Should I go m10 or… (first Leica digital)

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Le Chef said:

First things first - RAW files aren't really images. Consequently, whenever you are viewing a RAW file, for example in Lightroom, you're not seeing the RAW file 

There are hundreds of videos on Youtube about different Leica camera's interpretation of colour.  Some have more green in the shadows, others have more magenta in the highlights. Hasselblad are routinely congratulated on their colours out of the X system, despite it using the same Sony sensor that many other popular cameras use. It's all about the way the camera designer has decided to interpret the information from the sensor. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Chris W]

Another thing.....

If you got the M240 you might always wonder if you should have bought the M10. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I've just been on this journey myself and had the M8 and M240 before I finally got the M10 and was happy with the camera. Lots of people are happy with their M240.

[Le Chef]

4 hours ago, Chris W said:

It's all about the way the camera designer has decided to interpret the information from the sensor. 

We agree to disagree. It's about what the post-production software developers choose to show in DNGs from what the manufacturer delivers in RAW.

[Chris W]

I could not adjust my M240 raw to get rid of the orange tint without damaging the overall colour balance in my image.

If you look around the forum, there are numerous discussions about various Leica bodies having different colour science (too much green, too much magenta etc) and they are all using a wide variety of photo editing software. It has to do with how the sensor is tuned by the manufacturer and rendered out with the onboard software. For example, the Q system makes all kinds of lens corrections inside the body, before you even export the DNG.

[ETrucco]

On 8/23/2025 at 8:54 PM, Casey Jefferson said:

I'll post some when I'm free to dig out the older photos, but you can definitely trust my word on that. M10 will give at least 1 stop better noise performance over M240, plus you can brighten up the image and remain relatively clean while the M240 fall apart with those darker regions so the final image feels like they're 1.5-2 stops better.

Thank you

[Le Chef]

5 hours ago, Chris W said:

For example, the Q system makes all kinds of lens corrections inside the body, before you even export the DNG.

Completely different: lens vs sensor.

[ETrucco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/23/2025 at 8:54 PM, Casey Jefferson said:

I'll post some when I'm free to dig out the older photos, but you can definitely trust my word on that. M10 will give at least 1 stop better noise performance over M240, plus you can brighten up the image and remain relatively clean while the M240 fall apart with those darker regions so the final image feels like they're 1.5-2 stops better.

Is there falling apart also the same on the m-p?

 

[ETrucco]

23 hours ago, Chris W said:

Another thing.....

If you got the M240 you might always wonder if you should have bought the M10. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I've just been on this journey myself and had the M8 and M240 before I finally got the M10 and was happy with the camera. Lots of people are happy with their M240.

I know what you mean.  I am even considering selling my fuji Xpro3 to go with the M10.   

I borrowed a q3 two days ago for a few days and now my wife wants me to buy that one.  I guess I am going to have to sell lots to figure how to buy two cameras hence me asking about the M-P still hahaha

 

[Casey Jefferson]

21 minutes ago, ETrucco said:

Is there falling apart also the same on the m-p?

 

M-P files behaved the same like regular M240, just the color signature is different, more neutral for lack of better words.

M-P240, f2 @ 1/30sec, ISO1600

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!

 

M10-P, f1.4 @ 1/60sec so they're equal, ISO4000

 

M10-P had noise reduction turned off, I believe M-P had the NR turned off as well (if anything it'll be like +10). Slider adjustments are comparable, raised shadows quite a bit for both shots. M-P dark sky and cloth shadows already showing some banding...

[ETrucco]

3 hours ago, Casey Jefferson said:

M-P files behaved the same like regular M240, just the color signature is different, more neutral for lack of better words.

M-P240, f2 @ 1/30sec, ISO1600

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!

 

M10-P, f1.4 @ 1/60sec so they're equal, ISO4000

 

M10-P had noise reduction turned off, I believe M-P had the NR turned off as well (if anything it'll be like +10). Slider adjustments are comparable, raised shadows quite a bit for both shots. M-P dark sky and cloth shadows already showing some banding...

I can see what you mean but honestly both look usable and depending the situation seems like both might be able to handle. Certainly the m10 but the other is no slouch.

 

[IkarusJohn]

On 8/24/2025 at 1:32 AM, Le Chef said:

The issue is not RAW per se, which has no color, but the steps in programs like Lightroom that convert RAW into DNG. And that’s down to Adobe not Leica.

Any comparison of an image (same lens, same settings) taken with an M9 and an M10 will show the difference.

While you are right that the initial reading from the sensor is relatively agnostic, all digital cameras bake in a colour interpretation through the demosaicking of the raw data to deal with the colur filter array.  It is the demosaicked image which we download, which has the designer’s interpretation of what the image should look like - hence the vast difference between camera generated JPEGs from CCD sensors, the M(240), the M10 and the M11, particularly when comapred to Sony cameras and the Hasselblad X2D, despite the fact that the M11, Sony and X2D apparently all use Sony sennsors.

