M10 vs M240 dynamic range

[retcheto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an M-P 240 that I absolutely love. It's my first M and I'm having a ton of fun.

 

I'm debating whether to upgrade to an M10, mainly for a little more dynamic range. I've seen some charts and things around that say it has a little better DR. The other features of the M10 sound great, but probably not enough for me to justify the big cost.

 

I like to shoot in challenging environment, I go out in storms to the coast when the sun breaks through clouds or into dark forests with shafts of light coming through the leaves and that's where sometimes I wish I had a little more DR, especially with the highlights.

 

so has anyone that's gone from M240 to M10 noticed a big difference? I'm having a hard time stopping myself from just doing it and knowing I have "the best", but then I think of the cost and barely stop from clicking on "buy"

[david strachan]

I think you'll get more DR using software to manipulate shadows and light.

Lightroom is good in that respect.

 

...

[a.noctilux]

I use now the M10 and M240/M262, in difficult lighting, they are not much different in DR.

Better using the "exposure-thinking-before-clicking" is always true.

 

Difficult lighting = much much larger dynamic than sensor to hold on.

Bracketing and/or HDR in software maybe.

 

 

And like David stated: think software for shadow and highlight.

[retcheto]

Yes I suppose I could try some bracketing, but I always end up leaving my tripod behind. I have too much fun just walking and handheld shooting everything. I'm getting pretty good recovery now in Capture One, it's actually quite impressive.

 

Maybe I'm just looking for the excuse to upgrade

[a.noctilux]

M10 has better Spot metering as user can move the "round spot" around to simulate (in Visoflex 020) the rough rendering.

Tripod is not necessary to use this feature, but very nice/quick to judge the lighting with meter help.

 

With M240, it's not as easy to use Spot meter.

And Multi-Zone (for me) not so reliable.

Edited December 22, 2017 by a.noctilux

[adan]

I don't think there is a huge difference in DR between the M240 (which I have used but not owned) and the M10. DxOMark gives the M240 a 1/10th-stop advantage - 13.3 stops vs. 13.2 stops.

 

FWIW - here is the DxO comparison of the M10 and M240, including DR: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Leica-M10-versus-Leica-M-Typ-240___1207_844

 

Check the Measurements > Dynamic Range for a graph at various ISOs.

 

Straight out of the camera, the M10 .dng files look like they have much less DR - because Leica has applied a much stronger default contrast or gamma curve. Very dense shadows. Probably because some M9 users were discomfited by the lower default contrast of the M240 - "Dull, gray, no M9 CCD Kodachrome colors!" etc.

 

However, there is a lot of detail that can be sucked out of the M10 shadows with "Shadows" and "Contrast" controls.

 

Below: an M10 shot, first "straight from the camera" and then with shadows recovered as much as possible without getting noise. Slightly underexposed due to the meter reading some bright sky - but that was fine with me - it just barely avoided any blown whites, reds, or yellows. ISO 200, 35 Summicron ASPH.

 

I would imagine that first version would be shocking to an M240 user, who is probably used to something more like the second version straight from the camera. But the M10 has a lot of "hidden" room for digging out shadow detail.

 

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!

[anickpick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The main advantage of the M10 over the M240 in regards to dynamic range is the lack of banding when recovering shadows.

In my experience, in real use the M10 has a much more usable DR than the M240.

[albertknappmd]

I have had more success recovering details in shadows with M10.. Same techniques etc so there must be some subtle improvement in sensor to account for this..

Albert     

[Simon]

I wouldn’t use a single value to judge a camera’s dynamic range. The DxO values charted at www.photonstophotos.net show the M10 doing better at higher ISO values, which corresponds to anecdotal evidence from users and indeed Leica’s marketing.

 

That site also makes their own measurements which shows similar results with the M10 doing better at all ISOs in their tests, though the difference is basically negligible at low ISOs.

 

So the question would be how often do you shoot above say ISO 800? You might notice a difference in that case.

[Rhyman]

I had an M240 for 3 years. I upgraded to the M10 about 3 months ago. I wrote a review comparing the 2 cameras here.

 

I think there is not a great different in DR. But there is a difference. In difficult light sometimes that difference maters. 

 

Overall, I am glad I upgraded. It is not a rational decision though. It is love.

[jmahto]

I have an M-P 240 that I absolutely love. It's my first M and I'm having a ton of fun.

 

I'm debating whether to upgrade to an M10, mainly for a little more dynamic range. I've seen some charts and things around that say it has a little better DR. The other features of the M10 sound great, but probably not enough for me to justify the big cost.

