M10 vs Sony A7RIII - ISO differences

[mhicks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well it’s obvious from all of the photos in the m10 images thread that the camera is severely handicapped; it’s a wonder that any photo is capable of being captured with such iso issues.

[Paul J]

Not correct. The only reason the images might appear like that is because I disabled lens corrections for both systems.

One of the weaknesses of the Sony Zeiss lenses, like the 28/2, 35/2.8 and 55/1.8, is that they have very strong vignetting, which never goes away, even at f/8 they visible vignette a lot. So that reduces the perceived level of shadow detail in the images.

 

If I import an image from both cameras, that was made with the same settings, lighting, subject, and from the same position, and use the same white-balance and color profile (Adobe Color for example), the images are barely different at all. The colors, shadow, and highlight detail remain more or less identical.

 

The only exception is that the A7rIII is noticeably better at retaining the brightest highlight details, as you can see in the chrome hardware and the wood underneath the strings in this image:

 

sonyleica.jpg

 

The Sony has a brighter exposure (in regards to the ISO setting used), and retains highlight detail better at the same time.

 

 

There is no vignetting in the centre of the image and there is no difference in shadow detail in the centre of these images.

 

The Sony isn't retaining more highlight detail, the only thing different in these images is the angle of incidence.

 

The Leica image here has far more natural tone and colour that is the one I would choose.

 

But there is no denying the extra DR that the Sony sensor might have.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Paul J

[LBJ2]

Oh, were you teaching that this is all nonsense? And did you make joke of your junior student understanding even less than nonsense? How this all started here: One picture from one camera is darker than the same frame from another camera at the same nominal settings. That is an excellent and very interesting question: Why does that difference occur? Then we see in the DxO database that the M10 behaves differently to most other cameras including Canon and Nikon and the best: Including Leica cameras! What follows here is an unnecessary defense plea from one part of the posters here. A second group thinks that it is all unnecessary discussion and still get fully worked up about something that they consider meaningless. For me the question is very valid and interesting at the same time: Why does the difference in brightness occur. And I am happy to be able to read here very constructive posts from many Leica users here.

 

"For me the question is very valid and interesting at the same time: Why does the difference in brightness occur. And I am happy to be able to read here very constructive posts from many Leica users here."  Hear, hear ! 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

We used to get close to blows on weather Velvia was really ISO50, 40 or 32.

 

Good to see nothing has changed....

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

And camera shutters aren’t perfectly accurate, or necessarily consistent from camera to camera. Even handheld meters vary sample to sample. In film days, I ran film speed (and development time) tests for each combination of camera, meter and film. Learn your gear.

 

Jeff

[indergaard]

And camera shutters aren’t perfectly accurate, or necessarily consistent from camera to camera. Even handheld meters vary sample to sample. In film days, I ran film speed (and development time) tests for each combination of camera, meter and film. Learn your gear.

 

Jeff

 

All my other gear is consistent. Various test reports confirms my findings. Other peoples experience confirms my findings. In this day of age, with software controlling most of the technical parameters of photography, consistency is simple. Learn to follow the times. This is not film. This is not mechanical. This is all digital, zeros and ones, and all controlled and defined by a team of software engineers.

 

The M10 remains my favorite camera, as I prefer the way it handles and works. But that doesn't mean that the camera is perfect. Far from it. The ISO "cheating" is a clear move that was made for marketing purposes, and anyone who defends it is clearly just a advocate of the brand.

Edited May 15, 2018 by indergaard

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That’s because Leica uses G Master ISO.

[erl]

Simply put, it is what it is. Learn to use it for what it is because it's not going to change, I hope!

[pgk]

The ISO "cheating" is a clear move that was made for marketing purposes, and anyone who defends it is clearly just a advocate of the brand.

 

You really aren't interested in learning about the technicalities of digital photography are you? Being an advocate of a brand is very different to understanding why there are differences. I suggest that you take several different digital cameras and photograph a grey card under the same lighting - all will record a different colour temperature in the exif data. Cheating? Same with ISO - its not the fixed parameter it was (~ish) in film days, it is an interpretation of the recorded data from the sensor. Trying to interpret this in the same way from each camera would simply constrain ALL manufacturers. Research and learn. Each camera has its own specific characteristics and you need to learn to use them and not complain because they don't fit into some imaginary specified system.

[jaapv]

The assertion "that all other brands adhere to a common standard" is a bit of fake news. There are clear differences. Canon and Nikon were one stop apart until a few years ago, when Canon switched methods and pulled even with Nikon, Fuji " cheats" by about one stop according to Internet hype, which means that Fuji probably uses the same method that Leica does, Olympus/Panasonic differ again, but get close to Leica, Pentax gets similar to Canikon, etc.

 

However, the idea of "cheating" is not unique to the poster - the Internet is filled with less-than-expert blogs and forum posts

making the same unfounded accusation.

 

As said, ISO on digital cameras is just a manufacturer-assigned value with no fixed standard. Why should it be? The histogram will tell you your exposure.

