The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica m10r vs X1D


Well-known member
Does anybody compare those cameras.... i like the x1d but leica is interesting because of the lens and the simplicity ..... depth of field
dynamic range is also an important factor for me.



Well-known member
I use both, and I believe the x1d has a slight advantage in regards of color and dynamic range, also better exposure metering.
Also with AF I find it more safe for precise focusing lenses with shallow DOF.

The M10r shines with the analog user interface and small lenses, for me it works very well with 28, 35 and 50mm lenses. Also its quite fast to switch on and with the optical viewfinder one feels more connected to the subject IMO.


Active member
I had a similar question from October to December last year. For me it was between M10r and 907x. I came from M8 and the M 240.
The short version: The tonality (tonalität in German) was the point why I ordered the 907x.

The long version:
I really love the small lenses for the M. I have the 21/3.4, the 35/2.0 and the 50/1.4, also I had the R 28/2.8 PC lens. I am still fighting with the big lenses for the x system. There is still no C1 support for the M10r and the Lightroom route was a no go for me. Phocus is great and there is much less post work necessary with the 907x files. The Autofocus ist strange for me as I still hanging on the fast manual lenses, they are so great because It is up to my self knowing what shout be in focus. It works in every situation, the rangefinder szstem is the best focus system. But I did a portrait which a test 80mm XCD lens full open - I couldn’t ever make an image like this without autofocus! I am shooting less images with the 907x, which is better. About color, highlights, shadows, dynamic range and micro contrast the 907x was the winner. I am still thinking some times how I would use the M...

Hope that makes sense.

BTW: I am selling my three Leica lenses.



Staff member
No contest to me. I find X1D's sensor superior (even if it is older sensor) in terms of rendering, sharpness, freedom from artifacts (if you are obsessive pixel-peeper), dynamic range and of course something they call Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution.




Active member
1XDI or II, no comparison....that old sensor is still king in terms of DR and hasselblad color tech really makes it shine.....
even the new 100mpix sensor in the GFX does not beat it in DR (especially if you take PDAF pattern into consideration)


Well-known member
Slightly OT, but a Leaf Credo 60 (= Phase IQ160) and an M10M were compared.... and the older, larger (54mm x 40mm) sensor won pretty clearly.


Active member
1XDI or II, no comparison....that old sensor is still king in terms of DR and hasselblad color tech really makes it shine.....
even the new 100mpix sensor in the GFX does not beat it in DR (especially if you take PDAF pattern into consideration)
GFX100 has dual conversion gain which helps at higher ISOs (2/3 stops).


Well-known member
For what is worth, I got a M10R to add my kit as a backup for my Phase One IQ4 + XT setup, when I moved to Phase One; since I got it before the move to P1, I had a little time when I used both the M10R and my now departed X1D together.

You surely know that already, but I believe it's worth to mention that the systems are totally different in use, and in output as well. In short, just to mention a few key differences (for me, at least), the X1D is a modern camera, albeit slow, designed from the ground up with autofocus, EFV offering precise composition, comes with zoom lenses, ultra-wide lenses and tele lenses, offers RGB histogram, better implementation of long exposures, and more; the Leica M10R is a modern version of a classic design, is manual focus, comes with a rangefinder which doesn't let you compose as precisely as the X1D (you need to use the back screen & live view for that, or attach a Visoflex), doesn't offer zoom lenses (short of the Tri-Elmars) and makes it very difficult to use lenses wider than 28/24mm and longer than 75mm for framing and focussing (short of using the back LCD or Visoflex, in live view). The M10 system is smaller and lighter than an equivalent X1D system covering the same field of view; the X1D allows you to charge batteries in camera via USB-c, makes it easier to replace batteries and SD cards; and so on.

So, depending on your intended use, one system might suit you better than the other. For me, as a backup for my X1D II I used a second X1D II, in fact I used two cameras at all times in the field, to minimise lens changes; as a emergency backup to my Phase One, I found that the M10 R works pretty well, albeit with not comparable image quality. The workflow is similar, with both relying on manual focus and use of the back LCD; a M10R kit replicating my 23mm, 32mm 50mm and 90mm Rodenstock lenses with all-Voigtlander 15mm, 21mm, 28mm and 50mm is very small and light; plus, it allows me to have a hand-holdable camera for travel snaps, backstage photography, and so on.

