M10R Still Worth It?

[brickftl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My experience: I'm new to Leica rangefinders, and haven't used manual focus since the mid 70's with my Canon AE1. Lately I've grown weary of the clinical, ultra sharp images from many full frame cameras including my Sony A7RV, and so I decided to buy a mint M10 from KEH for $4,437. Yes, higher than what I could have paid in a private sale, but I also got a 3 year extended warranty that covers mechanical issues as well as scratches. drops, etc. And I've bought from KEH over the years, and come to trust them.

I read extensively on differences between the M10 and M10R (never considered the M11 for a second because of all the lockup/file corruption issues), and ultimately ruled out the M10R for several reasons including: I almost never print, and actually prefer 24MP's over 40 because of ease of handling, don't care at all about the M10R's reputedly quieter shutter, and from what I read (others may disagree) that up to 800 ISO the M10 images are cleaner/better than the M10R, from 800 ISO to 1600 ISO it's basically a wash, and from 1600 ISO and above, the M10R is marginally better than the M10. On the rare occasions that I need to shoot higher than 1600, I'm confident that DXO RAW Prime noise reduction will make quick work of any noise issues. Finally, this video pushed me over the edge to the M10: 

 

 

[brickftl]

two other observations between M10 and M10R:

1. I read a fair number of comments that the M10 is more forgiving than the M10R in terms of camera shake, apparently because high resolution magnifies that issue. I have 2 experiences with this. First I observed that my Leica Q2 images were less sharp than images from my original Q, and I chalked this up to the higher resolution and needed to kick up shutter speed beyond what I used the Q in order to have the Q2 images sharp. Also at one point I bought the Fuji GFX50 with some truly great GF lenses, and for the longest time I had problems producing tack sharp images (which after all was needed since I used to be a pixel peeper, since recovered, and images from the medium format GFX were for many people even if they don't own up to it, the ultimate in pixel peeping). Again, I had to use the GFX at higher shutter speeds, or even better on a tripod, in order to achieve those tack sharp images. 

2. After I got the Q2, I somehow didn't enjoy its images compared to those of the Q. Then, in the process of researching differences between the M10 and the M10R, it dawned on me that the Q and the M10 use the same sensor, the 24-megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor, which is known as the "Leica Maestro-II". And the Q2 and the M10R both use the same (or close to the same) sensor (Q2 is 47.3 MPS and M10R is 40MPS). And from my experience of using both the Q and Q2, based on the foregoing information on sensors used in the M10 and M10R, I infer that were I to compare images I took from both the M10 and M10R, I'd feel the same about them as I do in a comparison of images from the Q and Q2. Finally on this point, the video I linked in my prior post makes the case for better images produced by the M10 as compared to images from the M10R.

My final comment: I could easily afford the M10R, so cost difference between it and the M10 isn't an issue in my case. Instead, I chose the M10 because I believe, for my purposes, the M10 will produce better images. I want to be clear that I'm in no way demeaning the M10R, and I'm sure its owners have solid reasons why it is the better of the 2 cameras for their purposes.

[tom0511]

the guy in the video says that the metering of m10r is taking care of highlights and underexposes more often. Then he shows the guitar photo where the m10r expose 1/2 stop brighter than the M10...how does this fit together.

Then he talks a lot of slight color differences, which I think has a lot to do with profiles of the raw converter.

The video-for me - does not tell much if anything.

[brickftl]

1 minute ago, Al Brown said:

M10 can get by with slower shutter speeds than M10-R for sharp images (I own both), that is a fact, but you cannot claim M10 produces better images due to operator error... The solid fact is that M10-R's images are superior - technical characteristics of the sensor vouch for technical supremacy and M10-R's sensor is much newer. Whether aesthetics have a role in "better images" of any camera I dare not say, but claiming the lesser megapixel camera produces better images due to shaky hands or pushing the shutter speed too low due to lack of minimal shutter speed rules knowledge in relation to megapixel count is neither objective nor relevant at all.

I respect your opinion, however it is just an opinion. The photographer in the video I linked above has a different opinion. And to be clear, when I refer to better images, I'm not talking about non-sharp images due to operator error. I'm addressing the aesthetic issues that photographer pointed out, issues that I observed in images from my Q (same sensor as the M10) as compared to images from my Q2 (similar sensor to the M10R). 

