Leica M10-R Buying Poll July 2020

[ktmrider]

Had the M9 and now the MP240 but I carry the FujiX100F more often as it is technologically more advanced, cheaper and lighter the the Leica. The 35 FOV is my favorite followed by the 50. The. X100F fills the roll exactly and the aux lenses offers cheap and great flexibility. Have absolutely no plans for any more Leica digital bodies.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2020/20200717_1448-OWC-LeicaM10r-LeicaM10m.html

There is an interesting entry over at Lloyd Chambers site on the camera. Am tempted to cut and paste the entire thing, because it raises several valid points that have not even been mentioned yet in 3 pages here. The most interesting section isn’t even Chambers’ initial assessment, it’s a thought provoking addendum by a confirmed Leica owner named Roy P.
The gist is that 40MP in a Leica SL, or Q series makes some sense, but it makes little to no sense in an M body that uses rangefinder focusing. Ditto the use of some of the newer M lenses with world class MTF charts. The M is simply a camera that is unable to be reliably focused well enough, consistently enough to take advantage of either 40 MP or the 75 Noctilux.
The 40 MP “benefit” of being able to do greater enlargements, or to do extensive cropping, isn’t reliably there with this camera simply because of the inherent problems with rf focusing. You are not going to get any benefits from “more resolution” if you cannot focus at the accuracy that 40 MP requires. And with an M, you can’t. If someone wants that capability, they are better off using a camera that actually allows that, like the SL. 24 MP is likely the sweet spot for an M body, as rangefinder focusing is adequate for that. On top of that, fatter pixels are better than smaller pixels all other things being equal. There’s no such thing as a free lunch when moving to high MP bodies.

There is more over there, and explained better than I have alluded to here. There is no bashing going on, but some thoughtful observations are raised, things I have mot seen considered here, which is the only reason I bring it up.

 

[raid]

caution: This may be a guess: The M10 would need IS system without adding to the size of the camera. The SL2 may be better suited for 40MP.

 

[Godfrey]

I dunno. Digilloyd's opinions have never made sense to me: All of the "problems" he points out with all kinds of gear I've owned have never been "problems" in my use.

I refer back to Jono Slack's review of the M10-R: Jono's a fine photographer and a credible reviewer. If he finds the new sensor adds value, I will agree with him. That doesn't mean I'm going to rush out and buy a new camera now, it simply means that Jono's sensible review of the camera through making photographs and seeing what results he gets means a heck of a lot more to me than theoretics and spec sheet postulating.

Besides, I've seen the improvement that going from one sensor to the other with the same lenses has provided. I've not yet seen a single retrograde step in the quality of the photos that any of my successive digital Leicas might have made. The evidence I've seen with my own eyes is that Leica knows what it's doing when it releases a new model. 😀

G

 

[jsrockit]

The gist is that 40MP in a Leica SL, or Q series makes some sense, but it makes little to no sense in an M body that uses rangefinder focusing. Ditto the use of some of the newer M lenses with world class MTF charts. The M is simply a camera that is unable to be reliably focused well enough, consistently enough to take advantage of either 40 MP or the 75 Noctilux.
The 40 MP “benefit” of being able to do greater enlargements, or to do extensive cropping, isn’t reliably there with this camera simply because of the inherent problems with rf focusing. You are not going to get any benefits from “more resolution” if you cannot focus at the accuracy that 40 MP requires.

These same issues would show at 100% (300 DPI) on a 24mp sensor too. However, if you print the 40mp photo at 24mp size (300 DPI), it could actually mask the missed focus a little since it would not be at 100%.

Every time these cameras with 36-40+ res sensors are released, so are the myths. If your rangefinder is calibrated, you will be able to focus this camera. Leica is not going to release it if it cannot. Let's remember the medium format and large format film rangefinders out there! Also, you will not need a new computer if your computer is currently handling 24mp photos well. You will not need new lenses ... they will "resolve." The cheap Sony 50mm 1.8 that costs $175 resolves their 42mp sensors. You can still shoot with the same shutter speeds you always have...if you were sloppy before, you will be sloppy now. If you were rock solid before, you'll be rock solid now.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... Every time these cameras with 36-40+ res sensors are released, so are the myths. ... You can still shoot with the same shutter speeds you always have...unless you were using film grain and small prints to mask your sloppiness.

Let's get real for a minute!

I've seen some of the issues to which you allude first hand. I don't pretend to understand all of the technical details, but focusing isn't the only issue. It's also about holding the camera steady.

For example, you can shoot steady hand-held - no image stabilization - with an 18mp (similar resolution to film) sensor at a 1/60 of a second (or even 1/30 if you're really good), but when you add resolution it becomes harder to prevent camera shake using these lower speeds. You find the exact same issue when comparing a 50mm lens to a 90mm lens (the 90 is harder to hold steady at the same low shutter speeds).

