ISO 100 on M10

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fair point - but you do have to start somewhere, and with digital, the highlights are always the critical areas. Especially if the color detail gets truncated before the brightness detail. It's obvious the M10 does something different with the highlights at 100 vs. 200 or higher.

 

Once it is determined what exposure will not produce gray highlights - then we can see what is left over for shadow recovery. In the M10, ISO 100 starts out a little behind in that regard - but may catch up in the shadows. Thus my plan to try exp. comp with 100, and see what is still available for recovery.

 

Highlight recovery is certainly difficult with any digital camera, but the big differences between cameras in recent years in dynamic range seem to all be in the ability to recover shadow detail. The Sony Exmoor sensors are not really any better than Canon sensors at retaining highlights, but are vastly better (at least until recently) at shadow recovery. The differences in retaining highlights here seem to be very small as well. I just don't think the action is in the highlights. I think if the M10 has improved dynamic range it will be in shadow recovery, and I expect if ISO 100 is a real ISO it will be seen in the increase ability to recover shadows. That would fit with the way sensors have evolved in the last 5 years or so.

[otto.f]

I can follow you theoretically adan, but in practice of shooting and post-processing I find the examples that edw gave not very convincing:

If I adjust the exposure of the 100ISO-shot in C1 with + 0.82 and Recover Shadows with about 8%, I can hardly find any differences anymore: I see no differences in highlight detail or color filled up with grey. Maybe these shots with the *grey* building are not critical enough to prove your theory. I see a slightly different blue sky in the M262, don't know what this says in this context, probably nothing: it has a different in-camera white balance.

Your image in #6 is to small for us to see what you say about grays filling in color area's.

Edited February 28, 2017 by otto.f

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

Just wondering if the obsessions of digital ISO and so-forth of digital rendering directs your daily work to make images, AND what kind of images are you doing. Are your images reflecting more of technical expertise rather than evincing the Thing It Self?

Edited February 28, 2017 by pico

[otto.f]

Just wondering if the obsessions of digital ISO and so-forth of digital rendering directs your daily work to make images, AND what kind of images are you doing. Are your images reflecting more of technical expertise rather than evincing the Thing Its Self?

 

Exactlly, in the mean time I have my shot with the shallowest possible depth of field (e.g. with a Noctilux at 0.95 by 1/4000 in broad daylight hitherto impossible without the hussle of an ND-filter) with hardly noticeable difference in tonal scale compared to 200ISO.

[UliWer]

...

The fact you gave ISO 100 and ISO 200 the same exposure makes it a bit tricky doing a direct comparison. The M10 was "expecting" more light when it processed the ISO 100 picture, and thus "underdeveloped" it - it is a stop darker overall. 

...

That's true.

 

I tried to look how Capture One deals with edw's files. And it looks as if there was another conspiracy: Adobe against Leica. Or perhaps Capture One and Leica against truth. 

 

Even when I put "Exposure" at +1.12 for the ISO 100 photo and the ISO 200 at 0, so that the RGB histogram of the ISO 100 file goes generally a little bit more to right than the ISO 200 file, the histogram of the ISO 200 file shows considerable more clipping than for ISO 100. Though I am not sure whether this is caused by the underexposure of the ISO 100 photo.

 

From what I see now in Capture One, I'd call the ISO 100 file the "better" one. But I may be on the wrong path.

[UliWer]

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!

         

 

 

Someone may tell me where my fault is.

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

wouldn't it be better to shoot a chart like this at each ISO and at various exposures to determine the true latitude of each iso?

http://dsclabs.com/xyla/

 

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!

[olgierdc]

This whole thread of discussion vaguely irritates me for two reasons. First, there are the conspiratorial post(s) that suggest the ISO 100 is some sort of scam. And then there are the post(s) indicating that we should wait around for Saint Sean Reid to enlighten us with Truth.

 

The reality is that three photographs can shed a lot of light on this question. So I took them. And I am sharing them with you; go forth and go all Zapruder film on them.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dezeypg7clvs5h/ISO%20100%20Test.zip?dl=0

(approximately 83 MB)

 

The photos:  A.) M10 photo taken at ISO 100 with "proper" exposure. This is at f4, 1/360 second. Latest firmware. B.) M10 photo taken at ISO 200 with same exposure. Also at f4, 1/360 second. Same camera, same firmware. C.) M-D photo taken at ISO 200, also 1/360 second. Latest firmware.

 

 

 

 

Try to open these photos in Iridient Digital.

Edited February 28, 2017 by olgierdc

[edw]

Try to open these photos in Iridient Digital.  In RGB in 16 bit mode you will see numbers in red channel below 65535. Raw image is 14 bit but is administered as two bytes or 16 bits. Lightroom is not accurate. Moreover in Lightroom the demosaic process and setting the curve (2.2) could not be perfect. In the process 2010 contrast was linear. In the process 2012 contrast is slightly enhanced. So the channels above number 240 or 250 could be cut by Lightroom. 

 

These files haven't be touched by Lightroom, for what it's worth.

[edw]

wouldn't it be better to shoot a chart like this at each ISO and at various exposures to determine the true latitude of each iso?

http://dsclabs.com/xyla/

Oh my. I just had two—no, three!—thoughts:

 

1) Hmm but how would I output that accurately?

2) Oh, I could probably just walk over to B&H and buy something like that…

3) NOOOO, WHAT HAVE I BECOME?!

[edw]

That's true.

 

I tried to look how Capture One deals with edw's files. And it looks as if there was another conspiracy: Adobe against Leica. Or perhaps Capture One and Leica against truth. 

