M10 Monochrom vs. Q2M (lens selection)

[mccuskerj99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having canvassed the forums looking for people's experience here, but I recently picked up a M10 Monochrom and previously have been using the Q2M.

Out of the box the Q2M easily out-resolves my M10M with a 35m Summicron ASPH – my question is do I really need to drop 8k on the APO to get the IQ up to what the Q2M is delivering?

Most of the head to head tests I've seen outfit the M10M with the 28mm Summilux, but what if someone wants to use 35mm and get all they can out of the sensor?

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, mccuskerj99 said:

 

Out of the box the Q2M easily out-resolves my M10M with a 35m Summicron ASPH –

You think?  The Q2M effectively outputs about 30MP when cropped to 35mm field of view (ignoring the increased effective resolution from removing the color array, which applies similarly to the M10M).  The M10M is rated at 40.89 MP before de-Bayering effects.
 

The 35 Summicron ASPH is also a very capable lens.  I use both the 35 Summicron ASPH v.1 as well as the 35 Summilux ASPH (FLE) on my M10M, and my prints from using either do not lack in resolution in any practical way. I don’t print huge or pixel peep, but my print standards are very high.
 

Jeff 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Jeff S

[trickness]

3 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

You think?  The Q2M effectively outputs about 30MP when cropped to 35mm field of view (ignoring the increased effective resolution from removing the color array, which applies similarly to the M10M).  The M10M is rated at 40.89 MP before de-Bayering.
 

He didn't say he's cropping to 35 on the Q2M

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, trickness said:

He didn't say he's cropping to 35 on the Q2M

I’m aware, but he wants a 35mm lens for his M10M, so I was providing an apple to apples comparison with his Q2M.  My second paragraph addressed my more practical conclusion regarding the Summicron on the M10M, which doesn’t lack IMO, even compared to using a Q2M, cropped or not. 

Jeff

[trickness]

10 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I’m aware, but he wants a 35mm lens for his M10M, so I was providing an apple to apples comparison with his Q2M.  My second paragraph addressed my more practical conclusion regarding the Summicron on the M10M, which doesn’t lack IMO, even compared to using a Q2M, cropped or not. 

Jeff

I’m not so sure it’s even possible to do an apples to apples comparison to the Q2M. The whole package, lens/sensor/software are optimized to work with each other, (EVF plus autofocus) - it’s so much easier to get a superior image without really knowing what you’re doing versus a rangefinder. I don’t think it’s about one M lens versus the other at all, it’s about the platform.

Edited January 13, 2023 by trickness

[mccuskerj99]

It could be down to my focusing skills or even a slight misalignment of the rangefinder.... @Jeff S you seem quite confident that there should be no issue.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, mccuskerj99 said:

Having canvassed the forums looking for people's experience here, but I recently picked up a M10 Monochrom and previously have been using the Q2M.

Out of the box the Q2M easily out-resolves my M10M with a 35m Summicron ASPH – my question is do I really need to drop 8k on the APO to get the IQ up to what the Q2M is delivering?

Most of the head to head tests I've seen outfit the M10M with the 28mm Summilux, but what if someone wants to use 35mm and get all they can out of the sensor?

What has a  difference in resolution got to do with IQ, unless you print skyscraper-size ? 

[mccuskerj99]

@trickness yes for me in the end – if I keep one camera or the other – it's likely to be more about the overall experience.

@jaapv fair point – there is a tendency to obsess and a billboard size print isn't in fact needed – but I do like to make high-density landscape photos, and foliage detail is something that either stands out as such or becomes more of an undefined mush.

[jaapv]

Not from 18 MP onwards (and even the 10MP M8 did quite well in this regard). Don't confuse acuity and microcontrast with resolution, which basically only increases the amount of detail, which is only relevant at very high magnifications. Nor can our reproducing equipment like monitors (32K monitor, anyone?  ) nor our printers (how much resolution can you cram into 300 DPI at a sensible print size?) handle the megapixel flood,  nor our eyes which struggle with 8k despite the far higher theoretical resolution equivalence obtainable with vernier vision.