 

I like to shoot in challenging environment, I go out in storms to the coast when the sun breaks through clouds or into dark forests with shafts of light coming through the leaves and that's where sometimes I wish I had a little more DR, especially with the highlights.

 

so has anyone that's gone from M240 to M10 noticed a big difference? I'm having a hard time stopping myself from just doing it and knowing I have "the best", but then I think of the cost and barely stop from clicking on "buy"

Sun breaking through clouds has so much dynamic range that no current sensor covers adequately. Extra DR of less than a stop is not going to help much. Your only solution is i) use bracketing and do post processing to do clean HDR or ii) my preference: underexposed not to lose the highlight and recover shadows. The shadows are indeed grainy but the end result is fast and good enough (to me) compared to working with bracketed shots.

 

I will share few examples next time I am next to my laptop.

Edited December 25, 2017 by jmahto

[jmahto]

I have an M-P 240 that I absolutely love. It's my first M and I'm having a ton of fun.

 

I'm debating whether to upgrade to an M10, mainly for a little more dynamic range. I've seen some charts and things around that say it has a little better DR. The other features of the M10 sound great, but probably not enough for me to justify the big cost.

 

I like to shoot in challenging environment, I go out in storms to the coast when the sun breaks through clouds or into dark forests with shafts of light coming through the leaves and that's where sometimes I wish I had a little more DR, especially with the highlights.

 

so has anyone that's gone from M240 to M10 noticed a big difference? I'm having a hard time stopping myself from just doing it and knowing I have "the best", but then I think of the cost and barely stop from clicking on "buy"

Ok. Here is my example of lifting shadows vs doing HDR with bracketed shots. What I am trying to show is that for many purposes (even printing moderate size), single shot with lifting shadows is good enough. See example below:

 

Scene exposed for highlights. Shadows not lifted yet. Note that still there is some highlight blown between clouds. In this kind of scenery the DR is so big that you are bound to miss something.

This is M240

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!

 

Shadows recovered.

Crop of shadow area to show grain.

[jmahto]

Now look at the HDR result.
(Note: It is not a direct equivalent. The FL used is also different from previous pic. I shot with longer length and did merge while doing HDR to get same FOV. However I am displaying similar crop size as above for comparison. Not exactly apples to apples but good for comparison)

 

The HDR processed file. This was quite time consuming in PS. I did it since I had the shots. For many practical purposes the previous single shot is fine with me.

 

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!

 

[jmahto]

Now look at the crop. If your goal is to print largest possible size then this may be good. But it is not needed for A4 (maybe A3 as well) sized print.

 

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!

[MarkP]

Thanks for the comparison Jaynt.

Regardless, I prefer the first photo rather than the HDR.

 

The second seems a bit sharper. Maybe the first photo was compromised by some camera shake or the second is sharpened more?

 

Mark :-)

Edited December 26, 2017 by MarkP

[pgk]

DxOMark gives the M240 a 1/10th-stop advantage - 13.3 stops vs. 13.2 stops.

 

In the days of transparencies the rule of thumb was that 1/3 stop made a distinguishable difference. 1/10 may just be measurable, but in practice I would be very surprised if it would produce a visible difference in the end file, even in extreme differences and with as much post processing as has been shown here in this thread. IMO the figure is irrelevant for all practical purposes.

[jmahto]

Thanks for the comparison Jaynt.

Regardless, I prefer the first photo rather than the HDR.

 

The second seems a bit sharper. Maybe the first photo was compromised by some camera shake or the second is sharpened more?

 

Mark :-)

That has been my preference too (not HDR, as I said in my commentary). If you are not careful then HDR doesn't look natural. There is certain order to tones that need to be preserved for natural look.

 

As for my comparison pic, the one with HDR has less grain in shadow area and hence you can see more details. Sharpening non-HDR will simply sharpen the grains instead of showing more details. It is needed only for A2 and above size prints.

[adan]

1/10 may just be measurable, but in practice I would be very surprised if it would produce a visible difference in the end file....IMO the figure is irrelevant for all practical purposes.

 

I agree.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

While I do think there are visual IQ differences at higher ISO's any IQ upgrade is IMHO the last reason to upgrade to the M10. It's all the other little improvements added together that make the M10 so satisfying to use. Especially the improved rangefinder and operating speed of the M10.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M11 for me]

I think you'll get more DR using software to manipulate shadows and light.

Lightroom is good in that respect.

 

...

An information that is not captured by the sensor can not be brought back in LR. Unfortunately your wish does not come true.