 

Even when I put "Exposure" at +1.12 for the ISO 100 photo and the ISO 200 at 0, so that the RGB histogram of the ISO 100 file goes generally a little bit more to right than the ISO 200 file, the histogram of the ISO 200 file shows considerable more clipping than for ISO 100. Though I am not sure whether this is caused by the underexposure of the ISO 100 photo.

 

From what I see now in Capture One, I'd call the ISO 100 file the "better" one. But I may be on the wrong path.

 

Here is my rationale from exposing both at 1/360th: The (joking) ISO 100 IS A FRAUD!!!! camp, if I understand their argument, are saying something like this: ISO 100 is "just" ISO 200 and yields results identical to shooting at 200 and shifting the exposure in post. This also explains why we're dwelling on highlights and not shadows: exposing at ISO 200 would blow out highlights that would exist if ISO 100 were "real".

 

Finally, this experiment was motivated by the raison d'être of ISO 100 on the M10, at least as I see it: ISO 100 is there because 1/8000 s is not.

Edited February 28, 2017 by edw

[edw]

Just wondering if the obsessions of digital ISO and so-forth of digital rendering directs your daily work to make images, AND what kind of images are you doing. Are your images reflecting more of technical expertise rather than evincing the Thing It Self?

I think people are coming at this discussion from several different angles. Mine is one of detached intellectual curiosity coupled with a general exhaustion with all the speculation. Practically speaking, I would appreciate knowing whether, given copious sun, I should select ISO 100 or 200.

[digitalfx]

Oh my. I just had two—no, three!—thoughts:

 

1) Hmm but how would I output that accurately?

2) Oh, I could probably just walk over to B&H and buy something like that…

3) NOOOO, WHAT HAVE I BECOME?!

 

 

ha...I dont think B&H sells these...but they aren't cheap. The last one we bought from DSC was at least $2500.

I have a friend that has a set, I'll see if I can "borrow" them.

[adan]

@ digitalfx - that chart wouldn't reveal the color (only) distortion in the extreme highlights. Dynamic range is not just about recording x-many black, white and gray steps - except with a Monochrom. But I've trying to come up with a reasonable substitute scene that covers color as well.

 

@ pico - With any new camera, I "obsess" for a couple of weeks until I get to know a specific device's idiosyncracies in detail. Make adjustments to accomodate them. Then I spend 7 years just taking pictures. Which as you know, occasionally go into the POYI and NPPA national contest winners' archives. I don't have any doubt that I can get what I want - eventually - from the M10. At any ISO. Like edw - I just want to find out what works. And then I know, and can move on.

 

@ uliwer and olgierdc - yeah, there could be a conspiracy of raw developers - always a possibility. In Adobe Camera Raw, 2010 (and 2003 for that matter) process still results in the dead-gray colors in the bright areas.

 

@ otto.f - see attached details from picture in #6. I understand the fact that if any channel pins out at 255, the color will start distorting. It is not clear to me why the color vanishes when the brightest channel is still at just 248 or 239.

 

Anyway, before the snow clouds came, I got some nice bright-sun acid tests for overall DR at 200 and 100, and color clipping. Need a rest before processing to show any results.

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!

[digitalfx]

That chart does one thing, it tells you the DR of the sensor, and this is useful in determining the base iso

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[adan]

Whoops - and oh dear! (and why I spend a few weeks digging into the performance of a new camera!)

 

Case 1 (acid test) - strong contrast range image (hard sunlight and near-specular metal reflections, with deep shadows).

 

First the full images, in all their ugly, stretched-to-max-DR glory. Processed identically (shadow recovery of +99 and highlight recovery of -18 in ACR, plus shadow recovery of 50% in Photoshop.

 

Original exposures using -1 exp. comp, due to the darkish bronze columns in the middle of the frame. Which just held the bright silver panels of the stadium below 255.

 

Per the metadata (I guess the M10 cannot do 1/700th or 1/375 sec to exactly match the 1:2 ISO ratio)

 

ISO 100 - exposure 1/350 @ f/8

ISO 200 - exposure 1/750 @ f/8

 

35mm Summicron pre-ASPH.

 

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 March 1, 2017 by adan

[adan]

Detail of the darkest shaded area in the image, as recovered. Looks to me like at least equal tonal detail/brightness, and less noise, at 100.

 

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!

[adan]

Detail of the brightest blown color highlights - and guess what - NO grayed out color. The ISO 100 highlights are just slightly lighter, which I attribute to the shutter limitations - it just couldn't exactly match the exposures. In this case it was the red channel that blew out to 255, but the other channels do not gray out along with it - they increase normally right up through all the levels (paler and paler yellows) until they also reach 255.

 

That can be seen in the master images two posts up as well - the number 77 goes pure white at ISO 100, but holds just a bit of yellow at ISO 200.

 

I have to say that to me, these show ISO 100 is NOT a pull-process ISO. Whatever was giving me grayed-out color in other shots was - something else. The DR is virtually indistinguishable from ISO 200.

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 March 1, 2017 by adan

[adan]

Case 2 (perhaps unnecessary) - medium contrast (sun behind bright cloud). These are regular jpegs rather than "save for web" so the metadata should be included if you care to snag them off this page. 100% crops. Similar processing to the image above. Large - so one per post.

 

Brightest spot in picture is curve of tiny silver "fender" above wheelwell. Darkest spot is shadow behind tire.

 

Original full image with "normal tonal range" processing - as thumbnail:

 

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!

 

ISO 100 processed for max DR.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

And same as above at ISO 200:

 

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!