Owners of all three M10, M10R, M11, which image did you prefer?

[ravinj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The best images are the ones that I am able to take with the camera I have in hand at that time. I loved and still love the images from the M9. Same for all the digital M variants, except the M8.x which I didn't use and M11 which I will use in a few days and then know about it.

I have images from the M10-R / CV 50 APO and Hasselblad X1DII / XCD 65 that are hard to distinguish at normal sizes.

I place a premium on a balance of (physical) weight and image quality. YMMV.

While I owned the S2 and all the beastly S lenses until 2014 or so and hiked carrying them for miles in Glacier National Park...no more.  

[ravinj]

4 hours ago, hdmesa said:

As for the S, that look is mostly due to the S lenses

^^ this. One can get the same " dreamy look" with wonderful colors with Mamiya 645 lenses on the S. Esp. the Mamiya 645 200mm f/2.8 apo.

Edited June 14, 2022 by ravinj

[Advertisement]

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

[elmars]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb pgh:

vor 11 Stunden schrieb setuporg:

 

This is funny. When the M10 came out I was complaining about the blown highlights on this forum a good bit and consensus was being silly or it was just user error. Now years later its consensus that indeed this is a weak spot for the camera.

The M10 had the best capabilities of highlight recovery till the M10R came on the market (M10R and M11 are nearly equal in this regard and other sensor capabilities). Best means in comparison to their predecessors. But they were not as good that one has not pay attention to it (especially on blown out sky on a cloudy day). Now with the M10R/M11 the attention is far less. 

[tom0511]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb elmars:

The M10 had the best capabilities of highlight recovery till the M10R came on the market (M10R and M11 are nearly equal in this regard and other sensor capabilities). Best means in comparison to their predecessors. But they were not as good that one has not pay attention to it (especially on blown out sky on a cloudy day). Now with the M10R/M11 the attention is far less. 

besides the sensor I also feel the new exposure metering helps.

[hdmesa]

13 hours ago, pgh said:

This is funny. When the M10 came out I was complaining about the blown highlights on this forum a good bit and consensus was being silly or it was just user error. Now years later its consensus that indeed this is a weak spot for the camera. Well, either way, I've learned to work within the limits more. I've sampled an M10R but not M11. I've played with M11 raw files but never shot it, but I'm not sure they're for me - I mean they are great - they just seem to take a good bit more work to get to where I'd want to go with them - feels like working on a Sony picture - which again fantastic files but different workflow that I enjoy less.

So I am more tempted by M10R, but something about my M10 still is plenty for me. I haven't had a chance to make a large print to compare - that's less important to me than the highlights issue but again, through 5 years of using it, it doesn't bother me much anymore (except for when it still really does, I guess I just avoid those pictures).

The M10 highlight issue ended up being resolved by using ISO 200 as base ISO instead of ISO 100. ISO 100 on the M10 does weird things with the highlights. But the M10-R definitely has more lightweight headroom (if that's the right word, IDK).

• Image quality: M10 to M10-R is a much bigger upgrade than M10-R to M11
• Non-IQ-related improvements: M11 is the bigger upgrade.

If I had an M10, I'd go straight to the M11 and skip the M10-R. But if I still had the M10-R, I'd probably keep it until the M11-P or M12.

[pgh]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The M10 highlight issue ended up being resolved by using ISO 200 as base ISO instead of ISO 100. ISO 100 on the M10 does weird things with the highlights. But the M10-R definitely has more lightweight headroom (if that's the right word, IDK).

• Image quality: M10 to M10-R is a much bigger upgrade than M10-R to M11
• Non-IQ-related improvements: M11 is the bigger upgrade.

If I had an M10, I'd go straight to the M11 and skip the M10-R. But if I still had the M10-R, I'd probably keep it until the M11-P or M12.

It's not fixed necessarily, but it is better - and yes that's what I usually use - but then you also have a camera that effectively doesn't have ISO 100. I work around it, but it would be nice not to.  

As stated, I'm really only interested in the IQ upgrade - and haven't loved the feel of the M11 files for my use (though if I get a chance to shoot one I will try it, and perhaps change my mind - it's admittedly different to make your own exposures than to just tinker around with raw files...or at least it can be more illuminating). Everything else about the M10 is just great for me - I don't even have an issue with the battery life. 

