jaapv Posted January 19, 2017 Share #21 Posted January 19, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) (Mr. Puts is very often wrong.) Depends on the subject 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M10 the new maestro II sensor.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted January 19, 2017 Share #22 Posted January 19, 2017 The "Max"-sensor for the M (240) was designed by Leica. They were proud to report that they have all rights of the sensor design, which would make them independant of producers in in the future. CMOSIS did only build the sensor but was not the designer. So I am surprised that they now are very hush about the new design. They neither speak of their "own" design nor do they tell if there was anybody else involved. Perhaps this non-information policy is caused by different approaches to their different systems. Maybe they want to avoid any discussion about which sensor is better or more advanced: their own one or one bought from third parties. Perhaps they don't want it to be a topic of discussion. I'd be surprised if they don't continue to own the design. Leica offers a package - camera body and sensor are integral, and the lenses round out the package. If it had a Sony sensor of known design and qualities, while it may be very good, people would like at it an say they only difference from any other cameras using the same sensor is the packaging - (how many cameras is the Sony 50c sensor in? 5?). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 20, 2017 Share #23 Posted January 20, 2017 Leica did advertise the fact that the Max sensors of the M (Typ 240) and the S were jointly designed with CMOSIS but the sources of any other sensors remained a mystery. It is well known that Leica used Sony sensors in their X and T/TL series cameras and we all have a good idea who makes the sensors of the Q and SL, but Leica refuses to confirm any hunches. So for all intents and purposes it is a Leica sensor. Yes, we all know that Leica doesn’t manufacture sensors but any praise or criticism of the M10 sensor must be heaped on Leica. 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 20, 2017 Share #24 Posted January 20, 2017 Does anybody know if ISO 100 is the "real" base for the sensor, or is it a "pulled" setting? Puts writes it is ISO 200, the specs from Leica don't mention any "pulled" setting, whilst those for the M(240) indicated ISO 200 as the base and said that ISO 100 pulled was available. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 20, 2017 Share #25 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) There was the same discussion about the ISO 50 base setting for the SL. If I recall correctly Leica just stated there was no quality penalty/advantage to 50 over 100 so they called it 'base' rather than 'pulled'. Make of that what you will..... There is also a world of difference between pixel peeping and printed images..... I ran tests with the Monochrom and A2 prints from base to ISO 12500 looked identical at normal viewing distances .... and even close up the difference was barely discernible. Edited January 20, 2017 by thighslapper 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2017 Share #26 Posted January 20, 2017 Does anybody know if ISO 100 is the "real" base for the sensor, or is it a "pulled" setting? Puts writes it is ISO 200, the specs from Leica don't mention any "pulled" setting, whilst those for the M(240) indicated ISO 200 as the base and said that ISO 100 pulled was available. You can find out by simply downloading the user's manual available on the Leica website. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 20, 2017 Share #27 Posted January 20, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) You can find out by simply downloading the user's manual available on the Leica website. Thank you for the information! That's what I already did and on p.156 (English Version) it says: "The ISO setting covers a range of ISO 100 - 50,000, and thus enables you to adapt to the relevant situation as required." Since Mr. Puts stated that the base is ISO 200 and neither the manual nor the sheet for technical data by Leica make any difference between ISO 100 and base ISO, I was at a loss. For I know that neither Mr. Puts nor the texts published by Leica are really reliable when it comes to details, I hoped someone knew more. Therefore I asked. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 20, 2017 Share #28 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) Erwin Puts says the base ISO is 200: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-56/ The ISO 100 may be a pull down option. This make sense for a reportage camera, and it would explain the difference in ISO range between the SL and the M10. Edited January 20, 2017 by rosuna 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted January 20, 2017 Share #29 Posted January 20, 2017 "CMOSIS did only build the sensor but was not the designer" Leica is not capable of designing a CMOS sensor, CMOSIS not capable of manufacturing it. CMOSIS is designing them, STmicroelectronics is the manufacturer - both aspects are much more critical than any big brand just bringing specifications to the table. So Leica, who is designing/manufacturing the M10-sensor? I suspect it's still CMOSIS/Stmicro due to the unique characteristics when using M-lenses but somebody in Leicas Marketing department thinks it's all about the brand and not the actual people making the work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted January 20, 2017 Share #30 Posted January 20, 2017 Erwin Puts says the base ISO is 200: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-56/ The ISO 100 may be a pull down option. This make sense for a reportage camera, and it would explain the difference in ISO range between the SL and the M10. Whatever Erwin says, he's at odds with the published specification of the camera (OK I know that companies can be economical with the truth - and I don't drive a VW diesel ), but in this case I don't see why we need to question what they're saying. If it says 100 on the ISO dial that's not a pull option, it's base. How good that base might be is open to empirical testing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 20, 2017 Share #31 Posted January 20, 2017 Well, Mr.Puts writes several things. 1. He writes that the M10 has the same sensor as the SL. 2. For the SL he is d'accord with the Leica specs writing that its ISO-values go from 50 to 50.000. 3. He writes that the M10 has a base ISO of 200. If 1 is right, 2 or 3 or both are false. If 2 is right, 1 or 3 or both are false. If 3 is right, 1 or 2 or both are false. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted January 20, 2017 Share #32 Posted January 20, 2017 Well, Mr.Puts writes several things. 1. He writes that the M10 has the same sensor as the SL. 2. For the SL he is d'accord with the Leica specs writing that its ISO-values go from 50 to 50.000. 3. He writes that the M10 has a base ISO of 200. If 1 is right, 2 or 3 or both are false. If 2 is right, 1 or 3 or both are false. If 3 is right, 1 or 2 or both are false. We need to narrowly define what we mean by new sensor and same sensor. Part of the sensor may be the same, part may be new - how do we deal with that? There is a tendency for the marketing types to use the word new when it may not be 100% true, i.e., not ALL new. I recall a number of Photokinas ago when Zeiss stated that they had introduced a large number of new lenses (I do not recall which Photokina or the number but it was fairly large). This was at a time when they redid the entire Hasselblad lens line with new cosmetics and they got slightly new names as well so they must have been counted as new lenses. This may have been when the CFI lenses came out, the i part being new. But almost all of them were in fact the same optical design as before with some going back to the 1950s (e.g., the 250 5.6 lens). They were not truly new in my mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 22, 2017 Share #33 Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) All this (hardware related stuff) is not really so important. The important properties come mainly from the software used and the profiles that are applied. (when using DNGs) So better worry how to get the best profiles - e.g. the default LR profiles for the SL are often not so great, others are better. The sensor and processor are given and cannot be changed by you, but the software and the profiles are all under your control. Currently we do not know how good or bad the default profiles are. Jono showed nice pictures, but AFAIK did not mention anything about the sw or profiles used. I would like to see Leica making recommendations, and maybe offering several (slightly different) profiles to choose from. But maybe this is not possible, because color reception is too personal/individual ?! Edited January 22, 2017 by steppenw0lf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted January 22, 2017 Share #34 Posted January 22, 2017 Well, Mr.Puts writes several things. 1. He writes that the M10 has the same sensor as the SL. 2. For the SL he is d'accord with the Leica specs writing that its ISO-values go from 50 to 50.000. 3. He writes that the M10 has a base ISO of 200. If 1 is right, 2 or 3 or both are false. If 2 is right, 1 or 3 or both are false. If 3 is right, 1 or 2 or both are false. RE: 1. He has since corrected this. The sensor is a completely new sensor according to Leica. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 23, 2017 Share #35 Posted January 23, 2017 Sean Reid has published a review comparing the M10, the M240 and the SL regards to colours and ISO. http://www.reidreviews.com He presents his usual "fruit an vegetable" examples (which I find helpful b.t.w), showing that the M10 colours - especially yellow, orange and red - look considerably less saturated than those from the M240 , and slightly less than from the SL. I do not see differences of high ISO-noise between the M10 and the SL up to ISO 6400, both beeing considerably better than the M240 from ISO 800 upwards. For ISO 12500 onwards to ISO 50000 the SL is certainly "better" than the M10, though not good. Both show some banding at this level, though noisewise I'd call the results of the M10 from 12500 onwards not really usable. So the max value of 6400 on the new ISO button for the M10 seems to be realistic. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted January 23, 2017 Share #36 Posted January 23, 2017 Sean Reid has published a review comparing the M10, the M240 and the SL regards to colours and ISO. http://www.reidreviews.com He presents his usual "fruit an vegetable" examples (which I find helpful b.t.w), showing that the M10 colours - especially yellow, orange and red - look considerably less saturated than those from the M240 , and slightly less than from the SL. I do not see differences of high ISO-noise between the M10 and the SL up to ISO 6400, both beeing considerably better than the M240 from ISO 800 upwards. For ISO 12500 onwards to ISO 50000 the SL is certainly "better" than the M10, though not good. Both show some banding at this level, though noisewise I'd call the results of the M10 from 12500 onwards not really usable. So the max value of 6400 on the new ISO button for the M10 seems to be realistic. Interesting results for sure...I wonder if FW will improve the M10? Ive seen quite a few images posted online at 10,000 and 12,500 that look pretty damn good...so the lighting conditions and ultimately how the images will be presented will determine how high you can really push it. Check out the images here at 6400 ISO: http://www.fotopolis.pl/testy/aparaty/28060-leica-m10-zdjecia-przykladowe 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Black Posted January 23, 2017 Share #37 Posted January 23, 2017 The X & Y size of the M-10 images are the same size as the M-240, not 6000x4000 like the SL. The M-10 images show banding on at high ISO's like the M-240 / 246. My SL does not show banding at high ISO's. My money is on the M-10 being a CMOSIS manufactured sensor. I played with some M-10 raws in Capture One and used the M-240 color profile - that didn't work out too well. Hopefully Phase One will be able to get an update out quickly for the Leica M-10. I am curious why it's such a hush-hush secret about who did or did not product the M-10's sensor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 23, 2017 Share #38 Posted January 23, 2017 I have only shot with the M10 for a few days but the camera in aperture priority defaults to ISO200 the majority of the time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted January 24, 2017 Share #39 Posted January 24, 2017 Implicitly you say that autoISO is turned ON, correct ? I had similar results when using autoISO on the SL - very often (almost all) the images were taken at ISO 50 (the lowest value). I had to select a fixed ISO value to avoid this. I assume the algorithms in both cameras could be very similar. So choose maybe a fixed ISO value of you want to avoid too many images at the lowest setting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naper Posted January 24, 2017 Share #40 Posted January 24, 2017 I don't care who makes the sensor. The only thing that matters is how it preforms. 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.