Jump to content

Telling it as it is...


David Monkhouse

Recommended Posts

I found Puts review awkward in numerous respects, particularly his statement that the m10 will yield image results no better than the M240. In point of fact, the results from the M10 in ISO ranges from 800 to 6400 are clearly superior than those from the prior generation camera. In my view Mr. Puts write up of the M10 unfortunately does not demonstrate the intellectual rigor we have come to expect from him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found Puts review awkward in numerous respects, particularly his statement that the m10 will yield image results no better than the M240. In point of fact, the results from the M10 in ISO ranges from 800 to 6400 are clearly superior than those from the prior generation camera. In my view Mr. Puts write up of the M10 unfortunately does not demonstrate the intellectual rigor we have come to expect from him.

You may be right, but I have not seen a single image demonstrating this. I have seen colour differences, but those come down to individual post processing skills. For the time being I'll take Erwin's word for it. I strongly suspect that in the end it will come down to: "define better"
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, but I have not seen a single image demonstrating this. I have seen colour differences, but those come down to individual post processing skills. For the time being I'll take Erwin's word for it. I strongly suspect that in the end it will come down to: "define better"

 

 

You have not seen a single image from the M10 at iso 6400 that looks better than the M240?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well I elected not to purchase the 240, but I did test a friends extensively. There is little doubt in my mind that the M 10 in the iso range that I mentioned is superior to the 240 for pretty much ALL images in that range due to it's 2+ stop sensitivity advantage (not to mention dynamic range or color). Frankly this point at least seems incredibly straightforward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, thanks... I just read the addendum.  Why he chose to publish it is anyone's guess.  He managed to display his expertise in these matters while saying absolutely nothing at all of any substance.

 

To me it seems to be a way of saying, "I said it was the same sensor as the SL. It isn't, but don't bash me too much for that mistake, no one knows how different it really is (including me)."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not seen a single image from the M10 at iso 6400 that looks better than the M240?

At high ISO, I am quite sure the M10 is better, but I would like to see something at base ISO to up to say, 800, which is the normal photographic range.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I elected not to purchase the 240, but I did test a friends extensively. There is little doubt in my mind that the M 10 in the iso range that I mentioned is superior to the 240 for pretty much ALL images in that range due to it's 2+ stop sensitivity advantage (not to mention dynamic range or color). Frankly this point at least seems incredibly straightforward.

 

If you're that troubled, why not contact (email) him with your feedback/evidence?  I've corresponded with him regarding prior articles and he responded.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

At high ISO, I am quite sure the M10 is better, but I would like to see something at base ISO to up to say, 800, which is the normal photographic range.

 

I think a crucial issue here is what is the base ISO. If the base ISO is a real 100 on the M10 and a real 200 on the M240, then even if everything else is exactly the same thing on the sensor, at base ISO there should be a one stop advantage in dynamic range, noise in the shadows, and color depth. All three of those parameters get better with a lower base ISO. As I understand it the real base ISO of the M10 is 100, so it should have a clear advantage at base ISO, but you will only see that in bigger prints and not in web size postings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, but I have not seen a single image demonstrating this. I have seen colour differences, but those come down to individual post processing skills. For the time being I'll take Erwin's word for it. I strongly suspect that in the end it will come down to: "define better"

 

Better as in no banding whatsoever and a pretty malleable file at ISO 6,400. There is no way you can say that about the M240. I have shot maybe 30 frames with the M10 at the Leicastore, and I have some four hundred M240 files that I shot during a couple of days of testing, and the high ISO advantage between the M10 and M240 is as much as that between the M240 and the M9.

 

M9: completely reliable files up to ISO 1,000

M240: completely reliable files up to ISO 2,500

M10: completely reliable files up to ISO 6,400

Edited by BerndReini
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Better as in no banding whatsoever and a pretty malleable file at ISO 6,400. There is no way you can say that about the M240. I have shot maybe 30 frames with the M10 at the Leicastore, and I have some four hundred M240 files that I shot during a couple of days of testing, and the high ISO advantage between the M10 and M240 is as much as that between the M240 and the M9.

Most users will never need 6400...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most users will never need 6400...

 

 

until its a viable option :)

Ive noticed a noticable improvement in images at 3200 over the M240...and ISO 3200 is very handy at times.

 

regarding the sensor in general, it looks different from the M240 and even the SL. Is it better? Both cameras delivered exceptional image quality so to say one is better than the other is completely subjective. It looks different, and I love the results...not to mention the subtle improvements in color which I'm sure will only improve with new fw.

 

Where the M10 really shines is when you consider all of the factors combined- speed, smaller size, higher iso, speed, colors, IQ, simpler design, and yes the ISO knob...did I say speed?

I love the M10 and don't miss my M240 at all.

Edited by digitalfx
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most users will never need 6400...

 

Ok, but it is clearly an advantage. This is exactly the same argument as when the M240 was released. The M240 is clearly better than the M9 above ISO 1,000. Does this translate into any advantages at low ISO? So the question became whether you need it, or whether it is worth the extra money to upgrade. Then you had the handling advantages of the M240: screen, buffer, live-view, frame lines etc. But there was also the extra weight and different color signature straight out of camera.

 

If we want to be objective, we have to make the same admissions to the M10. The high ISO is improved, the camera is smaller, has an even better buffer/ processor and screen. These are facts. Whether it is worth the upgrade or whether you like the color signature are once again personal decisions. But the facts remain that the M10 is a better camera in almost all regards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a crucial issue here is what is the base ISO. If the base ISO is a real 100 on the M10 and a real 200 on the M240, then even if everything else is exactly the same thing on the sensor, at base ISO there should be a one stop advantage in dynamic range, noise in the shadows, and color depth. All three of those parameters get better with a lower base ISO. As I understand it the real base ISO of the M10 is 100, so it should have a clear advantage at base ISO, but you will only see that in bigger prints and not in web size postings.

 

Puts writes that both are base 200.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in prints? It takes very careful postprocessing to render anything over say 8 EV values in print, and no sensor nowadays is under 11, the better ones, including Leica, considerably in excess.

 

I think you have to be careful about translating ratings of sensors to what you can see in prints. Sensors are rated at even 14 often now days, but that does not mean they can make big prints at even 7 or 8 EV. Those EV numbers by which sensors get rated vary wildly depending on the methodology. They are useful for comparing sensor for how much dynamic range they can capture, but they are not useful in determining how much dynamic range you can print. The test there is actually printing. I can see the differences in prints between my cameras that are all above 11EV as they are rated. I don't think it is accurate to say we can ignore the differences between sensors rated with 11 EV of dynamic range and 14 EV of dynamic range. I can see these sorts of differences in my prints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most users will never need 6400...

Really? With the quality of the pictures at 6400 I find I'm using the 1600 to 6400 range for the first time ever, and a great deal. Essentially anything indoors/artificial light in able to shoot in this ISO range and never use flash again (well, outdoors for fill etc. yes...).... so for me the difference between the 10 and the 240 is night and day....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...