Telling it as it is...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Different strokes, etc. I tend to avoid flash and rarely use it, but I could say the same about the M8.

[Advertisement]

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

[UliWer]

Puts writes that both are base 200.

 

Jeff

Yes, and two lines later he writes:

"Sensivity range sensor: M10: ISO 100 - 50000: ISO 100 - 6400"

Whatever this is supposed to mean.

 

He might have found out that Leica only pretends that ISO 100 is the base sensivity but that it really is a "pull" value, though he never gives any explanation.

 

He also tells us "All "full-size" 135 type cameras have now the same processor (Maestro II)".

May be that's something else he found out which Leica prefers to hide from their customers. Leica does not state anything about the Maestro II processor when they describe the M (Typ 240), neither for the original nor for the M-P version, nor for the M (Typ 262), nor for the M(Typ 246), just for the Q, the SL and the M10. Though may be I misunderstand what he means when he talks of "135 type cameras".

 

Mr. Puts - tell it as it is, please.

[-ph-]

Most users will never need 6400...

 

 

As I take pictures on social occasions (as in meeting friends) and most restaurants seem to fight on with how little lighting you can get away, I certainly need ISO 6400, perhaps even 12800. I am even going to 6400 on my µFT camera (E-M1) despite this is pushing its little sensor to its limits, but the only way getting a half way sharp picture. So getting clean 6400 with the M10 would be huge. 

 

Peter

[digitalfx]

He also tells us "All "full-size" 135 type cameras have now the same processor (Maestro II)".

 

 

 

Im sure he means all Leica cameras now (SL, Q, M10)

The M240 uses the first Mastro processor.

[Leicauser7]

Different strokes, etc. I tend to avoid flash and rarely use it, but I could say the same about the M8.

 

That is the whole point (or at least the primary one) of the M10 -- 2 to 3 additional stops of useable ISO (namely, up to 6400) means you don't have to use flash!!

[Jeff S]

Yes, and two lines later he writes:

"Sensivity range sensor: M10: ISO 100 - 50000: ISO 100 - 6400"

Whatever this is supposed to mean.

 

He might have found out that Leica only pretends that ISO 100 is the base sensivity but that it really is a "pull" value, though he never gives any explanation.

 

It has been written elsewhere that the M240 base ISO is 200, with 'pull' at 100.  I suspect the M10 is the same.....per your excerpt.

 

Jeff

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It has been written elsewhere that the M240 base ISO is 200, with 'pull' at 100.  I suspect the M10 is the same.....per your excerpt.

 

Jeff

 

Yes, the technical data for the M (Typ 240) say: "ISO 200 – ISO 6400, Pull 100 available,"

 

Those for the M 10 say: "ISO 100 to ISO 50000, adjustable in 1/3 ISO increments from ISO 200,"

 

If your suspicion about the "pull 100" for the M10 was justified, may be you find something about this at Puts' article - or even elsewhere.  

[Jeff S]

Yes, the technical data for the M (Typ 240) say: "ISO 200 – ISO 6400, Pull 100 available,"

 

Those for the M 10 say: "ISO 100 to ISO 50000, adjustable in 1/3 ISO increments from ISO 200,"

 

If your suspicion about the "pull 100" for the M10 was justified, may be you find something about this at Puts' article - or even elsewhere.  

 

I emailed him about this.....as well as viewpoints here about M10 vs M240 results at ISO 1600-6400.  I'll report back if he responds.

 

Jeff

[proenca]

Unless I misread or misinterpreted the article, what Puts its trying to say ( apart from the SL/M10 sensor malarkey ) is something that, well, its obvious : there are some user friendly differences that DO NOT translate to better image quality ( brighter rangefinder, smaller camera, lower weight, etc ) and the ones we can relate to an increase in image quality are small steps from the M240.

 

Yes the ISO is better from the M240 ( 2 stops more ? ), but the high iso. The M10 is a better camera than the M240 but not a worlds better neither a quantum leap.

 

He ends up saying that M240 users that are happy, to think hard before upgrading since perhaps it would be silly. M9 users should think about upgrading.

 

Funny thing here though - I just sold off my Sony A7RII and got back to my Leica M9. I'm perfectly fine with it and with the images it creates.

