M10 vs Sony A7RIII - ISO differences

[lukeadair]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess I must be an idiot. (Okay, don't be so quick to agree!) But I have read through this thread three times, and I confess I have very little idea of what you are all talking (complaining, negotiating) about. And I am even more confused about what any of this has to do with actual photography. The M10 is a tool; the Sony is a tool. They are different tools, but in the end they serve (or should serve) the same purpose: to enable the photographer to record a particular expression in light. All the rest of this stuff is, to me, just so much gear, gear, gear and pixel-peeping nonsense. Just my two cents. Shame me if you want. I don't care.

[erl]

Not at all lukeadair.

I'm with you. (that may be your only shame!)

I use both Leica and Sony, and Hasselblad. All to take pictures. They work for me, brilliantly, each in their own way.

 

So often I don't even know what the focal length of my fitted lens is. I just know it does 'this' for me. I twist my aperture ring or rotate my shutter speed dial and the effect changes. Wow! What else can I expect?

 

ISO! I believe it is some sort of a number that geeks talk about. It doesn't take pictures though.

[lukeadair]

Well, God bless you, Erl. There is so much gear crap on this forum, and so much pontificating by technocrats, it almost makes the whole experience worthless.

[indergaard]

I guess I must be an idiot. (Okay, don't be so quick to agree!) But I have read through this thread three times, and I confess I have very little idea of what you are all talking (complaining, negotiating) about. And I am even more confused about what any of this has to do with actual photography. The M10 is a tool; the Sony is a tool. They are different tools, but in the end they serve (or should serve) the same purpose: to enable the photographer to record a particular expression in light. All the rest of this stuff is, to me, just so much gear, gear, gear and pixel-peeping nonsense. Just my two cents. Shame me if you want. I don't care.

 

It's fine, use it in Auto-ISO and don't think about the numbers. As you say, they are just different tools. Forget about the exposure triangle and methodical approach, and just keep on shooting.

 

Not at all lukeadair.

I'm with you. (that may be your only shame!)

I use both Leica and Sony, and Hasselblad. All to take pictures. They work for me, brilliantly, each in their own way.

 

So often I don't even know what the focal length of my fitted lens is. I just know it does 'this' for me. I twist my aperture ring or rotate my shutter speed dial and the effect changes. Wow! What else can I expect?

 

ISO! I believe it is some sort of a number that geeks talk about. It doesn't take pictures though.

 

The same applies to you! Auto-ISO and point and shoot! A Leica might be completely overkill for what you need though, but I guess you like it's gem like "feeling".

 

Well, God bless you, Erl. There is so much gear crap on this forum, and so much pontificating by technocrats, it almost makes the whole experience worthless.

 

 

Experience? I thought you just said that these are just tools? Experience is a totally different ballgame.

 

The point is this; Leica has made cameras for quite many years. Most of the Leica cameras has been reliant on external light meters to get exposures that were good. A lot of Leica owners also use many older Leicas, and external light meters.

 

Why? Because the light-meter in your M10 is a center-weighted reflective meter, which is not known to be very accurate. Which is why many people use external incident light meters to measure light and to set the exposure, because it is a much better way  of determining the correct exposure for a scene or subject. The M10 deviates from the values determined by external light meters, reflective or incident, it doesn't matter. The M10 deviates from the exposure values used by Leica's previous cameras also. It's very inconsistent, and there is no reason for it, yet Leica has made the decision to be inconsistent for the sake of bragging rights.

 

You'd be surprised that many people actually prefer to get the exposure correct the first time, without adjusting exposure compensation and chimping to be sure to have nailed the exposure. That's what external incident light meters are typically used for. That's why, even today, with multi-matrix-metering etc, many portrait photographers still use incident meters in their studios instead of the built-in meters on the cameras: Accuracy and consistency. Something that is quite important to most photographers.

Edited May 4, 2018 by indergaard

[erl]

indergaard,

With respect, your post above is complete nonsense regarding both the M10 meter and the technique 'commonly' used by professionals (or amateurs for that matter). I use 111f, M6, M7, M8 and M10 cameras. The 111f is the ONLY one for which I use a handheld meter. My work would be impossible if I had to use a handheld meter shooting 1000+ exposures in say 2 hours, frequently in the dark. Most (not all) Leica shooters in my wide experience learn to trust the Leica meter, both for expedience and speed. It is reliable.

