ptpdprinter
Veteran
This should stir up some controversy:
"For pure sensor performance, the Leica M10’s 24Mp CMOS chip is in the same ballpark as recent Leica full-frame chips. Its odd behavior for both color and dynamic range is worth looking out for, and it’s fair to say that although sensor quality is good, it could be improved with better implementation. Compared to the top-performing full-frame sensors we’ve tested, the M10 lags a little behind at base ISO and throughout the sensitivity range, with image quality more in line with the best APS-C chips. So better image quality is available and the M10 isn’t cheap, but first-class engineering that meets the Leica standard never is. However, a digital camera with similar proportions to analog M cameras will be hugely appealing to Leica enthusiasts. Add to that compatibility with almost all Leica lenses ever made, as well as its simplicity of operation, and the M10 will be an attractive proposition to those who appreciate the quality of the Leica system."
Full details here.
"For pure sensor performance, the Leica M10’s 24Mp CMOS chip is in the same ballpark as recent Leica full-frame chips. Its odd behavior for both color and dynamic range is worth looking out for, and it’s fair to say that although sensor quality is good, it could be improved with better implementation. Compared to the top-performing full-frame sensors we’ve tested, the M10 lags a little behind at base ISO and throughout the sensitivity range, with image quality more in line with the best APS-C chips. So better image quality is available and the M10 isn’t cheap, but first-class engineering that meets the Leica standard never is. However, a digital camera with similar proportions to analog M cameras will be hugely appealing to Leica enthusiasts. Add to that compatibility with almost all Leica lenses ever made, as well as its simplicity of operation, and the M10 will be an attractive proposition to those who appreciate the quality of the Leica system."
Full details here.
SaveKodak
Well-known
I would challenge anyone to be dissatisfied with the real world sensor performance of the M10, however if you compare it to the state-of-the-art offerings from Sony it's clearly no BSI sensor. With the way the M10 is intended to be used I think the sensor is actually well suited to the camera itself. If you need the best-on-paper IQ and are spending this kind of money, and not buying a GFX, then I would question your actions anyway. If you want to shoot a Leica and shoot RF style, then buying a D850 wouldn't make sense just because it'll produce a lower noise image. The other parts of the DXO review acknowledge that the M10 doesn't really need to score high to be an excellent offering from Leica. If you're into nuance this review shouldn't bother you at all!
My only controversial takeway is one that is evergreen. Leica clearly saves money by using older components in every model, and should pass those savings on to consumers. Of course, they seem to sell every camera they make, so this is unlikely.
My only controversial takeway is one that is evergreen. Leica clearly saves money by using older components in every model, and should pass those savings on to consumers. Of course, they seem to sell every camera they make, so this is unlikely.
narsuitus
Well-known
Recently, I went shopping for a "full-frame" camera to replace my aging APS-C cameras.
For the "full-frame" dSLR, I narrowed my choice to a Nikon D850.
For the "full-frame" mirrorless camera, I narrowed my choice to a Leica M10.
I liked the image quality of the D850.
I liked the ergonomics of the M10.
I could not afford them both.
I purchased the M10.
For the first time, I did not feel buyer's remorse because I knew that if I did not like the M10, I could sell it for a small loss, buy the D850, and still have money left over.
For the "full-frame" dSLR, I narrowed my choice to a Nikon D850.
For the "full-frame" mirrorless camera, I narrowed my choice to a Leica M10.
I liked the image quality of the D850.
I liked the ergonomics of the M10.
I could not afford them both.
I purchased the M10.
For the first time, I did not feel buyer's remorse because I knew that if I did not like the M10, I could sell it for a small loss, buy the D850, and still have money left over.
Huss
Veteran
The sensor tech is not what Leica brings to the table. It's the rangefinder and intentionally no frills usage. That's why I bought one and not a DSLR.
But, this does kinda call into question the SL for not having a higher spec sensor.
But, this does kinda call into question the SL for not having a higher spec sensor.
krötenblender
Well-known
Why should it? Can't argue against the numbers. However, that doesn't say anything about the camera as a whole. If one wants a digital rangefinder camera, this is currently by far the best, you can get. Sadly, it is also more or less the only one... If it weren't, then the DXO tests for digital rangefinders would be more interesting.
krötenblender
Well-known
Indeed, it is a pretty good package IQ-wise.
Well, I have that one also and only numbers for sensor quality count, then the GFX is in a whole different class, than the Leica. However, both cameras really have their place and currently, I wouldn't give away either of them (as well as my µFT Pen-F, which is also a fantastic camera). They are all different system with different purpose, strengths and weaknesses.