Coming to image quality, I second what others said: the X1D's files are better in terms of dynamic range, color (subjective, I know), and cleanness if you use long exposure; and, again subjective, I think they have a more "neutral" look than Leica files, which I like as a starting point for my post-processing work (but others won't, I am sure). That said, the M10R files are beautiful, and - again subjective - for me personally it's always a joy to use rangefinder cameras, and a rangefinder kit with fast lenses offers something in terms of look that a X1D kit (or a Phase One kit) couldn't do.

Perhaps, in full agreement with Dante, I am trying to recommend you get both 😃

Hope this helps, best regards



Active member
They are both excellent, but very different cameras. The M10R’s strength is a more compact system that uses outstanding and generally tiny MF lenses. If you need AF, the choice is easy. If size is the most important, the opposite choice is easy. Both offer excellent image quality (second only to the IQ4/GFX100 type of sensor in my opinion, though the data is coming in on the new Sony alpha 1 sensor which could be in the running).


New member
Even if you like the rangefinder (hint, if you’re over 50 you might have a problem with focus), you’ll end up buying a visoflex which is a poorly designed battery draining kludge.

I love Mandler design Leica lens rendering- I’m using a 75mm Summilux 1.4 on a Sony A7C as my Zoom camera (preposterous, but why not?). Get a lot of compliments - people who know photography get excited. But I use my X1D2 or 907x while the M10 stays at home.


Active member
Leica M10R with the tiltable Visoflex (Typ 020) is also a great landscape camera. Small, fun to use, and now comes with Perspective Control, which I find very useful for landscape and architecture. X1D is also a great system, especially strong for long exposure photography, very enjoyable to use as well. The larger sensor in X1D provides higher DR, though the difference may not be relevant in most photographs.
I second Vieri's suggestion: get both :).
Last edited:


I'd save money and get an M10-P - maybe even second hand. Use the money saved towards an X1D or 907X (the latter if you have some old film HB's). The extra pixels in the M10-R are prob not worth the money for a rangefinder style camera, and some tests have shown more noise at higher ISO in the R as well.


Active member
It seems that OP wants a high-resolution sensor (M10R vs. X1D), so M10-P is likely not an option.
I do not understand why a rangefinder camera does not need higher MPs if a non-rangefinder camera needs it (though the question of whether we need higher MP is valid, IMO).
Sean Reid tested M10-P vs. M10-R, and the M10-R shows less high ISO noise at matched output size.


They are VERY different cameras in their handling, size, strengths and weaknesses so it should be pretty easy to choose one based on how you will use it.

Strengths for the X1D(ii) over the Leica M10R:
- Dynamic range
- Tonality
- Technical image quality
- Lens adaptability
- Cost (nor normally a Hasselblad strength, but compared to Leica M...)
- Anything at all to do with strobes
- Accurate viewfinder framing without parallax
- Macro capabilities (well, semi macro at 1:2 with the 120mm lens)
- Ability to focus away from the center of the field without focus-and-recompose (preventing field curvature from messing up a shot)
- Contrast AF may not be the speediest, but it is generally very accurate and precise
- Really effective tethered capture with iPad

Strengths for the Leica M10R over the X1D(ii)
- Range of lens choices both in terms of available focal lengths and speeds as well as 3rd party support from Voigtlander and others
- Compact form factor, both for the body and the lenses
- Less bulk/weight
- Manual focus is faster (with enough practice and good enough eyesight) though hit rate may be lower
- Better battery life as long as you aren't using LiveView

Both have really good user interfaces, though they are very different and any given photographer might prefer one or the other. Lenses are likewise excellent in both lineups. The Hasselblad XCD lineup is every bit as good as the best Leica has to offer. OK, maybe one or two exceptions. I wasn't a fan of the original 45mm XCD though the 45P is superb, and I have yet to see a lens from any manufacturer at any focal length that equals the current 35mm SL from Leica, but that's not compatible with the M lineup, anyway.

In general, I would recommend the XCD over the Leica for landscapes, nightcaps, reproduction, or most studio work. I would recommend the Leica over the Hasselblad for travel, informal portraiture, or street photography. Neither would be a good choice for sports, children, or as a single 'do it all' camera.

- Jared