Anyone here moved from an M9 to an M10r or maybe even vice versa?

[twogun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a pair of M9's both in excellent condition with replaced sensors (verified by Leica). I'm  thinking if it's worthwhile letting go one to go to fund the purchase of an m10-R specifically as the prices are dropping a bit now that the M11 is out.

I wanted to find out if it's a worthwhile decision specifically based on the color output between the two bodies considering the CCD/CMOS sensors/rendering. Is it significant difference or splitting hairs?  Anyone made the transition to and from an M9 to an M10-R or even vice-versa? If so what was your feedback/experience? I am trying to avoid a CCD/CMOS sensor debate but just trying to get a user feedback from those that have handled and used both an M9 and the M10-R.   Thank you 

Edited November 25, 2022 by twogun

[M Street Photographer]

I hope it's help:

 

[Advertisement]

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

[twogun]

57 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

I hope it's help:

Interesting! Thanks for the share.

57 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

 

 

[yanidel]

Upgraded from M9 to M10. The CMOS vs CCD difference is overblown in my opinion. M10 is a way better camera overall. The only thing I miss about the M9 is the faster start-up time 

 

[M Street Photographer]

I think the M10 R is the legitimate successor to the M9.

This is about the M10 R, not the M10. The difference to the M9 becomes clear very quickly due to the high-resolution sensor, with all its technical advantages. I share the myth of the CCD sensor, but that's not what we're going to talk about here.

If you now take the R with older lenses to be able to compare with the M9, there is a great similarity.
In addition to the CCD sensor, which was state of the art at the time, one must not forget how, why and with what success the M9 hit the market.
I was faced with a choice and I chose the M 10 R, among other things, because of the age of the M9. How long will Leica keep spare parts or repair the camera? With the M10 R we can now assume a usage and repair time of at least 10 years.
The quiet shutter, the dynamic range, the width, the possibility of adaptation, in connection with a Visoflex, expands the use of the M10 R and thus also gives the possibility to create certain looks.
Aside from a romantic vibe and nostalgia, I don't think there's a reason to buy an M9 today.

[Ko.Fe.]

6 hours ago, twogun said:

I have a pair of M9's both in excellent condition with replaced sensors (verified by Leica). I'm  thinking if it's worthwhile letting go one to go to fund the purchase of an m10-R specifically as the prices are dropping a bit now that the M11 is out.

I wanted to find out if it's a worthwhile decision specifically based on the color output between the two bodies considering the CCD/CMOS sensors/rendering. Is it significant difference or splitting hairs?  Anyone made the transition to and from an M9 to an M10-R or even vice-versa? If so what was your feedback/experience? I am trying to avoid a CCD/CMOS sensor debate but just trying to get a user feedback from those that have handled and used both an M9 and the M10-R.   Thank you 

The only real reason to switch from any older camera to newer is to be able to get camera serviced if needed new parts. 

M9 series are single use cameras by now. No any support left with new parts, because nothing left available. 

Jump to M10 if you can, jump out from it once it becomes obsolete. 

 

[Adam Bonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an M9 and an M10R (and an M10)

The M9 look (which IMHO owes far more to a smaller DR sensor than CCD per se) isn’t really replicated by either of the M10 variants.

The M9 colours are also dependent upon your exposure choices, edits, RAW editor app, whether you use the adobe standard profile, the adobe colour profile or the Leica embedded profile to edit them from (or make your own or buy one of the commercially available ones)

In my OPINION, I would say that the M10 is PERHAPS SLIGHTLY closer to the M9 colours and the R is closer to the M9 tonality

Neither is anywhere near an exact match

The R is a better camera than the regular 10 but not by the amount of cash they go for secondhand (where I shop a secondhand  M10R is generally a £1000+ more than a secondhand M10)

[Adam Bonn]

highly unscientific screen shots and from my MacBook screen... however same lens and awb (!) also with M10R/M9 both cameras set to ISO 160 and with M9/M10 it's ISO 160 and 200

 

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!

M9 (left) v M10 ADOBE STANDARD profile

M10 (left) v M9 Leica EMBEDDED profile

M10R (left) v M9 Leica EMBEDDED profile

M9 (left) v M10R ADOBE STANDARD profile

I appreciate this isn't super helpful.... (but better than opinions and memories)

Pay attention to how much yellow the M10/R places in green (compared to the M9) and how much red the M9 places in orange and yellow (compared to the M10/R) and the overall greater red saturation of the M9, and red is not just more saturated, it has a purple vibe to it where the native colours of the have a blue bias (at a WB level), this is also why the M9 green is less yellow (it's pushed towards blue)

Of course a preset, a profile - one could realistically balance these up a bit... in post drop the kelvin values of the M10/R files, use the calibration sliders to push green towards blue.