[M11 for me]

Does this not go fully off the road now? 

 

Isn't it a simple fact that the M10 in terms of ISO is different to the other Leica cameras (and even other brands)? Just go into DxO und compare M10 to Q. Both Leicas have a fully different behaviour. Did Leica measure the one on the basis of a Kodak film and the other one based on some other film brand? Or should one brand not apply the same methodology for all their models? No they don't. And why? Is it not simply true that the M10 shows too optimistic results compare to others? I see no reason why to defend Leica through all floors. Well there are different methods allowed to define ISO. But at least within a brand we should be consistent. Fact is that the M10 is almost 1 LV off the "real" value when you compare different pictures and expect them to have the same brightness when taken with the same settings (aperture and ISO and exposure time). 

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

indergaard,

With respect, your post above is complete nonsense regarding both the M10 meter and the technique 'commonly' used by professionals (or amateurs for that matter). I use 111f, M6, M7, M8 and M10 cameras. The 111f is the ONLY one for which I use a handheld meter. My work would be impossible if I had to use a handheld meter shooting 1000+ exposures in say 2 hours, frequently in the dark. Most (not all) Leica shooters in my wide experience learn to trust the Leica meter, both for expedience and speed. It is reliable.

Different methods of working doesn’t equal nonsense.

 

Regardless of work methods, please give me ONE advantage of Leica’s ISO inconsistency in the M10? I guess you are a professional who likes to work with exposure compensation between several systems and cameras. That’s good for you; but most people don’t want that.

[indergaard]

Does this not go fully off the road now?

 

Isn't it a simple fact that the M10 in terms of ISO is different to the other Leica cameras (and even other brands)? Just go into DxO und compare M10 to Q. Both Leicas have a fully different behaviour. Did Leica measure the one on the basis of a Kodak film and the other one based on some other film brand? Or should one brand not apply the same methodology for all their models? No they don't. And why? Is it not simply true that the M10 shows too optimistic results compare to others? I see no reason why to defend Leica through all floors. Well there are different methods allowed to define ISO. But at least within a brand we should be consistent. Fact is that the M10 is almost 1 LV off the "real" value when you compare different pictures and expect them to have the same brightness when taken with the same settings (aperture and ISO and exposure time).

Yes. The Leica fanboys seem to be blind to the blatantly obvious. Change for the sake of change doesn’t equal progress or improvement.

[erl]

Different methods of working doesn’t equal nonsense.

No, it does not, I agree, but I referred to your statement in post # 25 where you 'bagged' the M10 lightmeter. That is what's ridiculous.

 

Regardless of work methods, please give me ONE advantage of Leica’s ISO inconsistency in the M10? I guess you are a professional who likes to work with exposure compensation between several systems and cameras. That’s good for you; but most people don’t want that.

Please don't guess how I like to work. You will get it wrong everytime. The M10 meter is NOT inconsistent. It may be different wrt ISO compared to other cameras. So what! A craftsman understands every tool in his box and how it influences his work. That is used to advantage.

[pgk]

You'd be surprised that many people actually prefer to get the exposure correct the first time .....

 

What's so difficult about exposure? Digital cameras are far more forgiving in exposure terms than film was. Getting it right first time is easy enough - I often guess settings and am more often than not close enough to get usable files. Fine tuning for a specific requirement may need a test shot or two (who remembers Polaroid backs?). Really this arguing is a pointless waste of time. Actual reality is far different to perceived reality especially in professional photography - if you need to take a test shot, believe me, you do. Its THAT simple.

[indergaard]

Again, I would like someone to provide a good answer to what the positive outcome of Leicas cooked numbers are? Instead of defending the change that was done, that wasn’t necessary.

 

What benefit do you get from the changes to the iso formula, which makes the M10 inconsistent with other leicas and also external light meters?

 

I don’t care how you work and adapt. I care to hear why you defend Leica in making their products inconsistent.