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, elmars said:

The M10 had the best capabilities of highlight recovery till the M10R came on the market (M10R and M11 are nearly equal in this regard and other sensor capabilities). Best means in comparison to their predecessors. But they were not as good that one has not pay attention to it (especially on blown out sky on a cloudy day). Now with the M10R/M11 the attention is far less. 

It was the best Leica,  but still mediocre overall. If you shot another system the difference was pretty noticeable. 

[Guest]

On 6/13/2022 at 7:06 AM, jonthewizard said:

A general question out of curiosity. I've owned all three cameras, M10, M10R, M11 and they are all amazing cameras. I'm just curious if you have a favourite in terms of the image they produced, not really from a technical standpoint, just aesthetically and enjoyed the most? Thanks! 

For black and white the M10M is significantly better than any other camera, including M11. I don’t like the operational hassle with the assorted BW color filters (yellow, orange, red, dark red, green — in different sizes) but that is the price I am willing to pay. M10M is not just a lot better at higher ISO, but also doesn’t suffer from the demosaicing interpolation and resulting loss in fidelity. M10M renders tones and textures with more nuances compared to M11, this is beyond ‘sharpness’. M10M ‘raw raw’ is soooo much better than M11 demosaiced + noise filtered.

M11 > (color) M10 in every way (I used to have an M10-P). Surprisingly, resolution aside, I like the ‘look’ of images from the SL2s better than M11, esp. at ISO>800-ish. I prefer to limit or avoid noise reduction as much as possible as leads to another big loss in resolution (on top of the demosaicing). SL2s needs less NR and retains better perceived DR at higher ISOs (M11 DR at ISO 64 is world class, not so much at higher sensitivities).

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, mzbe said:

For black and white the M10M is significantly better than any other camera, including M11. I don’t like the operational hassle with the assorted BW color filters (yellow, orange, red, dark red, green — in different sizes) but that is the price I am willing to pay. M10M is not just a lot better at higher ISO, but also doesn’t suffer from the demosaicing interpolation and resulting loss in fidelity. M10M renders tones and textures with more nuances compared to M11, this is beyond ‘sharpness’. M10M ‘raw raw’ is soooo much better than M11 demosaiced + noise filtered.

M11 > (color) M10 in every way (I used to have an M10-P). Surprisingly, resolution aside, I like the ‘look’ of images from the SL2s better than M11, esp. at ISO>800-ish. I prefer to limit or avoid noise reduction as much as possible as leads to another big loss in resolution (on top of the demosaicing). SL2s needs less NR and retains better perceived DR at higher ISOs (M11 DR at ISO 64 is world class, not so much at higher sensitivities).

Interesting take on the SL2-S. In addition to high ISO, I prefer the output on the SL2-S even when comparing them at base ISO. I think either or both the M11 in-camera DNG processing and the C1/LR M11 profiles need refinement with regard to producing pleasing color.

[jakontil]

10 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The M10 highlight issue ended up being resolved by using ISO 200 as base ISO instead of ISO 100. ISO 100 on the M10 does weird things with the highlights. But the M10-R definitely has more lightweight headroom (if that's the right word, IDK).

• Image quality: M10 to M10-R is a much bigger upgrade than M10-R to M11
• Non-IQ-related improvements: M11 is the bigger upgrade.

If I had an M10, I'd go straight to the M11 and skip the M10-R. But if I still had the M10-R, I'd probably keep it until the M11-P or M12.

Im so obsessed with the M11 battery, i cant help it … love the usb c too but i miss the baseplate

[SJH]

I’ve had the M10P, M10R BP and now the M11, for me it’s the M11 for the IQ firstly and the also the ease of use e.g. USB-C, better EVF if you need it, electronic shutter so no need for ND filters with my Noctilux 1.2, way better battery life etc.

However, with 60mb I also have an SL2s which I use with M lenses for slow shutter speeds, high ISO etc. In this regard it’s tougher to use the M11 than the M10P especially.

[SiOnara]

For me the M11 is the best I've used.  I'm still amazed my the resolution bump and extra dynamic range over the M10.  

Colours are great on the M11 though I was never in anyway disappointed by the M10 colours.