If one looks only to a few measured values of these different systems, that is like buying books by cover-color and weight.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I wonder what fraction of users actually can make use of this "scoring" data?
Is it any more useful than anecdotal data to the average photographer or just clouds the choice?
Look at an image at base iso. Look at an image at the highest iso "you" feel is useful... viola! Make a judgement!
Is it any more useful than anecdotal data to the average photographer or just clouds the choice?
Look at an image at base iso. Look at an image at the highest iso "you" feel is useful... viola! Make a judgement!
Archlich
Well-known
Just acquired a Q. Can't shoot past ISO 3200, can't lift shadow more than 2 stops, or the banding becomes too evident. The current Fuji sensors, being APS-C sized, generate files that are far more manipulable.
Quirky and limited, that's OK with us Leica shooters...I learnt to take it "messy"...learnt to take the limitation as a virtue. Don't need higher ISO anyway. But why is it so only with a Leica?
Hope the next Q would have the far-from-best M10 sensor.
*Sigh*
Quirky and limited, that's OK with us Leica shooters...I learnt to take it "messy"...learnt to take the limitation as a virtue. Don't need higher ISO anyway. But why is it so only with a Leica?
Hope the next Q would have the far-from-best M10 sensor.
*Sigh*
daveywaugh
Blah
This just reflects what others have already said but I think in 2017, we've got to the point where all sensors are incredibly good. Been like that for a while. For the style of photography that most Leica users will tend to shoot (not to typecast too much here), a sensor that's only 98% as good as model X is hardly a deal breaker. Ergonomics, simplicity and lens mount matter more.
Not everyone prefers a RF of course, but those that do, and value the ergonomics, the M10 is a brilliant camera. My day job is retouching and design. I work on other photographer's photos every day... from Sonys, Hasselblads, Phase One, Leicas and yes, mainly Canons and Nikons ;-) I do pixel peep because it's my job, and of course I can see a tangible difference from a top end MF camera back, but in all honesty, the different 99% of the time is negligible and not relevant in most real-world situations. Anyway, just my 2c
Not everyone prefers a RF of course, but those that do, and value the ergonomics, the M10 is a brilliant camera. My day job is retouching and design. I work on other photographer's photos every day... from Sonys, Hasselblads, Phase One, Leicas and yes, mainly Canons and Nikons ;-) I do pixel peep because it's my job, and of course I can see a tangible difference from a top end MF camera back, but in all honesty, the different 99% of the time is negligible and not relevant in most real-world situations. Anyway, just my 2c
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think the sensor battle ran out of puff a while ago ... they are all very good these days. More than good enough for me at least.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
So much hype about low light shooting with digital sensors. Beyond ISO 1600 I can’t see what it is I’m supposed to be shooting with my eyes anyway, and as I don’t do much surveillance work I don’t see the appeal.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
First, I have no idea what DxO is bulging at. Can't masturbate this smart.
Second, I, personally, like images from all digital M sensors. M8, M9, M240 and M10. I also like Q images. They are qute.
Second, I, personally, like images from all digital M sensors. M8, M9, M240 and M10. I also like Q images. They are qute.
nickla
Established
I haven't had any DR problems. At 100 I have yet to hit limit in shadow recovery, I've gotten close to 5 stops in shadows.
I also find the ISO good up to about 10-12.5k.
If you can't get it done with that you're doing something wrong...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I also find the ISO good up to about 10-12.5k.
If you can't get it done with that you're doing something wrong...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
willie_901
Veteran
S/N Is Always Good
S/N Is Always Good
I agree the high-ISO mantra is annoying. For one thing the mantra is a misleading over simplification.
However, S/N is important at every ISO one needs to use. S/N determines the information content of the raw file. At base ISO (100) more S/N means more dynamic range. At base ISO more S/N also means when you expose for a bright sky the the underexposed shadow regions have more S/N. More S/N means better detail, color rendering and perceived tonal rendering.[a]
At ISO 400, shadow regions are underexposed by an additional two stops (compass to 100). Now shadow-region S/N is that much more important.
a. Often rendering shadow regions to be dark is an important aesthetic strategy. I'm not suggesting shadow regions should always be selectively pushed. At the same time, regions in-between the brightest and darkest also benefit from higher S/N.
S/N Is Always Good
I agree the high-ISO mantra is annoying. For one thing the mantra is a misleading over simplification.
