the hardware is provided by Sony. The response If you don't like it, - change it..

In this case Leica deliberately went for a more saturated and poppy look in the embedded profile to appeal to a wider public, assuming that the traditional user base is skilful enough to choose another look in raw conversion, as anybody using a camera at this level should be able to, IMO.

[MikeMyers]

18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

.........The rest of the colour rendering the viewer sees are created by the firmware (for a small part) and mainly by the choices made for the profile in the  postprocessing software. Those can be influenced by the user's choice (e.g. Adobe Standard or Vivid as opposed to Embedded) or by profiles created or bought by the user....................In this case Leica deliberately went for a more saturated and poppy look in the embedded profile to appeal to a wider public, assuming that the traditional user base is skilful enough to choose another look in raw conversion, as anybody using a camera at this level should be able to, IMO.

@jaapv- for people who don't use Adobe software (I'm using DxO PhotoLab 5, but there are so many others) do those images get processed based on the "embedded" profile which I assume is built into the raw file for use by processing software?  You mentioned three, Adobe Standard, Vivid, and Embedded.  Isn't this something that gets turned on or off in the camera, when the images are captured?  I know some people prefer "Vivid", but I'm not one of them.

I wouldn't have expected Leica to embed an "Adobe Profile".  I assumed this would come during processing the image using Adobe software.  Is this correct?

Leica raw files are created in DNG format, which was developed by Adobe.  Does this include the settings we're talking about here?

[Sjz]

46 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I must say that this noise about "Sony rendering" has no basis in fact. Yes, the manufacturer is Sony, like it is for half the industry. But the basic sensor does not create any "rendering" Sony or otherwise. That comes from the Bayer filter and possibly the coating of the sensor stack. Those are made to the specifications of the camera manufacturer, in this case Leica. The rest of the colour rendering the viewer sees are created by the firmware (for a small part) and mainly by the choices made for the profile in the  postprocessing software. Those can be influenced by the user's choice (e.g. Adobe Standard or Vivid as opposed to Embedded) or by profiles created or bought by the user.

So it really makes no sense to talk of a "Sony look" when only the hardware is provided by Sony. The response If you don't like it, - change it..

In this case Leica deliberately went for a more saturated, and poppy look in the embedded profile to appeal to a wider public, assuming that the traditional user base is skilful enough to choose another look in raw conversion, as anybody using a camera at this level should be, IMO.

Hi, I think that the start point looks different , and we choose the end point with all the steps between is understood here, in what has been a quiet, self depreciating, gentle ‘musing out loud’ thread.  

I didn’t know that Sony had been confirmed as the manufacturer, but what I do know is I genuinely don’t care who makes it, I believe it is what Leica do with that ingredient that makes a Leica.

I didn’t like the ProStandard profile C1 introduced a little while ago for the SL2.  To use it generates a different start point, one which I tone things down from, as opposed to build them up from the original profile.  (I still use the orig profile more, but having the choice is good).  What I am trying to say with this is that, for me, the start point matters to some extent.  

I think David Farkas recommends the profile you highlight above, recommendation from yourself and him is good enough for me.

Lastly, and if I am wittering on please say and I will shut up, there is a lot of love for the M9 particularly the Mono.  That has to be for the ‘start point’ and the ease of getting to that fantastic end result, unless there is something happening which is unique to that camera, and if there is, can that also be true for the R with the reduced in size S3 sensor?

I am not a good photographer, but I do enjoy it, including the strange process of head / heart selection of kit.  One of these days I will move from Whitewall to learning how to control printing myself and take the enjoyment one step further.

 

 

 

 

 

[grahamc]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

I must say that this noise about "Sony rendering" has no basis in fact. Yes, the manufacturer is Sony, like it is for half the industry. But the basic sensor does not create any "rendering" Sony or otherwise. That comes from the Bayer filter and possibly the coating of the sensor stack. Those are made to the specifications of the camera manufacturer, in this case Leica. The rest of the colour rendering the viewer sees are created by the firmware (for a small part) and mainly by the choices made for the profile in the  postprocessing software. Those can be influenced by the user's choice (e.g. Adobe Standard or Vivid as opposed to Embedded) or by profiles created or bought by the user.

So it really makes no sense to talk of a "Sony look" when only the hardware is provided by Sony. The response If you don't like it, - change it..

In this case Leica deliberately went for a more saturated and poppy look in the embedded profile to appeal to a wider public, assuming that the traditional user base is skilful enough to choose another look in raw conversion, as anybody using a camera at this level should be able to, IMO.

Thanks Jaapv. I don’t disagree that of course Leica specifies the sensor.  Although I think a perceived look is subjective. So if these files look to some like sony  files then that in itself is a fact 

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing.  But it was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the first images, which was quite odd as it was independent of reading any other similar opinions 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

 Isn't this something that gets turned on or off in the camera, when the images are captured?

No it isn't.

[jaapv]

16 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Thanks Jaapv. I don’t disagree that of course Leica specifies the sensor.  Although I think a perceived look is subjective. So if these files look to some like sony  files then that in itself is a fact 

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing.  But it was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the first images, which was quite odd as it was independent of reading any other similar opinions 

Isn't a subjective fact an oxymoron?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[grahamc]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Isn't a subjective fact an oxymoron?

It is yes, but if I perceive something as “like” something then that’s a fact in itself is the point I was trying to make.  If enough people say an Oasis song sounds like the Beatles you can’t really deny or argue that, to them at least, it does.