Again, to be clear, in no way am I saying that the M10 is a better camera than the M10R, rather, for my purposes, I prefer the M10. My advice to the OP is that he look at the plusses and minuses of both cameras, decide which of those plusses he wants and which minuses he wants to avoid, and then make an informed decision. Clearly for you, analyzing them lead you to buy the M10R which I expect was the right decision for you.

[brickftl]

14 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

No, I bought the M10-P after I had the M10-R. 
 

 

I'm unclear what part of my post you're saying no to.

Also that's very interesting that you bought a M10P after owning the M10R. If you don't mind sharing, it would be interesting and perhaps illuminating for the OP if you tell the reason why.

Edited February 22, 2024 by brickftl

[brickftl]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

I’m not saying no to any part of your post.
I bought after because I collect and use special edition Ms and the M10-P Reporter - the last one of 450 made - popped up. My M10-R had 40.000 exposures made, I wanted something as a backup for when I need to send to Wetzlar and there were no new M10-R black paint cameras available anymore.

got it thanks

 

[lldd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The guy in the video above has a later video where he recants his comments and then buys the M10R.  He then said the M10R is better than the M10 and the M11.  Then he buys an M11.  Hmmm...

[costa43]

If you put resolution to one side and just compare all other metrics, the m10r sensor is superior to the m10 sensor in every measurable metric. I would only go with the m10 sensor if you prefer a lower resolution camera and the added usability It gives you with smaller files and the use of a slightly lower shutter speed handheld. The other subjective reason is if you prefer the rendering. Outside of the sensor, the m10 has a better buffer by default and slightly better battery life and of course it’s a little cheaper if you go with the base model. I’m a fan of the lower resolution digital Leica cameras as I think they work better with vintage lenses and give me a look I enjoy more, a view that is not shared by many though. Saying that, I would not trade the m10r for any other Leica at the moment. I think it is their strongest offering. 

[ktmrider2]

Thanks for all the comments.  I almost purchased a Q3 instead of a M10R.  Actually, I decided to stay with film and have a new MP in black paint.

[JoshuaR]

Well, I decided to put this to the test. I came across a truly great deal on an M10-R and bought one. I'm now using it alongside my M10 on a trial basis. Observations so far:

• The improved highlight retention is real! And it does make some shots better, or at any rate easier to expose—for example photographs taken indoors with bright light coming in through the windows. I take a lot of photographs like this, and so this is a meaningful improvement for me.
• Perhaps because of the way I shoot, I'm not really cropping into any of my pictures. But I can clearly see that there is more detail available in the images. I'm not sure that this is making the photos better, as such, but it's there. On a few occasions I've pulled the Clarity slider to the left.
• I am finding that more of my wide-open shots are blurry at 100%. Rationally, I know that this shouldn't bother me, because I don't look at photos at 100%. But part of the fun of higher resolution is zooming in. I'm asking myself whether 24MP is the sweet spot for "pinch-to-zoom" on a rangefinder.
• I have shot a lot with the Q2, and never really loved the look of that sensor; it's always been a little too "crunchy" and "digital" for me. The M10-R sensor doesn't look that way to my eyes. But it certainly offers a more vivid, detailed look than the M10. 
• I have a sense that the colors are more neutral, and perhaps more beautiful. But actually my whole post-processing workflow needs to change with the 10-R, and I'm still struggling with PP, and so I can't say anything substantive about the colors.
• I really like the quiet shutter. (I knew I would, based on my M10M.)
• The biggest surprise has been the obvious strain placed upon my computers by the files. My M1 Mac Mini and iPad Pro, which felt thoroughly modern when I used them with the M10 and M10M, now seem really slow when I use Lightroom to edit the M10-R pictures. If I keep the M10-R, it may involve computer upgrades, which I didn't budget for. (For whatever reason, my M10M files don't seem as difficult for my computers to handle.)

I decided to give the M10-R a try in part to satisfy my curiosity once and for all. And, so far, I'm on the fence! This is obviously a great camera, but perhaps its benefits are more meaningful for landscapers than snap-shooters such as myself. I'm going to keep using it for another couple of weeks, and then decide. (The deal I got was good enough that, if I decide to sell it, I'll have lost a fairly small amount of money and can consider it a rental.)

So far, the closeness of the comparison between the M10 and M10-R, for my use—basically, everyday documentary photography—underscores what a good deal the M10 is, at least in Leicaland. But what I'm hoping for is a discernible improvement in the color rendering of the pictures—something roughly equivalent to the improvement I got for black and white images when I bought an M10M. If I see it (or maybe just think I see it, since who knows?), I may keep it.

