M10 vs M240 dynamic range

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've never used the M240, but I can tell you that the DR is absolutely the most disappointing thing about the M10 for me (well, besides all of the technical issues that mine came with out of the box that, despite a trip back to NJ still all haven't been resolved).

 

I've had plenty of people tell me that this shouldn't matter and that you can shoot around it, but it's not that simple. In dynamic lighting situations I find it's best to underexpose a bit and pull back highlights and shadows. The shadows will give a little more - the highlights are gone sooner than you'd expect. In dynamic lighting you can get a decent - but not great - rendering by underexposing by about .5-1 stop. But really, the problem I have isn't so much with the absolute range of the sensor but rather the harshness of the tonal transitions from dark to light and vice versa and the inflexibility of the files.

 

Coming from the Sony full frame cameras I expected a slight loss in DR - what I didn't expect was that the DR I would still retain would look that much rougher. And I'm not even really a landscape shooter. The sensor in this camera just isn't great all around compared to what else is out there right now. The ISO seems rated inaccurately to boot - and you can't even shoot at native ISO - so whether you do 100 or 200 you're losing a little bit of shadow or highlight retention. In many situations this does not matter, but when it does matter it is frustrating and disappointing for a $6.8k tool. Heck, it would be disappointing for a $2.5k tool at this point. 

[Advertisement]

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