DXO Mark Leica M10 Score

[Rollin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

White in a small area, always need consideration, no matter the sensor.

 

If I'd been taking that picture, dial back an f-stop or two, to keep the texture in the hair.

 

If that is so important...sometimes a burnt highlighlight is not a disaster.

 

...

Still learning the camera as only have had it less than a month. Did underexpose a bit, just not enough.

[david strachan]

Hi Rollin

My post should have suggested not so much underexposure. But from your reply, you'd accounted for the white anyway.

I would be happy with that exposure really...white hair in a group will always draw attention.

 

I like your Instagram pics. You obviously know what you're doing.

 

Press on regardless.

 

All best...

[M11 for me]

Generally, reading more Roger Cicala and less Tony Northrup is a good thing.

 

Gordon

In LensRentals I can not see any test like the one Northrup just recently did. To read/watch (if video) several autors might not harm ;-)

[indergaard]

Still learning the camera as only have had it less than a month. Did underexpose a bit, just not enough.

 

 

I've compared my M10 and A7rIII lately, and when exposed at the matching exposure (which means about 0.7 EV more exposure dialled in on the M10 due to the big ISO value differences) the A7rIII retains details in the highlights remarkably well, when the M10 simply blows them out. I noticed this very easily while making some test shots of my guitar, which has chromed hardware. To my surprise the A7rIII actually kept most of the details in the specular highlights (reflections in the chromed hardware from outside window), and I was able to recover even more. The M10 however, at the exact same exposure, blew out the details in the specular highlights completely, and they were not recoverable in post.

 

So, some cameras do better at preserving highlights than others. Otherwise the raw files from both cameras more or less looked the same, and the contrast level was about the same as well. Based on my short experience, it seems like the M10 needs to be severely under-exposed if you have very bright highlights in a scene that you want to keep. For some reason the M10 exposures almost needs to be exposed the same way as the M Monochrom (1st version) to preserve highlights... Which is not something I expected at all. I seem to remember that the M240 was more forgiving in exposure, and that highlights was more recoverable on the M240 than on the M10.

[M11 for me]

I think that with the M10 you have to make sure that by no means you do over-expose. As the sensor is ISO invariant (or almost invariant) you can easily pull up the dark parts of your picture. For me I came to the following conclusion: Even though the M10 sensor has less dynamic range than the Sony sensors it is still very, very usable due to the mentionned invariance. To be able to go to the limit of the histogram on the right side, make sure to set your Clipping settings of your M10 to 2/254. This is important as with settings of the highlights lower than 254 the pictures on the monitor of the M10 would show much too much clipping that you never see after importing into LR on your computer. With 254 you have on the monitor about what you get in LR. Like that you get wonderfull structured clouds with your M10. I am not impressed any more with tests of other cameras. Further I made a decision a year ago to go with Leica so I have no other choice anyway. The next 3 weeks I will be on the west coast of Ireland and I had a long fight with myself whether or not I should takr my Canon gear along as well (because the 16-35 or the 70-200 lenses I have with Canon. Then I decides to add the 21 SEM to my lens collection that will be instead of my 16-35mm. On the long end of course we have nothing but I can easily do without. I am persuaded to have a top sensor with the M10. I recently compare my pictures taken over roofs of a town with a cloudy sky above. My picture was certainly better that a one taken with a Canon 50Mpixel 5DsR. I stopped comparing

[Tailwagger]

I seem to remember that the M240 was more forgiving in exposure, and that highlights was more recoverable on the M240 than on the M10.

Not in my experience... I still have them both. In my experience, the M10 is marginally better. That said, as with every digital Leica I've owned to date, one has to pay attention to whats happening on the right side of the histogram. 

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I seem to remember that the M240 was more forgiving in exposure, and that highlights was more recoverable on the M240 than on the M10.

 

Not in my experience... I still have them both. In my experience, the M10 is marginally better. That said, as with every digital Leica I've owned to date, one has to pay attention to whats happening on the right side of the histogram. 

 

fyi: Sean Reid has an article on this, 'Highlight Headroom: Three Leica Cameras', and concluded that the M240 offers slightly better highlight headroom than the M10 (processed in Lightroom)...about 1/3 of a stop.

[indergaard]

fyi: Sean Reid has an article on this, 'Highlight Headroom: Three Leica Cameras', and concluded that the M240 offers slightly better highlight headroom than the M10 (processed in Lightroom)...about 1/3 of a stop.

 

 

That matches my experience. The M10 has far more headroom for shadow recovery though.