[indergaard]

The assertion "that all other brands adhere to a common standard" is a bit of fake news. There are clear differences. Canon and Nikon were one stop apart until a few years ago, when Canon switched methods and pulled even with Nikon, Fuji " cheats" by about one stop according to Internet hype, which means that Fuji probably uses the same method that Leica does, Olympus/Panasonic differ again, but get close to Leica, Pentax gets similar to Canikon, etc.

 

As said, ISO on digital cameras is just a manufacturer-assigned value with no fixed standard. Why should it be? The histogram will tell you your exposure.

 

That's true, and I completely agree with that. My criticism is based on the fact that Leica changed their ISO "standard" in the M10, which makes the M10 inconsistent with other Leica cameras. I could, for example, use the light-meter in my MP (analog), and replicate the same settings on the M240, and use the exact same settings with success and consistent exposures of the same frame. If I do this with the M10, the exposures the M10 makes are under-exposed. Same lens, same settings, same everything.

 

Yes I know I can adjust, and I have adjusted, and so on and so forth. But my wish is that this was not changed on Leica's part, because then the products would be consistent, which would make more sense.

 

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. It is what it is and it's just a waste of time to keep the discussion going.

[jaapv]

Well, it is quite normal for cameras within one brand to differ. Leica is certainly not unique. Just dial in a permanent exposure compensation.

[JTLeica]

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.

 

It has Image Stabilisation worth probably 4 stops, so its bound to look cleaner as you're likely shooting at far lower ISO numbers.

[Paul J]

What's that saying about horses and drinking again?

[Jeff S]

All my other gear is consistent. Various test reports confirms my findings. Other peoples experience confirms my findings. In this day of age, with software controlling most of the technical parameters of photography, consistency is simple. Learn to follow the times. This is not film. This is not mechanical. This is all digital, zeros and ones, and all controlled and defined by a team of software engineers.

 

The M10 remains my favorite camera, as I prefer the way it handles and works. But that doesn't mean that the camera is perfect. Far from it. The ISO "cheating" is a clear move that was made for marketing purposes, and anyone who defends it is clearly just a advocate of the brand.

Yeah, right, so all digital cameras are alike because it’s all the same ones and zeroes. No company distinctions, no model differences, let alone unit variations. I better hurry up and follow the times.

 

Funny stuff.

 

Jeff

Edited May 15, 2018 by Jeff S

[erl]

What's that saying about horses and drinking again?

When you make a horse drink, it gets drunk!

[jmr237]

Sometimes on this forum there is a reactionary tone that gets hurled at anyone who dares to suggest that Leica does something wrong or should at least do something differently ... I recall the poor souls who dared to suggest that the camera could use 6 bit coding to display single frame lines ...

 

I don't think the OP's basic point is unreasonable--it is based on objective observations--so let's not treat him like an idiot for raising the question. If you think it's a dumb question, or the OP is making a mountain out of a molehill, just ignore it. I don't think we'd talk to each other this way if we were meeting in person at a coffee shop.

 

----

 

Sent by someone on a hopeless effort to improve civility on the internet ...

Edited May 16, 2018 by jmr237

[erl]

Sometimes on this forum there is a reactionary tone that gets hurled at anyone who dares to suggest that Leica does something wrong or should at least do something differently ... I recall the poor souls who dared to suggest that the camera could use 6 bit coding to display single frame lines ...

 

I don't think the OP's basic point is unreasonable--it is based on objective observations--so let's not treat him like an idiot for raising the question. If you think it's a dumb question, or the OP is making a mountain out of a molehill, just ignore it. I don't think we'd talk to each other this way if we were meeting in person at a coffee shop.

 

----

 

Sent by someone on a hopeless effort to improve civility on the internet ...

I agree that the internet 'encourages' a reactionary tone, but disagreement is essential if there is to be any sort of useful discussion. Ignoring whatsoever one disagrees with simply allows that opinion to gain credence without testing. As it is, I think it is now clear that there is a diversity of opinion on the topic in question and readers are free to choose if they believe any of it. The occasional introduction of humour helps to keep things below boiling point, IMO.

 

I am not aware of anyone calling the OP an idiot and I am sure he is not. In such a situation Mods would move in, if aware of it.

 

What I take away from the discussion is that there are (at least) two POV on the subject. 1. The OP's technical perspective which I am sure he has formulated carefully. 2. The other is the 'functional' perspective, to which I subscribe, wherein one determines what and how 'it' works and gets on with employing that knowledge to advantage. Declaring which is better I think would be a waste of time.

[jmr237]

What I take away from the discussion is that there are (at least) two POV on the subject. 1. The OP's technical perspective which I am sure he has formulated carefully. 2. The other is the 'functional' perspective, to which I subscribe, wherein one determines what and how 'it' works and gets on with employing that knowledge to advantage. Declaring which is better I think would be a waste of time.

 

 

Well said.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JTLeica]

Lets just be perfectly honest though, nobody buys a Leica digital camera for its technical superiority over another brand... Do they?

In real life situations I have been exceptionally impressed by the low light images that I managed to get, considering I used to shoot A7RII's for a couple of years.