[Leicauser7]

I'm a rank amateur so this is a sincere question -- why is it that 2 stops for a lens (think 1.4 vs 2.8) means the world, but on the camera it does not??

[Cliff S]

The DoF is much smaller at 1.4 which is great for that type of shooting. It also handles much better at night.

 

Personally anyone that says 6400 is useless doesn't shoot in dark places or night architecture or reportage

[Leicauser7]

For me, 2 to 3 stops is transformative. Full stop.

[digitalfx]

I'm a rank amateur so this is a sincere question -- why is it that 2 stops for a lens (think 1.4 vs 2.8) means the world, but on the camera it does not??

On a lens, the cost difference is one reason...but regardless 2 stops is still significant even on the camera.

 

But with a lens it allows you to shoot in lower light without raising the ISO vs gaining 2 stops on the camera gives you two additional extra stops at the high end of the ISO range.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dirk Mandeville]

Also, two stops on a lens gives a narrower depth of field and a more defocused background. Both of these factors allow you to isolate your subject better. Higher ISO doesn't give you any of that, in and of itself.

[Steve Spencer]

Yes, and two lines later he writes:

"Sensivity range sensor: M10: ISO 100 - 50000: ISO 100 - 6400"

Whatever this is supposed to mean.

 

He might have found out that Leica only pretends that ISO 100 is the base sensivity but that it really is a "pull" value, though he never gives any explanation.

 

He also tells us "All "full-size" 135 type cameras have now the same processor (Maestro II)".

May be that's something else he found out which Leica prefers to hide from their customers. Leica does not state anything about the Maestro II processor when they describe the M (Typ 240), neither for the original nor for the M-P version, nor for the M (Typ 262), nor for the M(Typ 246), just for the Q, the SL and the M10. Though may be I misunderstand what he means when he talks of "135 type cameras".

 

Mr. Puts - tell it as it is, please.

 

The big question is whether there is increased dynamic range, signal to noice ratio, and colour depth when the camera is set at ISO 100 vs. when it is set at ISO 200. If there is, then having the lower base ISO is a real advantage. Many people have commented that the SL has a base ISO of 100 and not 50, but if you look at analysis of how the sensor performs it has more dynamic range, a higher signal to noise ratio, and a greater colour depth at ISO 50 than at ISO 100. So, whether you call ISO 50 real or not on the SL it improves IQ to shoot at ISO 50 vs. ISO 100. If the M10 shows a similar advantage of ISO 100 over ISO 200, and in all other respects performs the same as the M240, the M10 will have a clear advantage at base ISO compared to the M240. So whether you call ISO 100 real or not, the issue is whether it increases the performance of the sensor. It doesn't for the M240, and we will see if it does for the M10. If the SL is any guide, however, we will see increased sensor performance going from ISO 200 to ISO 100 in the M10.

[edwardkaraa]

From what I have seen from online comparisons, I suspect the better high ISO of the M10 has been achieved partly by reducing the color filter array density. This produces files that look more mainstream than what we're used to with previous M.

[Guest]

Puts writes that both are base 200.

 

I emailed him about this...I'll report back if he responds.

 

I don't understand why it should be a mystery or secret whether on the M10 the base ISO is 100 or 200. Why wouldn't Leica wish to be clear if the base ISO is 200 and 100 is a "pull"? 

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[BerndReini]

I'm a rank amateur so this is a sincere question -- why is it that 2 stops for a lens (think 1.4 vs 2.8) means the world, but on the camera it does not??

 

Aside from what others have said about the rendering, i.e. depth of field being more shallow at f1.4, it is always preferable for file quality to shoot as close to base ISO as possible. Just because a camera can produce reasonably clean files at ISO 6,400 doesn't mean that the files aren't better at ISO 1,600 (2 stops difference).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

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.

That is because people -present company included- are talking about dynamic range when they actually mean exposure latitude, and because ISO ratings on digital cameras are basically not standardised.

[UliWer]

I don't understand why it should be a mystery or secret whether on the M10 the base ISO is 100 or 200. Why wouldn't Leica wish to be clear if the base ISO is 200 and 100 is a "pull"? 

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Your question is justified. One might add another one: Why wouldn't a serious tester show or explain when he found out that the official specs don't tell the truth?