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

hence the vast difference between camera generated JPEGs from CCD sensors

But why would I be interested in JPGs if I only shoot RAW/DNG? My question is whether the differences occur in the camera in the processor, or in the software that processes afterwards. i.e. in Lightroom or Capture One? So who decides “the look?” is it Leica or is it Adobe?

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

But why would I be interested in JPGs if I only shoot RAW/DNG? My question is whether the differences occur in the camera in the processor, or in the software that processes afterwards. i.e. in Lightroom or Capture One? So who decides “the look?” is it Leica or is it Adobe?

Leica.

The reason JPEGs are relevant is that they show the starting point of the raw file before it is downloaded into LightRoom or Capture One.  Even if you ignore the JPEG comparison, a simple download of the same image, with different cameras, into LightRoom will show the difference.  Hence all the pages and pages here talking about the Kodachrome 64 look of the M9 files, and the various complaints about orange, green and red taint in the three different CMOS based cameras released by Leica since; and, of course, Hasselblad’s much vaunted natural colour science.

The starting point is the digital negative, with the designer’s baked in colour preference.  I don’t think either LightRoom or Capture One can read the unmosaicked file (though I’m not sure about that - there was a lot of discussion about “removing” the software adjustments from SL, CL & TL files, though that had more to do with distortion than colour).

Not a lot turns on this, except that it is important to understand that the raw file you get from your camera (any camera in reality) has already had quite a lot of processing done on it.

[Casey Jefferson]

3 hours ago, ETrucco said:

I can see what you mean but honestly both look usable and depending the situation seems like both might be able to handle. Certainly the m10 but the other is no slouch.

 

But we are talking about ISO1600 vs ISO4000 here...being able to work on the files instead of seeing final results from someone, the 240 images just felt fragile already at better lighting, while M10 can still push the file further despite worse lighting.

[ETrucco]

2 hours ago, Casey Jefferson said:

But we are talking about ISO1600 vs ISO4000 here...being able to work on the files instead of seeing final results from someone, the 240 images just felt fragile already at better lighting, while M10 can still push the file further despite worse lighting.

Completely agree. There is certainly way more leeway on the m10.

[Chris W]

10 hours ago, Le Chef said:

My question is whether the differences occur in the camera in the processor, or in the software that processes afterwards. i.e. in Lightroom or Capture One? 

It's the way the sensor is tuned then processed in camera. I don't know why you are still arguing the point as more than one forum member has tried to put you straight.

[Le Chef]

4 hours ago, Chris W said:

It's the way the sensor is tuned then processed in camera. I don't know why you are still arguing the point as more than one forum member has tried to put you straight.

If you read up you will see I’m not arguing, I’m asking questions. And I keep asking because none of the answers so far clarifies my question of how much off ”the look” is derived from the camera processor’s interpretation of RAW data and how much is derived from the post software’s interpretation. The question is how much can be attributed to each?

[Chris W]

3 hours ago, Le Chef said:

If you read up you will see I’m not arguing, I’m asking questions. And I keep asking because none of the answers so far clarifies my question

I think people have answered it more than once. The difference is down to the way the sensor is implemented by the camera builder - which is why the same Sony sensor produces different images in Sony, Leica and Hasselblad, and also how the chips inside the camera process the raw image before you export it. Both the Leica Q3 and Hasselblad X2D files are manipulated in camera before they are even seen by Lightroom or CaptureOne.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgh]

@Le Chef has a valid question. I'm not the person to answer it.

Yes, pics from Fuji and Hassy on the same sensor look different.

But the default raw files from my Leicas also look different when I import them into LR vs. C1.

This suggests that the look is a combination of both, but I would bet that - at least when looking at default imported files - much more of the look is decided by the camera manufacture than the raw conversion software. But the question itself is based on a sort of impossible premise. The color and the look of an image is also affected in no small part by the lens used, the quality of the light, etc. etc. 

[IkarusJohn]

8 hours ago, Le Chef said:

If you read up you will see I’m not arguing, I’m asking questions. And I keep asking because none of the answers so far clarifies my question of how much off ”the look” is derived from the camera processor’s interpretation of RAW data and how much is derived from the post software’s interpretation. The question is how much can be attributed to each?

Sorry, I misunderstood your original point - I thought you were saying that there was no processing in the camera.

The extent of processing in LightRoom and Capture One is hard to detail.  You will have noticed that, with each new camera release, Adobe takes a little while to update LightRoom for the new camera settings.  Clearly LightRoom and Capture One do some level of processing by default on download.  You can also set up profiles which will act as defaults on importation of each batch of new images.

How much processing each programme does is hard to guess, but if you open the same DNG file in each, there are some, subtle differences.  I do know that there is a difference uploading the 3FR files to Phocus (which seems to retain more of Hasselblads Natural Collur Science - nice bit of marketing), then LightRoom, as opposed to just uploading the same files directly to LightRoom.  @FlashGordonPhotography may comment, as I know he doesn’t bother using Phocus for his X2D 3FR files.  I doubt there is much difference with M DNG files.

In the end, I don’t think it comes down to much.  I’m familiar with the LightRoom interface, so that is what I tend to use.  I doubt there is a right or wrong answer - try the programmes you have available, and see which you prefer.