However, S/N is important at every ISO one needs to use. S/N determines the information content of the raw file. At base ISO (100) more S/N means more dynamic range. At base ISO more S/N also means when you expose for a bright sky the the underexposed shadow regions have more S/N. More S/N means better detail, color rendering and perceived tonal rendering.[a]
At ISO 400, shadow regions are underexposed by an additional two stops (compass to 100). Now shadow-region S/N is that much more important.
a. Often rendering shadow regions to be dark is an important aesthetic strategy. I'm not suggesting shadow regions should always be selectively pushed. At the same time, regions in-between the brightest and darkest also benefit from higher S/N.
MikeL
Go Fish
Wait, I thought M10 best camera. I feel good using best camera, expensive camera. Now I hear there is better camera? People need to tell me what best camera is now please. I buy that one and feel good, lotsa hope, cause I have best camera for my photos. Not everyone has best. I just need to know which is best! Thank you for your help.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Sometimes I have no choice ,especially at this time of year, because I shoot action for friends in indoor arenas and I need a high shutter speed.
Couple that with a reasonable aperture of say F4 and there`s only one way to go.
So photographers at these events are typically shooting at anything between 30-50k
This was at 40k on an A7R2 with a 135 Elmarit.
Christmas charity event for children.
Agreed...and this is what non-Leica fans never seem to get.
It is because the best of the best APSC sensors are actually extremely good. The Leica just allows you to use your native lenses at their intended FOVs though. I don't see this as a diss.
It's about being able to hand hold at higher shutter speeds for me. As I get older, my hands are shakier. It is awesome to shoot at 1/125th in a decently lit street at night.
willie_901
Veteran
Rubbish!
Rubbish!
This is rubbish.
It seems DxO considers cameras to be commodities lacking any value-added economic benefit whatsoever.
In 2017 the M10's data stream is both excellent and competitive. This DxO analysis is a prime example of ignoring context. It is also misleading.
The primary source of noise in M10 raw files is photon (shot) noise. Photon noise can not be affected by human intervention. Increasing ISO does not increase the M10's read noise levels. Lowering exposure (which happens when one increases ISO) lowers the signal levels. The photon noise levels increase relative to signal as exposure decreases. These characteristics are shared by all contemporary still digital cameras.
Neither the M10's DR behavior nor its color rendering is odd.
Comparing the M10's image quality to APS-C cameras is absurd. It is meaningless and misleading. It is very odd that DxO ignores the role of sensor area in this comparison. The per-pixel sensitivity is only part of the story. Was matters is the total exposure of the sensor and that is a function of sensor area and single-pixel performance. The M Type 262, the M10 are the first digital M Leicas that outperform all APS-C cameras (in terms of raw file S/N).
The M10's only weakness compared to contemporary competitors is dynamic range. Even so, the difference is one stop or less with the M10 being in the top 1/2 of all 24 x 36 mm cameras tested by Bill Claff. Ask any APS-C camera owner with similar DR capabilities (e.g. FUJIFILM X-Trans III or SONY A-6300), this is hardly a show stopper.
Rubbish!
This is rubbish.
It seems DxO considers cameras to be commodities lacking any value-added economic benefit whatsoever.
In 2017 the M10's data stream is both excellent and competitive. This DxO analysis is a prime example of ignoring context. It is also misleading.
The primary source of noise in M10 raw files is photon (shot) noise. Photon noise can not be affected by human intervention. Increasing ISO does not increase the M10's read noise levels. Lowering exposure (which happens when one increases ISO) lowers the signal levels. The photon noise levels increase relative to signal as exposure decreases. These characteristics are shared by all contemporary still digital cameras.
Neither the M10's DR behavior nor its color rendering is odd.
Comparing the M10's image quality to APS-C cameras is absurd. It is meaningless and misleading. It is very odd that DxO ignores the role of sensor area in this comparison. The per-pixel sensitivity is only part of the story. Was matters is the total exposure of the sensor and that is a function of sensor area and single-pixel performance. The M Type 262, the M10 are the first digital M Leicas that outperform all APS-C cameras (in terms of raw file S/N).
The M10's only weakness compared to contemporary competitors is dynamic range. Even so, the difference is one stop or less with the M10 being in the top 1/2 of all 24 x 36 mm cameras tested by Bill Claff. Ask any APS-C camera owner with similar DR capabilities (e.g. FUJIFILM X-Trans III or SONY A-6300), this is hardly a show stopper.