It's been argued that a 36mp S2 (no IS) can be shot hand-held without issue as if it were a direct comparison to a 35mm sensor. But that is not an apples-to-apples comparison because the S2 sensor is physically larger.

An honest test would involve a direst comparison between an M10 and an M10-R using the same slow shutter speeds (below 1/125) - both hand-held. Instead, M10-R tests are done by increasing the shutter speeds to above 1/125 and compensating with a higher ISO. Then this is touted as "evidence" that these fears are myths.

There is also no comparison if you're comparing two cameras with equal resolution when one camera has image stabilization (the compensating technology) and the other does not.

 

[raid]

I really do not know if such claims are true and I wish someone with experience and knowledge with such sensors can chime in here.

 

[Tim Gray]

It’s all about final print/viewing size.

I have shots that are below this magical 1/125 that are VERY sharp on the M10M. Handheld. Some at 50mm, some a bit wider. I’d also point out that 40mp actually isn’t all that much more resolution than 24mp.

I’m not saying that these cameras don’t require a bit more care than a similar setup on a lower mp camera, but it really isn’t that much different than any other reasonably recent camera. Also, from a practical standpoint, as I’ve said elsewhere, if your shot requires 1/30 at f/1.4, you probably weren’t getting critically sharp photos, even on film. If you want critically sharp, the advice is the same as it has always been: stop down, choose a shutter speed that freezes motion, and maybe use a tripod.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of the comparison between a 50 mm and a 90 mm lens, but a more accurate comparison might be between a 50 mm and a 65 mm (or a 35-40 / 50 comparison).

 

[Larry Cloetta]

These same issues would show at 100% (300 DPI) on a 24mp sensor too. However, if you print the 40mp photo at 24mp size (300 DPI), it could actually mask the missed focus a little since it would not be at 100%.

Every time these cameras with 36-40+ res sensors are released, so are the myths. If your rangefinder is calibrated, you will be able to focus this camera. Leica is not going to release it if it cannot. Let's remember the medium format and large format film rangefinders out there! Also, you will not need a new computer if your computer is currently handling 24mp photos well. You will not need new lenses ... they will "resolve." The cheap Sony 50mm 1.8 that costs $175 resolves their 42mp sensors. You can still shoot with the same shutter speeds you always have...if you were sloppy before, you will be sloppy now. If you were rock solid before, you'll be rock solid now.

John, I don’t disagree with anything you say here, but it’s why I was hoping people would read the linked article as it was quite a bit more nuanced and persuasive as to the questionable rationale for a 40MP M body, a body which has had little done to it to make 40MP completely utilizable day to day.
The poor semi-summary I wrote doesn’t make that case, as you pointed out.
Nothing on earth is going to dissuade someone who wants one from buying one, but there were some things referenced in the link which might give pause to someone not a true believer. Some food for thought at any rate. But, Leica understands their modern customer base for M bodies, better than I do.

 

[Huss]

As far as I understand the marketing hype, the major advantage of the latest and greatest Leica M camera is related to its 40 M pixel count. What advantages does this bring to the average photographer?

A Leica photographer is never an average photographer.

😀

 

[Larry Cloetta]

A Leica photographer is never an average photographer.

😀

It’s not just a camera, it’s an experience.

 

[Rayt]

I buy a lot of stuff I don’t need including that avocado peeler. Doesn’t make peeling avocados any easier except giving me consistent sized slices. If I had the money for this latest Leica bling I would buy it. I can use those slices.

But seriously it might be time for me to shoot digital. I am thinking 40MP will be more future proof. I’ll wait for new M10-P prices to come down and see what happens. I have been deciding between the M10M, SL2 and the M10-P and have already ruled out the first two. I don’t want to be restricted to only b/w, and getting an SL2 would open the door to native lenses and I don’t need the temptation. Due to the lock down I am not shooting anyway so can wait.

 

[jsrockit]

Let's get real for a minute!

I've seen some of the issues to which you allude first hand. I don't pretend to understand all of the technical details, but focusing isn't the only issue. It's also about holding the camera steady.

So, you saw these in prints that were at 100% resolution then? You certainly didn't see these issue in small prints.

For example, you can shoot steady hand-held - no image stabilization - with an 18mp (similar resolution to film) sensor at a 1/60 of a second (or even 1/30 if you're really good), but when you add resolution it becomes harder to prevent camera shake using these lower speeds.

Only if you print big... if you print an 18mp at 100% res and a 40mp at 50-60% of full res (similar size to the 100% 18mp photo)... there's no reason the 40mp camera will show more shake.

