Jump to content

Leica M 10


rijve044

Recommended Posts

x
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

True.

 

So is it really a jpeg dial?

I am not arguing for dedicated ISO dial. But if you are shooting jpeg then ISO and picture control (sharpness, saturation, WB) has to be user configurable. This is the curse of jpeg.

 

Personally, I am happy with only one control, aperture. Very rarely I use shutterspeed and ISO (in that order). I am happy to have automation there and deeply grateful to Leica for providing this automation in M. :)

 

edit: As Jono said someplace in this thread, everybody has a unique way of using even a simplistic M. We are all right. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me that these leaks are very deliberate in what they reveal. Keep the buzz going, right?

 

Yes I would say leaked pics stir the pudding of anticipation and please the company marketing men no end! In aesthetics terms the new ISO wheel is less than elegant; but like a previous poster I like to keep to ISO200 if I can and raising it only takes a moment with existing Ms.

 

The only leaked pic I'd now like to see would be the little bugger on a set of scales: I think only –150g is going to tempt me to replace my M262. (I can use my Q for the rare instances when I'd want to take night-time photos.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The only leaked pic I'd now like to see would be the little bugger on a set of scales: I think only –150g is going to tempt me to replace my M262. (I can use my Q for the rare instances when I'd want to take night-time photos.)

My worry is that the misguided argument about size of the M240 should have really been an argument against its weight. I believe that the extra battery capacity was what made the M240 heavier than the M9. Assuming that the M10 will use the same batteries doesn't make me too optimistic about a substantial weight decrease, but we will see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My worry is that the misguided argument about size of the M240 should have really been an argument against its weight. I believe that the extra battery capacity was what made the M240 heavier than the M9. Assuming that the M10 will use the same batteries doesn't make me too optimistic about a substantial weight decrease, but we will see.

 

Not misguided for me, I agree that a lot of the extra weight of the M240 is due to the battery but the extra girth of all the digital M cameras is a negative factor, again, for me, I know that many like the extra width. I love the size of Leica M film cameras and if the M10 is the same or similar size I may not be able to resist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am happy with only one control, aperture. Very rarely I use shutterspeed and ISO (in that order). I am happy to have automation there and deeply grateful to Leica for providing this automation in M. :)

 

edit: As Jono said someplace in this thread, everybody has a unique way of using even a simplistic M. We are all right. :)

HI There

Well, to be honest, I mostly concentrate on the aperture and let the shutter speed and the ISO sort themselves out . . Nothing to be ashamed of, as the aperture is the only thing which really affects the end product (assuming that you've exposed it properly, and aren't shaking)

 

But then, the M240 has possibly the best auto ISO settings of any camera - let's hope they remember it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that you're digitizing the raw sensor output isn't reality. There are hardware amplifiers (not just software) in the chain to get the sensor reading into the sweet spot of the ADC. The output of the ADC is the raw.

Are the hardware amplifiers the only mechanism for adjusting ISO on the M 240 or does it use digital multiplication too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the hardware amplifiers the only mechanism for adjusting ISO on the M 240 or does it use digital multiplication too?

 

Thanks for that. So, is ISO recorded in the DNG metadata, or is there is in-camera amplification?

There is a serious difference.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. So, is ISO simply recorded in the DNG metadata, or is there in-camera amplification?

There is a serious difference.

 

ISO for digital is a strange thing, completely unlike film conventions. I hate it.

.

 

I don't have a raw file with me since today I brought in an M7 to work. C'est la vie.

 

But there is a relatively easy way to check if you have access to the raw data -- if you look at a high ISO shot and take a histogram of the data if they neatly line up into bins then it's a digital multiply. If there's an even distribution then it's an analog amplification.

 

My gut feel is that it's analog up to some ISO setting, I'll guess something like 1600, then digital beyond that point. You can think of this like analog zoom until you get to the limit of the lens, then digital "zoom" after that. Though purely analog would be doable as well for what it's worth. If you have a 14-bit ADC, as an engineer, you'd feel pain to throw away dynamic range that you could otherwise recover with an analog amplifier.

 

Another thing to note, however, is that if you have a high ISO raw file, if it's purely done with math you should be able to do unlimited (well, to ISO 200 at least) highlight recovery. That's not how it works in practice, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A summary from over there.

Well, if that is indeed the full story, I cannot say that I  see enough arguments to spend a fair amount of money and ditch the M240 which has been serving superbly up till now. One can only spend it once, and there are some very interesting options out there. (in my case replace the Vario-Elmar  105-280 on the M 240 by a DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 on the GH5 for instance.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems crazy to me, all this hoopla and delays to introduce a new M with an old sensor, an old EVF, no Movies, a new iso wheel that looks like a wart, a couple mm thinner, if that, and some different and ugly buttons. Sure, there has to be some trick up it's sleeve? I can't help but feel underwhelmed at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I  agree that the differences between the M and SL/Q sensors are too small to be called a serious upgrade. Let's hope the surprise is in that department. Some wizardry in the VF/RF would be appreciated as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A  CCD doing Live View  and 6400 and more ISO would be unheard of...

My theory about the use of M10 is that it is a poke in the eye of those that persisted in calling the M240  M10. :D:lol:

It will mess up Google for sure ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The naming convention has me somewhat worried about it's future. It seems like a deliberate back step and putting it out to pasture.

 

But It could imply a new line, like what has been talked about here, that is a high tech, all singing all dancing higher MP model with all the bells and whistles. An M 380 so to speak.

 

They better bloody well talk about it at this release, a lot of us have been waiting for a long time, in hope, and I don't think I will wait any longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...