Edited March 4, 2024 by JoshuaRothman

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

 

• The biggest surprise has been the obvious strain placed upon my computers by the files. My M1 Mac Mini and iPad Pro, which felt thoroughly modern when I used them with the M10 and M10M, now seem really slow when I use Lightroom to edit the M10-R pictures. If I keep the M10-R, it may involve computer upgrades, which I didn't budget for. (For whatever reason, my M10M files don't seem as difficult for my computers to handle.)

 

Maybe something here will apply..

 

Jeff

[MarkPS]

On 2/18/2024 at 6:30 PM, ktmrider2 said:

I have the opportunity to pick up a new M10R for US$6250 and am wondering if it is still worth it or should I look at the M11?  I have been using Leicas from as far back as 1975 with my purchase of a Leica CL.  I have owned all the Leica film cameras up to and including the M6TTL.  I have also owned the M9 and MP240 which I sold about three years ago.  My present Leica is a mint black M4.  My digital system is a Fuji X-T5 and a Ricoh GR3.

Now, I am also considering a Leica MP or MA as I prefer film but processing is turning in a PIA.  If I picked up a digital Leica (have five M mount lenses), I would sell the Fuji.  Have been looking at lots of You Tube videos and have not yet handled either M10R or M11.  I have to say I enjoy the whole process of using the M4 and film.  But I also appreciate technology and the Fuji has produced some amazing results.  I usually just set it to auto everything and just monitor exposure information in the viewfinder.  So I enjoy both old school (if I buy film body it will be MA) but don't mind the camera setting the exposure. 

I am a retired pilot who is 71 years old.  I do a lot of traveling and most of my photography is either travel or family related.  I can afford Leica but kind of turned off by the "jewelry" aspect.  I know the ultimate decision is mine but am looking for any and all input.  I can see advantages to traveling with digital but it is hard to beat the enjoyment of using a Leica.  Thanks!

I bought my M10R from Adorama for $5600 about a year ago with a six month store warranty..  It is a really good camera but in some ways unforgiving.  You need steady hands to use a 40MP camera.  I also have a FUJI XT2 with several lenses.  IMHO they have completely different uses. My FUJI is more of a day to day camera. I am considering a M11 but am not sure that I will gain very much from getting one. 40MP files are huge and have a lot of pixels for cropping.  

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

Besides of my S3, Q2 and Fuji XPro1 (plus 3 lensens) I have the M 10-R (plus 4 lenses) but the latter is my absolute favorite. I never think to switch over to the M 11. Bear in mind the faults reported in this Forum.

[Herr Barnack]

On 2/18/2024 at 6:30 PM, ktmrider2 said:

...

I am a retired pilot who is 71 years old.  I do a lot of traveling and most of my photography is either travel or family related.  I can afford Leica but kind of turned off by the "jewelry" aspect.  I know the ultimate decision is mine but am looking for any and all input.  I can see advantages to traveling with digital but it is hard to beat the enjoyment of using a Leica.  Thanks!

A Leica is jewelry only if the owner uses it as jewelry. 

Some Hollywood types and trust fund children buy and wear a Leica M for the "status" it supposedly confers on them - all while barely knowing how to use the camera.  That's pretty sad; it's pathetic.

Buy your M, carry it and shoot with it every day.  Then it is an actual camera being used for its intended purpose, not a pointless piece of swag.

With regard to the M10R, see @LeicaR10's post #4 above.  The M10R would also be my choice vs. the M11 series.

Edited April 24, 2024 by Herr Barnack

[ktmrider2]

If I buy another digital (unlikely) the Nikon zf has caught my eye.  Apparently, it uses M lenses easily with an adopter, costs a quarter of an M10R, and can even autofocus with the correct adopter.  However, my next trip is to northern Scotland to hike 95 miles and it is in 3 weeks.  My MP with 35/50/90 lenses is going with lots of Ektar 100.  

Thanks for the opinions.

[Strmbrg]

More of a "philosophical" comment than a rigid answer to the question:
-Why do we focus so much on comparisons, differences and rankings?
I know out of myself, that it is very easy to fall in in these mentalities. I.e. I fall in there myself. But I actually want to be strong enough not to.