You find the exact same issue when comparing a 50mm lens to a 90mm lens (the 90 is harder to hold steady at the same low shutter speeds).

but that's FOV working against you not the same as resolution and print size.

It's been argued that a 36mp S2 (no IS) can be shot hand-held without issue as if it were a direct comparison to a 35mm sensor. But that is not an apples-to-apples comparison because the S2 sensor is physically larger.

I've used 42mp sensors... it was not hard to manage at all. I used it exactly the same way as my 24mp sensor cameras... with the advantage of being able to print larger and cleaner prints.

An honest test would involve a direst comparison between an M10 and an M10-R using the same slow shutter speeds (below 1/125) - both hand-held. Instead, M10-R tests are done by increasing the shutter speeds to above 1/125 and compensating with a higher ISO. Then this is touted as "evidence" that these fears are myths.

No, an honest test would be to use both cameras at the same shutter speed and print them both at 100% resolution. Then really look close... both will show the same shake if there’s shake. Of course the bigger print is magnified...so, it will show it better... but both will show it. However, my point is that you can then take that same 40mp image and print at 18mp size (say 12 x 18") and it'll be exactly the same. Many people seem to assume if you have a 24mp sensor and a 40mp sensor and make 12x18" prints, the 40mp will show more shake. That is entirely not the case.

There is also no comparison if you're comparing two cameras with equal resolution when one camera has image stabilization (the compensating technology) and the other does not.

IBIS only comes into play for non moving objects... and it works well for these. I agree with you here... but who expects IBIS not to help?

 

[Michael Markey]

Whatever the pros and cons of 40mp it seems clear from recent pronouncements from Leica (Peter Karbe) that they expect the MP count in future models to continue to increase .
This is one of the reasons why they have broken free of the design constraints of the M lenses and incorporated future proofing into the SL and S lenses.

 

[Out to Lunch]

A balanced review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XOZxgvHV_c The reviewer provides specific commentary on the 40Mp sensor. He is using an APO-Summicron 2/50 with it which will set you back another $8,795.00. I agree, not for the average photographer.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Whatever the pros and cons of 40mp it seems clear from recent pronouncements from Leica (Peter Karbe) that they expect the MP count in future models to continue to increase .
This is one of the reasons why they have broken free of the design constraints of the M lenses and incorporated future proofing into the SL and S lenses.

As MP counts continue to increase industry wide over time, and they obviously will, Leica will continue to follow suit with the M, even if, as now, as ever, being about 4 years behind Sony sensor tech. That’s a marketing and sales department decision and, since MP counts are one of the few things left that you can attract buyers of digital cameras with, a bigger number always being better than a smaller number in the public’s mind whether it be MP counts, horsepower, or bra size, then it’s a way forward they probably have to take whether it makes any sense in a rangefinder focusing body or not. Some M lenses are up to the demands of a 40 MP or higher sensor, but the current inherent accuracy limitations with rangefinder focusing make getting perfectly focused results at the 40 MP level with each M lens in your stable a matter of accident rather than skill. That’s not to say that you wouldn’t occasionally get a higher acuity result with the 40MP M than the 24MP version, or that you couldn’t get superb results from either of them.
But, even Leica don’t and won’t make the claim that 40 MP resolution is as shot to shot, lens to lens, fully usable as it is on an SL or S. You’ll get 40MP of something all right, and you can blow that something up bigger, but what that something is will depend to some extent on whether you bumped the camera recently or if it has had its infamous Leica “recent CLA”. Etc.

Yours seems like the more reasonable approach, as those SL and S cameras are not limited by rangefinder focusing, (this is no accident) a focusing method which made the M3 much loved for quick focusing and reportage in the early film days, and still makes for a nice small package these days. But.
The future proofing you allude which the SL and S are equipped to meet, to is the future of higher MP counts and the pressure those put on camera body and lens design.

 

[Michael Markey]

Yours seems like the more reasonable approach, as those SL and S cameras are not limited by rangefinder focusing, (this is no accident) a focusing method which made the M3 much loved for quick focusing and reportage in the early film days, and still makes for a nice small package these days. But.
The future proofing you allude which the SL and S are equipped to meet, to is the future of higher MP counts and the pressure those put on camera body and lens design.

I watched a similar interview with Stephan Daniels (I think) where he alluded to the fact that the SL was now their flagship model.
It makes sense given the way the technology is developing.

 

[raid]

An SL can be bought for less than $3000.

 

[Mudman]

An SL can be bought for less than $3000.

For less than $2k on occasion. They’re the bargain of leica right now.

 

[coelacanth]

there are several SLs available around 2K now. It really was tempting, but I just went for a bargain (relatively speaking) priced M10. I just can't imagine myself needing 40MP, and frankly I can't deal with the file size.