The other point to note (only for adobe users) is that the adobe image pipeline works quite differently these days... (compared to the M9 days), modern adobe profiles are quite anaemic with a XYZ_D50 transformation that de-sats to protect the gamut of modern high DR cameras, then HSD LUTs that bring the colours back up then a Profile LUT that adds the 'adobe look'

The M9 stems from a time when the XYZ_D50 transformation handled the heavy lifting, and the HSD LUTs supplemented them and the M9 adobe profile has no Profile LUT

The Leica embedded profiles have not evolved though, just 2 colormatrices and no information to help the XYZ_D50 transformation whatsoever 🙄

 

@twogun

If you want a camera that renders like an M9, the only true answer is the M9.

Personally I think the M10 is a little closer to the M9 in the vibe of the image than the M10R, but the M10R is (again IMHO) closer to the M9 tonality.

Neither M10 or M10R is really anything like an M9/CCD clone.

Personally... I'd make my choice based on other factors (features/cost etc) then experiment with whatever you decide to get a look that you want.

I creatively profile my cameras using paid for software, and I can get either M10/M10R moderately close to an M9 look (it's physically impossible to make camera A render like camera B), but still - when I want the M9 CCD look I simply use my M9 and IMHO you should too.

 

[M Street Photographer]

For me it's not just memory, I just look at my shots of the M9 and M10R. I don't understand why the M10 comes up again when the TO has explicitly asked about the M10 R. The sensors and thus also the resolution differ significantly from each other, apart from other differences, between the M10 and R.

I am also aware that everyone has a different perception of color. When I measure colors with C1, I can compare them and of course I see slight differences between the M9 and M10 R.
The image examples here provide an overview and technically the information on the color spaces and the software is correct. But since photographers use different software, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to compare the jpegs from the cameras with each other?

I find the color interpretation of C1, the unprocessed RAW's, to be "more pleasant" and therefore better than Adobe's. This is due to my taste and my sense of color. It is not for nothing that C1 is often used, even by professionals in fashion / model photography.
It is also clear to me that software can be used to influence a photo and thus the coloring in any direction and achieve a look in the desired direction. The TO has several M9s and asks to sell one and get an M10R. So he can use both.
My advice: This is exactly how I would do it, sell an M9, get the M10R and have fun with both cameras.

[Adam Bonn]

Here I made a post showing the same thing, shot with the M9 but over different times and visits.

If I wanted to I could go there tomorrow with my M9, M10 and M10R and shoot that red building then compare the pictures for a direct comparison.

If however I had sold the M9 a year ago, and only went there with the M10 and M10R, what colour would I expect to get for the red building to compare it to my sold M9?

Not only are the colours we get from RAW controlled by the editing software, the software also changes the tools. M Street Shooter mentions C1, IIRC C1 has a 'professional' profile for the M10R but it didn't always have this, and there's no professional profile for the M9.

Would one compare the M9 and M10R in C1 with the prof. profile for the R and the regular profile for the M9, or the same for both? What's a fair comparison?

(shit like this is why I learnt to design my own profiles)

Really with the option of 18mpx and by many accounts a very M9-a-like colour science, surely the answer to the OP is the M11?

Why did I bring up the M10?

16 hours ago, twogun said:

specifically based on the color output between the two bodies considering the CCD/CMOS sensors/rendering

Because IMO (and IME, and I posted examples) the answer here is the M10 over the M10R. (Although I don't have the M11 to compare)

But the R is the better camera IMO, with the caveat that there's more posts saying My M10R freezes, or won't fire the shutter or gets really hot than there is about the standard M10

 

[M Street Photographer]

@Adam Bonn, Addendum: In your examples, the difference in the overall color impression of the image shows up better where the Kellogg bag is on it. I first look at a photo in its entirety and feel and see it. Only later do I look at individual details.

Maybe I misunderstood:
C1 does not have a professional profile for the M10 R. But professional photographers, fashion and model photography, mainly use C1 and not Adobe. C1 has a new profile "Leica M10 R Prostandard". Prostandard profiles were introduced with version 21 or 22 for many cameras.

The discussion here about the M10 or technical problems with the M10 R, or problems with the M10 after the last update that Fred Miranda had, lead to nothing because it doesn't correspond to the TO's question.

I often agree with you, but we differ on a few small points. And that's a good thing, because otherwise our recordings wouldn't look any different. Regardless of whom, which, better address or touch.

Edited November 26, 2022 by M Street Photographer

[Adam Bonn]

4 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

Leica M10 R Prostandard". Prostandard profiles

Sorry yeah that's what I meant by professional profile. I forgot what C1 actually calls it. I don't really use C1 anymore..

I think the M9 has a very particular look to it's images.

Not only is there the difference in the colours but a low (by modern standards) DR camera such as the M9 is hard to fairly compare to a modern high DR camera. That's why folks often complain that the RAW images look flat upon import because modern RAWs need more editing, M9 DNGs can sometimes require virtually nothing to have pop, contrast and saturation.