Some examples:

• Has camera X become worse because the newly launched Camera Y is better? No! X is exactly the same regardless of what's around it.
• Is the difference important? Is it important to ME, regarding the usability or regarding image-result? Yes or no?
• Is the difference important just because the difference is there and is easily noticeable? Yes or no?
• Do Camera X have some disturbing issues or some disturbingly low performance when I use it or look at the resulting images from it? Yes or no?
• How deep do I have to "dig" in peeping to discover differences or faults? Can I easily see differences when still looking at the whole image, edge to edge? If I can, is the difference just a difference or is there something wrong with one of it? Are the different images just different but both good?
• Are both bad? 😵
• Is one of the cameras better than the other but NONE of them is very good?
• Are both very good?
• And finally and maybe the most important question: What do I think MYSELF? Can I at all judge the matter by myself? Do I NEED comparing and ranking to make up my mind?

This is very hard, I know. But it is worth the mental challenge!

🙂

[dpitt]

14 hours ago, ktmrider2 said:

If I buy another digital (unlikely) the Nikon zf has caught my eye.  Apparently, it uses M lenses easily with an adopter, costs a quarter of an M10R, and can even autofocus with the correct adopter.  However, my next trip is to northern Scotland to hike 95 miles and it is in 3 weeks.  My MP with 35/50/90 lenses is going with lots of Ektar 100.  

Thanks for the opinions.

Sorry, but your comparison does not  make sense to me. Yes, my curiosity is tiggered by the Zf, and yes you 'can' use most M lenses on it, just as you can use M lenses on almost any digital mirrorless camera's today. I shot Nikon for 30 years (analog and digital) before I used my first rangefinder. If I buy a Leica M, my first motivation is that it is a rangefinder, and using an M lens on a rangefinder is a completely different experience. I like manual focus and in the digital world the Leica M is the only camera left that is designed to do that, and the way you see the world through the rangefinder sets it apart too.

So, in that respect even a cropped Leica M8 would be a more sensible option than a Nikon Zf for me.  I thought that you liked using your M4 and wanted to have a digital alternative. So I do not see how a Nikon Zf or any non-rangefinder fits in. If it is a budget thing, then I am sure that a M240 or M9 will be much closer to your M4. And both will outlast the Nikon Zf or keep their value better. Maybe a nice used M10 will strike a balance between budget and experience?

[ktmrider2]

I have used Nikons and Leica's and others since 1970.  I have owned both M9 and M240.  I also own a GR3 and X-T5.  I am not interested in an M10 or M11 as if I want a digital I do not want the limitations of a Leica-sports, limited focal length range of lenses, etc.  I love the rangefinder and think the M2 is the best camera Leica ever made period.  I am invested in M mount lenses and it appears one can even make them autofocus on a Nikon Zf with the correct adopter.

Not getting anything at the moment but heading to northern Scotland to sample several famous single malts while hiking 95 miles in a couple weeks.  My film M (either M4 or MP) will be along with Ektar 100 and 35/50/90 lenses.

[MarkPS]

On 2/18/2024 at 6:30 PM, ktmrider2 said:

I have the opportunity to pick up a new M10R for US$6250 and am wondering if it is still worth it or should I look at the M11?  I have been using Leicas from as far back as 1975 with my purchase of a Leica CL.  I have owned all the Leica film cameras up to and including the M6TTL.  I have also owned the M9 and MP240 which I sold about three years ago.  My present Leica is a mint black M4.  My digital system is a Fuji X-T5 and a Ricoh GR3.

Now, I am also considering a Leica MP or MA as I prefer film but processing is turning in a PIA.  If I picked up a digital Leica (have five M mount lenses), I would sell the Fuji.  Have been looking at lots of You Tube videos and have not yet handled either M10R or M11.  I have to say I enjoy the whole process of using the M4 and film.  But I also appreciate technology and the Fuji has produced some amazing results.  I usually just set it to auto everything and just monitor exposure information in the viewfinder.  So I enjoy both old school (if I buy film body it will be MA) but don't mind the camera setting the exposure. 

I am a retired pilot who is 71 years old.  I do a lot of traveling and most of my photography is either travel or family related.  I can afford Leica but kind of turned off by the "jewelry" aspect.  I know the ultimate decision is mine but am looking for any and all input.  I can see advantages to traveling with digital but it is hard to beat the enjoyment of using a Leica.  Thanks!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkPS]

I have an M10R and it is a great camera.  I purchased mine slightly over one year ago from Adorama for $5600.  Personally, I would not spend the money on an M!! And would use the difference to buy a lens.  The M10R has plenty of resolution but it is not an easy camera to use.  The more megapixels require a steady hand.