 

[KenTanaka]

Honestly the M image file hasn’t changed very noticeably in tonality among those models. (Yes, had them all.)  Of course file sizes have risen but you’d be hard pressed to distinguish among them, certainly on the Internet or normal print sizes.  I’m sure some here may howl…but it’s true. These Ms can all produce wonderful rich tones and highly-defined renderings…if given the chance.
 

The practical advancements among these models have mostly been in usability and functionality.  The 10-R’s larger file size was quite a jump. 

[SiOnara]

8 minutes ago, KenTanaka said:

Honestly the M image file hasn’t changed very noticeably in tonality among those models. (Yes, had them all.)  

I still have my M8 and shot at 160 base ISO it still produces stunning images.

Edited June 15, 2022 by SiOnara

[KenTanaka]

39 minutes ago, SiOnara said:

I still have my M8 and shot at 160 base ISO it still produces stunning images.

Yes, indeed.  I don’t still have my M8 but I do have my M9…with no plans to sell it.  Those early CCD M cameras were unique gems.  No live view, crumbly low light ability, fussy dynamic range.  But oohlala, if you stayed in their home turf and were vewy, vewy careful (as the immortal Bugs Bunny might say) you could end up with real magic on your memory card!  Back in 2008 while still doing commissioned work I shot a cover for Sculpture Magazine with my M8 at twilight.  It was gorgeous (if I do say so myself).

Which leads to the observation that the changeover from CCD to CMOS probably ushered the largest changes (improvements and versatility) to the M image platform that I’ve observed.

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by KenTanaka

[setuporg]

On 6/13/2022 at 1:59 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I *slightly* prefer the M11 colours to the M10R. Not a huge deal.

Do you prefer M9 colors to M10/R as well?  If so, how'd you compare the M9 colors to M11?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

31 minutes ago, setuporg said:

Do you prefer M9 colors to M10/R as well?  If so, how'd you compare the M9 colors to M11?

Not personally, no. I didn’t particularly love the M9 colours. I LOVED the M9 files converted to Mono though.

It’s a biased opinion of course. Colour always is. I shot a lot of portraits when I had my M9. I was shooting weddings and portraits full time with them. The IR was still there (at a much lower rate) like the M8 and IR cut filters on each lens helped but I didn’t like the skin tones OOC and had to work them to get something I liked. I had presets to help. I preferred Velvia and Astia to Kodachrome as well and the M9 definitely had the Kodachrome vibe going on. The acutance was fantastic though and I think the M240 lost a bit of that and I didn’t see it again until the M11/M10R.

There were a few people who shot the M9 and massaged colour that I really liked. I never quite got entirely happy though. Satisfied it was OK but not brilliant.

I have a very strong bias to Hasselblad’s colour palette. Everyone interprets colour differently and that changes as we age but HB colours are perfect as far as I’m concerned. I only ever do extremely fine adjustments if any to the files for portraits or landscapes. That the M11 is in that ball park pleases me. I hope the SL3 uses the same sensor and colour science.

That said I loved my M9’s. They influenced how I approached a job like none before and they made me a lot of money and set me on a path of success that meant I could retire earlier than most. I did go through the sensor changes and long repair times like everyone else but the M9 was the only camera I relied on for 4 years and I got a lot of positive feedback from my clients after my switch from 20 years of Canon.

Gordon

[hdmesa]

Still applicable I think, the comparison to the SL2-S. Although having shot both, I still prefer the SL2-S files – more refined camera profiles in both C1 and LR. I wish someone would hack the Lightroom SL2-S profile and make it work with the M11.

[hmzimelka]

7 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Still applicable I think, the comparison to the SL2-S. Although having shot both, I still prefer the SL2-S files – more refined camera profiles in both C1 and LR. I wish someone would hack the Lightroom SL2-S profile and make it work with the M11.

While this is TOTALLY not the right way of doing it, HERE is a DCP file with SL2-S colour settings replacing the default M11 ones. 

Worth the experiment but it isn't going to match the two.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hmzimelka]

...and for giggles HERE is one with SL2 colour settings.

[edit] I don't like this one. SL2 S looks much nicer to me...

Edited June 17, 2022 by hmzimelka