[frame-it]

dunno about the M10, but my new Fuji Xh1 [x-trans] Blows away my SL while shooting in available light on the street...ISO 200-500...average street shots at night at ISO 500 or less,  on the SL i need ISO 1600 for those same shots and same locations

 

with the same summilux 50mm f1.4 ASPH

[M11 for me]

dunno about the M10, but my new Fuji Xh1 [x-trans] Blows away my SL while shooting in available light on the street...ISO 200-500...average street shots at night at ISO 500 or less,  on the SL i need ISO 1600 for those same shots and same locations

 

with the same summilux 50mm f1.4 ASPH

 

You just see the number on the ISO wheel. That is just a Mickey Mouse number. Its far away of being calibrated. You can easily assume that when shooting with 1600 in your Fuji that in "reality" these 1600 are fully wrong and maybe 600 would be more accurate. These are marketing figures. What strikes me personally is the fact that Leica with their M10 starts to join that game whereas with the Q the hit the "right" number very precisely. This means that they could do it right if they wanted to do it right. But they do not want it. And what we can take along from some comments of others here ist that in practice it does not matter. It has NOOOOO influence in the image quality. Just stop comparing different cameras. This is not allowed. And do not tell your friends how little noise your camera produces at high ISO. No your camera is not better. The same actually with the aperture figure on your lens. Is ist really 0,95 or 1.4 or 2.0 or 3.4? But here we know that the indication of max aperture is near the reality but not the full truth either.

[frame-it]

fascinating opinion..

 

but lets say Fuji xtrans ISO 400 is actually 1600...its still looks way cleaner then the SL at 1600..of course the SL's 1600 might actually be 3200....

 

 

finally i don't care about the numbers...i just want clean images.

 

 

You just see the number on the ISO wheel. That is just a Mickey Mouse number. Its far away of being calibrated. You can easily assume that when shooting with 1600 in your Fuji that in "reality" these 1600 are fully wrong and maybe 600 would be more accurate. These are marketing figures. What strikes me personally is the fact that Leica with their M10 starts to join that game whereas with the Q the hit the "right" number very precisely. This means that they could do it right if they wanted to do it right. But they do not want it. And what we can take along from some comments of others here ist that in practice it does not matter. It has NOOOOO influence in the image quality. Just stop comparing different cameras. This is not allowed. And do not tell your friends how little noise your camera produces at high ISO. No your camera is not better. The same actually with the aperture figure on your lens. Is ist really 0,95 or 1.4 or 2.0 or 3.4? But here we know that the indication of max aperture is near the reality but not the full truth either.

[Chaemono]

I’m comparing different cameras at the exact same ISO and am very happy with the M10 results. See links below.

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/

[M11 for me]

fascinating opinion..

 

but lets say Fuji xtrans ISO 400 is actually 1600...its still looks way cleaner then the SL at 1600..of course the SL's 1600 might actually be 3200....

 

 

finally i don't care about the numbers...i just want clean images.

 

Oh, now you just turn everything around. Are you aware of that? When you set your Fuji to ISO 400 then the "real" ISO is what????

[frame-it]

dunno...and don't care...all i see are nice clean images and that's what i care about

 

 

https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178-10/lectures/noise-27apr10-150dpi-med.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, now you just turn everything around. Are you aware of that? When you set your Fuji to ISO 400 then the "real" ISO is what????

[M11 for me]

dunno...and don't care...all i see are nice clean images and that's what i care about

 

 

https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178-10/lectures/noise-27apr10-150dpi-med.pdf

 

That is fair and I have no problem with that. I just wonder why you start posting here at all? Does that make sense? Understand that with cameras there is a technical end behind . . 

[pgk]

Again, I would like someone to provide a good answer to what the positive outcome of Leicas cooked numbers are?

 

The are NO cooked numbers - you simply don't understand what ISO is all about. Try reading it up before making blatant accusations. The variance of digital 'ISO' has been discussed on the LUF before. It is NOT the same as film ISO and there are a number of ways that it can be determined depending on how the manufacturer decides is optimal for their RAW interpretation. Every different digital camera I have had (too many) has been different in its response and has required a shift in post processing. I have a Sony A7II the files from which often don't work as well for me as those from the M9 at times, noise included. All RAW files are processed and noise is a difficult area to quantify in general imagery. I suspect that most manufacturers quote what makes their specs seem best. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lukeadair]

I must say that it amuses me how worked up some people get about this meaningless nonsense. But I will say to indergaard (who suggested I use auto-ISO and "forget about the exposure triangle") that I am now 74 years old. I was shooting Leicas for 15 years before he was born, and he can trust me: I understand the exposure triangle, have been teaching photography for more than 30 years, and will use my cameras any damn way I please. Get off your high horse, junior.