otto.f Posted January 20, 2017 Share #21 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 1. Download some of the raw (.DNG) test shots from dpreview or Leica's own M10 downloads selections. We should be able to manipulate all the image parameters enough to get rid of the excessive contrast choices of some shooters and see what the real colors, practical ISO limits (where banding kicks in) etc., are. (I'll do it myself but I'm out of town until Friday) 2. Frankly, I found some tests shots by a forum member with a 262 to already be an improvement in color over the base 240s I tried. Which just goes to show the embedded profile Leica installs can and likely has been adjusted by Leica over the years, as well as whatever the sensor itself outputs. Some of the available sample images - as processed by Leica or the dpreview shooters - do look harsh, contrasty and/or with worrying red shadow casts. But until I can work with them myself, I don't take that as a serious test of what the camera can do. You know the old saying: "If you want something done right......." Thanks Adan for this hint. Here's what I found; an image from dpreview from the review of the M10. It seems awfully M240-ish to me. I imported it in C1 (engine 9) and here is the conversion to jpeg before and after automatic adjustment of WB. I can perfectly live with this result, if it's M9-ish, hard to say... but I see more K25 than E100G in the adjusted version Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited January 20, 2017 by otto.f Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3192253'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Hi otto.f, Take a look here M10 color rendition compared to M9-M240-SL cameras. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
otto.f Posted January 20, 2017 Share #22 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) . The ICC-profile is DNG File Neutral in both cases Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited January 20, 2017 by otto.f 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3192256'>More sharing options...
adan Posted January 20, 2017 Share #23 Posted January 20, 2017 Yeah, I tried that image also. But it is under sunset light (or equivalent low-angle light - note long shadows), and therefore naturally reddish-orange. Any sensor will look M240-reddish under that light - there simply are fewer blue/green photons penetrating the atmosphere. I tried the dpreview images under more neutral light (sign with red hand - cloudy light; and jets on the aircraft carrier - hazy mid-day sun). Let's just say if I got these colors with my M9, it wouldn't seem out of the norm. Reds well-controlled, cyan architectural glass in the background buildings nicely rendered. I bumped the contrast up a bit to approximate the M9's lower dynamic range. Especially since it was taken with the slightly-pinkish 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. As are most of the samples currently available. (Which is why I stick to my 1980s Mandler lenses like glue wherever possible). Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Credit: Barney Britton, dpreview.com https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-m10-first-impressions-sample-images Realistically, I've never found an out-of-the-box Adobe or manufacturer profile that couldn't be improved by shooting a MacBeth ColorChecker and tweaking the primary color sliders for saturation and hue to match the "specced" color values for the red/green/blue primary patches. Saved as a personal profile automatically applied to all images from that camera type. Even the M9. So until we can do that with our own M10s, we're just noodling around the edges. https://luminous-landscape.com/digital-camera-calibration-and-profiling/ 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Credit: Barney Britton, dpreview.com https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-m10-first-impressions-sample-images Realistically, I've never found an out-of-the-box Adobe or manufacturer profile that couldn't be improved by shooting a MacBeth ColorChecker and tweaking the primary color sliders for saturation and hue to match the "specced" color values for the red/green/blue primary patches. Saved as a personal profile automatically applied to all images from that camera type. Even the M9. So until we can do that with our own M10s, we're just noodling around the edges. https://luminous-landscape.com/digital-camera-calibration-and-profiling/ ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3192342'>More sharing options...