Basically the main quality differentiator between sensors is dynamic range and pixel separation (reducing crosstalk) 

[mccuskerj99]

This is more broadly related to a Q2M / M10 comparison - ignoring lens selection, but for those that have experience with both have you also observed that the M10M outputs files with darker shadow values by default (more contrast overall)? An equivalent image from the Q2M comes out flatter to my eyes. To get an equivalent scene to match I have to push up the Shadows slider in Lightroom to +100. I'm using multi-field metering on both cameras and generally matching ISO, aperture etc.

[Jeff S]

My overall point is a simple one…assuming the M10M and 35 Summicron ASPH are functioning properly and well calibrated, any IQ concerns (including resolution at moderate magnification) are likely due to the user, not the gear, which is superbly capable.  Simple as that for me.

Jeff

[trickness]

18 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

My overall point is a simple one…assuming the M10M and 35 Summicron ASPH are functioning properly and well calibrated, any IQ concerns (including resolution at moderate magnification) are likely due to the user, not the gear, which is superbly capable.  Simple as that for me.

Jeff

Ignoring the fact that someone who just got a rangefinder and is learning to use it would find it more difficult to achieve consistent excellent results versus someone who just got a Q2M, I’d agree

[dpitt]

I do not have both camera's so this is just a thought. If I am correct the Q2M is not only more likely to be focused correctly, but also gets help from IBIS ?
This would explain some of the differences the OP is experiencing in practice.

One could argue to do a test on a camera stand with IBIS off, both shooting the same scene. But maybe it is more important to compare both using them as they will be normally. If the OP gets better results within his normal use case, that would make the Q2M the 'best' camera for him.

[mccuskerj99]

I have plenty of experience with rangefinders as well as mirrorless systems – so I don't think it's a question of user technique or error in this case. I'll withhold from feeling that my concerns have been too easily dismissed. Looking at the MTF charts, the Q Summilux would seem to out-resolve the 35mm Summicron ASPH by just a touch. Discussions about whether this "matters" in practice weren't part of my initial question – that's a philosophical concern. But I would agree with @dpitt  – AF (and IBIS) could certainly play a role for a more easily attained well-focused shot – and additionally the shallower depth of field if I'm comparing a 35mm to a cropped 28mm.

Edited January 15, 2023 by mccuskerj99

[thighslapper]

On 1/13/2023 at 7:27 PM, mccuskerj99 said:

This is more broadly related to a Q2M / M10 comparison - ignoring lens selection, but for those that have experience with both have you also observed that the M10M outputs files with darker shadow values by default (more contrast overall)? An equivalent image from the Q2M comes out flatter to my eyes. To get an equivalent scene to match I have to push up the Shadows slider in Lightroom to +100. I'm using multi-field metering on both cameras and generally matching ISO, aperture etc.

I think you have just answered your own questions.

All RAW files require processing and the default values in LR or whatever Processor you use are not necessarily the same for different cameras even with the same sensor.

What matters is the POTENTIAL of the files when optimally processed.

This particularly applies to resolution/sharpness .... you can only really compare the clarity of images and the dynamic range available after they have been optimally adjusted to get the best out of them. 

I'd be more inclined to blame Adobe (*) than Leica.

(*) The M240 had awful colour balance issues (reds/greens were terrible) when it was released and it was eventually fixed by a combination of firmware and Adobe default profile changes. 

 

[ramarren]

I disagree about the focus. In my experience, AF produces consistent results in the hands of a novice only on relatively average subject matter and only rarely outperforms manual focus in the hands of an experienced photographer in any circumstances. It may be faster, yes, but more accurate ... only rarely with any complex scene. 

I feel the sentiments about how difficult manual focus is are overstated. It's mostly a matter of a small amount of learning (less than learning the options of an AF system!) and practice in doing it. 

Regards whether the Q2M lens is sharper than the M10+whatever lens .. Impossible to judge without doing specific tests in a rigorous manner. I don't have *any* state of the art lenses to use on my M10-M, but my results out of it are invariably superbly sharp and detailed unless I messed up the focus or exposure time...

G

Edited January 16, 2023 by ramarren