Ok, I will bite Peter. I wonder how well the M10 would do if it too had a 42-45 Mpix sensor? BTW, I just listened to a podcast and they were discussing the A7R III RAW file size. The uncompressed RAW files are very large, like 80mb. I assume the D850 are around the same?
I’ve been very happy with my 18 Mpix CCD camera DNG file size and the 24 Mpix M240 and now M10 seems to be about a decent size to work with too as I’ve rented the 240 a couple times. I’m not ready to have to have a 10 terabyte backup system (ok, I’m exaggerating a little) at home to maintain. I’m in the downsize mode as I approach retirement. Not willing to add the additional bloat these large sensor cameras are producing.
Also, last time I checked I’m not printing billboard size photos.
I have looked at and had a chance to demo the M10. I would buy the M10 for 4 main reasons:
30% larger rangefinder window. (I wear glasses and over 60 years old and primarily shoot 35mm focal length)
LED frame lines. (I have trouble framing my 75 Cron in low light when shooting musicians at our local pub)
6400 ISO. (That’s all I need to help with #2 above.)
Shot to shot buffer. (On occasion I run into the buffer when shooting at the pub and the occasional landscape shoot where I’m shooting multiple exp bracketing to stitch together later for a pano in Lightroom.)
And then there’s each camera’s respective controls and menu systems…. I will just leave it at that.
Re: your question about 42-45 MP sensors, the D600, which is “only” a 24 MP FF sensor scores 94. Not bad.
In the end, if someone is looking for a digital rangefinder, there’s only one game in town, so the score is irrelevant.
If however someone is looking for a FF sensor with as much MP (or dynamic range) as possible, the M10 doesn’t match up well with the industry leaders.
The M9 sensor at least gave us a different look. Once Leica permanently moved away from that Kodak sensor, they made themselves vulnerable to these sort of sensor comparisons. And the results ain’t pretty.
I suspect that you posted this to show that scores are all well and good, but don’t mean much unless you look at the actual files.
The medium format backs tend to score significantly less than 100, yet they are significantly superior to the Sony and the Nikon. Even the old CCD backs are a better choice for applications that don’t require speed.
Having said that, the Hasselblad X1D scores 101 – and it’s effectively better than the mere number.
I wonder how Vision 3 500T would score? It’s somewhat of a gold standard. Even Max 400 looks great. Would it even score past 65?
“I suspect that you posted this to show that scores are all well and good, but don’t mean much unless you look at the actual files.”
Fair enough. The M9 scores badly but is capable of producing wonderful images. And I realize DXO places weight on attributes of the sensor that may or may not be applicable to a given photographer’s needs.
But I’m not sure I’ve seen an M10 image I’ve liked (with respect to IQ). So, in a sense, its score doesn’t surprise me.
I forgot to add that the RED Helium sensor has a score of 108. And it isn’t even Vistavision.
Apart from everything else, I notice that you can buy an D850 and an A7RIII and still pay less than one M10…
… and that pretty much sums it all up, literally and figuratively. That’s the problem Leica faces.
Still, neither the Nikon or Sony replicates the feeling of using a rangefinder which, if you like that sort of thing (as I do), keeps the M viable.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.