Can pop, contrast and saturation be found on non-M9 cameras? Sure! But you usually have to edit it in

The M9 is a legend really, and in many places on the 'net someone asks which newer, modern, non-corroding sensor M is the closest to the M9?

And the thing with photographers is that if you ask 4 'togs you get 5 different opinions 😅

I've not had the 10R very long at all, but I can already tell that it's a better camera than my M10 (that wouldn't be such a bold statement if I had the M10-P which shares more things with the R than the standard 10 does)

'We' can debate dawn to dusk if the R files look like the M9 or not, but whatever the R files are really nice, very malleable with deep colours that respond well to editing.

That's probably reason enough to buy one.

Anyone seriously wanting camera blah-blah-blah to render like an M9 would be best served IMHO (and some degree of profiling experience) by trying to decide what exactly it is that they love about the M9 and then tailor their edits to fulfil that dynamic.

After all it's one thing to be an Elvis impersonator (ie take a picture with each camera at the same time of the same thing then match them up in post), it's quite another to write a song that everyone thinks Elvis wrote (not sure that analogy flies... but fk it I'm running with it)

Cobalt now have a specific look-like-an-M9 (and M10R) product, not sure if anyone here has tried it?

 

[M Street Photographer]

I see we both understand each other and respect each other too!
I don't use the often cited and mentioned Cobalt software. But what I saw makes me think about it and give it a try.
The To is in an enviable position: he has several M9s, can part with one, and buy another M of whatever kind. This gives him the opportunity to use one or the other M, depending on his desire and application.
In another thread you clearly showed the effect of lenses, especially the Noctilux, on different M's.
But that's another topic and we shouldn't digress too far lest it become redundant, although it's very interesting.

Edited November 26, 2022 by M Street Photographer

[Adam Bonn]

For fun I just extracted the native jpeg from the M10R DNG

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!

Not sure this adds anything!

[M Street Photographer]

Thanks, good example. Did you use Adobe? If so, and I'm not too rude, it would be fun to see if you could show the same with C1. 🙏

[Adam Bonn]

2 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

see we both understand each other and respect each other too!

Acting like this we need to be careful not get banned from the internet 🤣

2 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

don't use the often cited and mentioned Cobalt software. But what I saw makes me think about it and give it a try.

I bought their M10 profiles and the 'CCD Fever' pack. It's OK, I didn't find that it made my M10 look that much like the M9 though.... (their "M8 jpeg" profile was often closest IMO) but the profiles are nice enough... but I like more my own, but then I would say that wouldn't I??

To be fair though cobalt have a commercial product that needs to please many customers. I make profiles that are derived from my actual camera and lenses and are centred around the things and people I actually shoot, based on the light I find in the place where I live and the exposure choices I typically make.... I wouldn't know where too start to make a commercial profile that tries to please everybody

6 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

In another thread you clearly showed the effect of lenses, especially the Noctilux, on different M's

Not sure that was me? I've never owned a n'lux (had a 7a 50mm f1.1 for a while that appears as a n'lux in the exif on my Flickr)

But this is a good point - the signature of my 50 asph summilux at F2 is quite a lot different to my 50 (non-APO) cron at f2, the lens is the eye of the camera, the sensor the memory of what the eye saw

9 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

he has several M9s, can part with one, and buy another M of whatever kind. This gives him the opportunity to use one or the other M, depending on his desire and application

100% agree. Normally when I get a new (to me - I never buy new) M, I have to sell the older one to pay for it. This time I am actually able to keep the 10 and the 10R together for a while... although weirdly I've yet to compare them... only the R with the M9

[Adam Bonn]

6 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

Thanks, good example. Did you use Adobe? If so, and I'm not too rude, it would be fun to see if you could show the same with C1. 🙏

for the that jpeg?

No I used an EXIF tool to directly extract Leica's native jpeg from the DNG file, so it never went through any RAW app at all

[Adam Bonn]

10 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

it would be fun to see if you could show the same with C1. 🙏

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!

Yeah it is closer in C1...

This is all default BTW... I didn't edit anything

 

 

[M Street Photographer]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Adam Bonn:

Acting like this we need to be careful not get banned from the internet 🤣

.....

Not sure that was me? I've never owned a n'lux (had a 7a 50mm f1.1 for a while that appears as a n'lux in the exif on my Flickr)

...

Damn hope we don't get banned because of our love 😘

Sorry if I'm wrong. I'll check again later.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Adam Bonn]

here's what happens if you select the M9 icm profile for the M10R in C1

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!

muck about a bit pushing blue away from cyan (on the R, bottom image) on that wouldn't be a bad starting point

(and again 'we' see.... so much angst about camera colours.... so much of it down to our choice of RAW app and the profiles they give us)