FrankX Posted January 20, 2017 Share #24 Posted January 20, 2017 I believe it's Erwin Puts who stated the sensor is the same as in the SL... As already appears in this thread, you're going to get a different opinion from each photographer about the M10's color. That said, I stand by my assessment that it's much closer to the M240's file 'behavior' in post than the M9's. Erwin Puts wrote: ...The sensor of the M10 is not the same as the one in the SL, which is (almost?) identical to that in the Leica Q. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted January 21, 2017 Share #25 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Anyway, I won't sell my M9 when I buy the M10, because for me it's much more worth than the market price. What I read thus far is that B&W with the M10 should be very very interesting, so perhaps I would sell my MM1 in the end, but not soon Edited January 21, 2017 by otto.f Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted January 21, 2017 Share #26 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Erwin Puts wrote: ...The sensor of the M10 is not the same as the one in the SL, which is (almost?) identical to that in the Leica Q. This was revised today after a discussion with Leica, Leica told him that its an entirely new sensor from a different manufacture. It was custom made specifically for the M10. Personally I find the colors the best digital M yet. The skin tones are improved over the M240 as is the AWB. From EP: Her are my changes to the original report about the M10, after the relegation of Mr. Kaufmann: CMOS-Chip: M10: dedicated sensor architecture, manufacturer not known; M: original Cmosis chip; both have 24 Mpix (updated Jan 20, 2017, 20 00 hours) Camera performance The sensor of the M10 is not the same as the one in the SL, which is (almost?) identical to that in the Leica Q. As a small-scale manufacturer, Leica can not use off-the-shelf products, because the manufacturers would demand that Leica should purchase too large a volume, restricting its flexibility to implement new features in new products. The consequence is that Leica has to rely on manufacturers who can handle small-scale production volumes. The drawback of this position is a higher cost per unit which may go some way to explain the high price of a digital Leica M camera body. The advantage is of course that Leica’s design team can include in the architecture many characteristics and features that are unique and at the same time dedicated to the special demands of a camera type. All “full size” 135 type cameras have now the same processor (Maestro-2). In this respect we see only a certain level of standardisation. (Updated Jan 20, 2017, 2000). Edited January 21, 2017 by digitalfx 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2017 Share #27 Posted February 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bump! — Perhaps it's time for some more discussion of color rendition compared to the M9 and M240... In another thread, statements have been made that the latest Lightroom (v6.8) has an M10 profile that attenuates the yellowish cast some people have found in M10 DNGs. And here is a quote from another discussion that gets at the issues that I, and perhaps other people as well, may be concerned with: ...I agree based on Ashwin's photos and what I saw playing with the DPR M10 DNGs, it feels very close to the M240's files. I wouldn't buy the M10 based on any kind of Leica marketing about color. The ISO performance improvement might be tempting, but that alone still isn't enough for me. I would like to see side by side M240 vs. M10 portraits to better judge what, if any, difference in skin tone rendering exists. Maybe one of you early adopters can do this for the rest of us? Ideally in clean light (midday sun, or bright overcast) at low ISO to offer a baseline for best case scenario. Then throw in a higher ISO artificial light comparison... maybe under fluorescent since those often make blood vessels near the skin's surface stand out more. Thanks in advance. Skin tone is the area I have the most difficulty with the M240 because it (and previous Leicas) have the tendency to accentuate ruddy skin and seemingly enhance uneven skin coloration... All I would add is how the M10 renders blues: the M9 in certain light creates screaming "electric blues" that often have to be toned down. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 2, 2017 Share #28 Posted February 2, 2017 The colour rendition of the M9, M (Typ 240), M10, and the SL is something I will cover in a future issue of LFI. Stay tuned … 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 2, 2017 Share #29 Posted February 2, 2017 Otto - Just for me, would you repost that last photo with a bump of the saturation by 10-20 to see if it looks more m9'ish? I think the M10 Adobe profile needs a little bump in color, just me (M9 previous owner). Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2017 Share #30 Posted February 2, 2017 The colour rendition of the M9, M (Typ 240), M10, and the SL is something I will cover in a future issue of LFI. Stay tuned … Michael - Thanks, I'll stay tuned. The problem is that for various reasons related to travel, I may need to decide before then; but, then, one can argue that we all tend to set deadlines for ourselves that turn out not to be that important in the grander scheme of things... _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 2, 2017 Share #31 Posted February 2, 2017 Otto - Just for me, would you repost that last photo with a bump of the saturation by 10-20 to see if it looks more m9'ish? I think the M10 Adobe profile needs a little bump in color, just me (M9 previous owner). Rick This is one from C1: Saturation+31 and one from LR, saturation +38 in that order Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3202626'>More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 2, 2017 Share #32 Posted February 2, 2017 LR Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3202627'>More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted February 2, 2017 Share #33 Posted February 2, 2017 The colour rendition of the M9, M (Typ 240), M10, and the SL is something I will cover in a future issue of LFI. Stay tuned … Do not forget the users of capture one! Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikewest Posted February 9, 2017 Share #34 Posted February 9, 2017 I actually have a SL with only M lenses (21 SEM, 35 FLE, Noctilux, Summilux 75). Is there a real difference between the SL and M10 in term of IQ, and color rendition? Is it worth changing camera? (I like the EVF of the SL, and the size doesn't bother me... I'm just thinking about image quality...) Thank you very much Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ario Arioldi Posted February 9, 2017 Share #35 Posted February 9, 2017 Colour rendition, if one is using raw (dng) files, is a pretty vague term: which raw converter are we going to use and which color profile (dcp o ICC depending on the raw converter) ? There are plenty of choices each one resulting in a different colour rendition. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted February 9, 2017 Share #36 Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) I actually have a SL with only M lenses (21 SEM, 35 FLE, Noctilux, Summilux 75). Is there a real difference between the SL and M10 in term of IQ, and color rendition? Is it worth changing camera? (I like the EVF of the SL, and the size doesn't bother me... I'm just thinking about image quality...) Thank you very much Unless you have money to burn, that will end up being an expensive pursuit. In a year or two there'll be a new SL that will leapfrog the M10 just as the M10 has probably marginally leapfrogged the SL. And so it will go on for ever. So based on a there/four year product cycle you'll be shelling out roughly half the cost of a new camera every 18 -24 months, an incremental cost equivalent to a brand new Leica with no trade-in value every 3 or 4 years simply for improvements that are likely to be very small at each step. I think it's probably better to try to decide whether one body style fits you and your style of photography better than the other and stick with that. Edited February 9, 2017 by Peter H 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 10, 2017 Share #37 Posted February 10, 2017 I actually have a SL with only M lenses (21 SEM, 35 FLE, Noctilux, Summilux 75). Is there a real difference between the SL and M10 in term of IQ, and color rendition? Is it worth changing camera? (I like the EVF of the SL, and the size doesn't bother me... I'm just thinking about image quality...) Thank you very much I just sold my SL and bought the M10 and have zero regrets. If your decision is based on image quality alone, its probably not worth it. Although there is a noticeable improvement in quality using M lenses. They look better on the M vs the SL, which is understandable since the sensor was designed specifically for the M lenses. Where the SL shines is with the SL lenses...and its versatility. But if you factor all the other things that make the M10 a great choice for M lenses...specifically the rangefinder and smaller size. Then its well worth the upgrade. If those factors aren't important, the SL is far more versatile. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted February 10, 2017 Share #38 Posted February 10, 2017 By the way, I read a post by a credible and well respected Leica user that his M10 seems to be smoother (not as sharp) at the pixel level than the M240. he thinks it's a positive thing. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the same. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 10, 2017 Share #39 Posted February 10, 2017 By the way, I read a post by a credible and well respected Leica user that his M10 seems to be smoother (not as sharp) at the pixel level than the M240. he thinks it's a positive thing. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the same. yes, there is defiantly something different about the images that is more pleasing, and I think "smoother" is a good way to describe it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikewest Posted February 10, 2017 Share #40 Posted February 10, 2017 I just sold my SL and bought the M10 and have zero regrets. If your decision is based on image quality alone, its probably not worth it. Although there is a noticeable improvement in quality using M lenses. They look better on the M vs the SL, which is understandable since the sensor was designed specifically for the M lenses. Where the SL shines is with the SL lenses...and its versatility. But if you factor all the other things that make the M10 a great choice for M lenses...specifically the rangefinder and smaller size. Then its well worth the upgrade. If those factors aren't important, the SL is far more versatile. Thank you for your answer. I like very much the easier way to focus with the SL (especially with noctilux et smilax 75). How do you find it compared with the SL? Is it still accurate? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.