Leica M10 DxO Score

Word food for pixel peepers? I was happy with my M9P and sold it to get my M240 because it could take the EVF which allowed me to take advantage of my zoom lenses with the available adapters. Of course, the M240 is a better sensor, but in the real world I cannot tell the difference except for the color rendition and the ability to shoot higher ISO with less noise. I think we have reached the point where almost any of the current sensors will satisfy all but the most demanding pixel peepers and photo-muralists as opposed to most photographers.
 
It's not 'pixel peeping'. Dynamic range, low light performance, and bit-depth for portraiture are evaluated by DXO and I trust their rating system. In purchasing a camera, I want the most "bang for the buck". 1. Sensor performance. 2. Lens selection (why I'm not in the Sony camp -- and spare me your talk of clunky, kluge, and expensive adapters) 3. Ergonomics (call a DSLR "clunky" if you will. However that nice deep grip on the right side of the Nikons and Canons is meaningful -- strike that "mandatory", especially with larger and heavier lenses. Additionally, the "mirror hump" might ruin the camera's looks, but that saves me valuable battery life and I'm seeing exactly what's in the scene not an electronic representation. I prefer this -- especially for the battery life dividend. The RF form factor may "look" cooler but I want my grip and I want a 900 shot fully-charged battery life). 4. Cost -- bang for the buck.

I don't want to bash Leica. But they charge a premium for their cameras -- and not by a little, and they fall behind in the most meaningful sensor metrics related to digital camera performance and not by a little. My used D600 from 2012 rates a 95 on DXO. It cost $650 (again, to be fair, that's a used price but you ain't getting no working and in great condition digital "M" for that). The full frame Leica M10, which costs nearly $7000 new, rates an 86 and it's 5 years newer than Nikon's entry-level FF. By comparison the little D5300 that I paid $300 used rates an 83 with a cropped sensor. Performance-wise, the new full frame M10 is closer to an old entry-level Nikon aps-c camera that cost a fraction of the M10. And the latest M has nowhere near the sensor performance of a 5 year entry-level FF Nikon model released in 2012.

But as long as people keep buying them at their asking price, Leica has no incentive to put better sensors in their digital cameras I guess. That said, for a film camera where you're pairing it with one of their superlative diminutive jewels of a 50 or 35mm lens, the RF form factor works, and Leica still reigns supreme. Digital? Wow. C'mon Leica. You should be the class leader here and the simple fact is, you're not. Not by a long shot in terms of the metrics that matter most. And Leica's digital price/performance can only be described as abysmal.
 
btw,

the D850, new M9, and M10 sensors are made by the same company
in that famous and well known little camera hamlet of ....
Israel ....
believe it or not.
likely they will be producing the Zenit digital rangefinder sensors as well, I guess
 
Jim Evidon said:
Word food for pixel peepers? I was happy with my M9P and sold it to get my M240 because it could take the EVF which allowed me to take advantage of my zoom lenses with the available adapters. Of course, the M240 is a better sensor, but in the real world I cannot tell the difference except for the color rendition and the ability to shoot higher ISO with less noise. I think we have reached the point where almost any of the current sensors will satisfy all but the most demanding pixel peepers and photo-muralists as opposed to most photographers.
Click to expand...

You cannot tell the difference doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else (who shoot in the real world as well).

It won't be the end of the world to admit that the current Leica full frame sensors (although I assume they are essentially the same one with different tweaks), with their astounding price tags, lag behind the best APS-C sensors (which are present in almost all models across the range - even your son's lowly new Nikon D3400). They are no match for the state-of-art FF sensors.

But I'm thankful. Although banding seems still to be an issue even with the M10 sensor, at least they don't corrode or crack anymore...

My M262's sensor performance is "good enough" for most of my use, that's true. Sometimes I do wish I could shoot at ISO 3200 and still have confidence to manipulate the RAW file like I do with my Fuji. But I can make do. It's just a little sad that you always have to "made do" with digital Leicas, even though if you put "Leica" and "uncompromising" into google, you'll be under an impression that the later seems to be a favorite expression of the company...
 
DXO is pretty worthless in the real world. The reason so many fashion/portrait/wedding photographers and videographers use Canon despite being technically outgunned by Nikon and Sony sensor's DXO results is that the color science behind the canon sensors is pretty much spot on for skin tones. That kind of thing that is very difficult to measure via data is way more important than how many stops you can lift the shadows (which is the measurebators favorite metric)
 
Don't read all these opinions till one goes to DxO.
Compare the sensor results of Nikon 850 and M10.
Surprise they are very close!
I own neither, one is tooo big and expensive; the other way too expensive.
So i have no axe to grind.
I used SLR and RF in my pro years.
The Leica in terms of features always ran 2nd or 4th!
My M's are still the most superior in results..
 
I can certainly tell the difference in the real world, and have used and owned all kinds of digital cameras, including Leica M8 + M10, Nikon D800E and Sony A7R II. The last is my current camera - owing to it's superlative sensor performance (shame its ergonomics don't match!).

For a well-exposed photo of a typical subject taken under everyday conditions without anything awkward (deep shadows, bright highlights, low light or strange light, etc.), most decent cameras will give similar results. But start to push things, then things go awry with lesser cameras...

I know a lot of photographers who take photography very seriously - and I was taught by a Magnum photographer. None use a digital Leica M.
 
RichC said:
I know a lot of photographers who take photography very seriously - and I was taught by a Magnum photographer. None use a digital Leica M.
Click to expand...

Look at blogs, Gilden has S2, others M240 etc!
The price makes it awkward for many!
The slow service a major problem for a pro.
Yet consider when Magnum and other famous photographers used Kodachrome, the end bill was huge and no good duplicates..,
A friend and PJ last year did a shoot over whole Middle East, using one Leica M4-P and FILM.
 
I was at a dinner and sat across from Costas Manos and we had a great conversation about Leicas. He has 2 M10s.

I have both the M 262 and M 10 and I can tell you from real world working with files experience the M 10 has much better DR. No banding to speak of and 20,000 ISO is VERY usable. 3200 is a bit touch and go with the M 262. This is REAL shooting and working with the files everyday experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom