Jump to content

High ISO - M10 vs Q


Guest tofu_man

Recommended Posts

Guest tofu_man

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When playing with my new M10 last night after installing firmware 2.4.5.0, I decided that I would compare the M10 with my Q in low light. I was stunned at the difference (and needed a whisky afterwards!).

 

With a 28mm Summicron V2 on my M10, and both cameras set at F/2 and ISO 1600, there was a very marked difference in shutter speeds when taking photos of the same subject (plain carpet & backlit curtains) in low light.

 

As one example with auto shutter speeds, the Q was 1/60 and the M10 was 1/5. The other 'test' shots produced the same magnitude of difference.

 

I know ISO is a standard open to varying interpretations, and f/2 on one camera might be marginally different to f/2 on another camera, but I expected the shutter speeds to be broadly similar.

 

Do I have a camera or photographer issue or have others experienced the same when comparing the M10 with other cameras?

Edited by tofu_man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they open with the same exposure? That's quite a few f-stops difference.

Are u using LR?

 

 

There have been quite a few ISO discussions, between camera brands. It seems it's a concept open to whatever the manufacturers want to claim.

 

...

Edited by david strachan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Are you sure you didn't have an Exposure Comp setting on one of the cameras? That's often easy to do by accident.

 

If not, then it's just weird.

 

thanks but both were set at -1/3 which is my default

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Did they open with the same exposure? That's quite a few f-stops difference.

Are u using LR?

 

 

There have been quite a few ISO discussions, between camera brands. It seems it's a concept open to whatever the manufacturers want to claim.

 

 

yes, both exposures looked the same without any adjustments, and I use LR.

 

My only experience with 'optimistic' ISO has been with Fuji which was around one stop difference compared to my previous M240. I would have expected Leica to be consistent between cameras.

 

I'd be interested if anyone has done a similar test?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mr Tofu

 

It does seem unusual there would be such a difference between Leica models...is the Q a Japanese camera...like the Panaleicas?

 

I have Fuji too, and find a difference in ISO.

 

Once was film and light meters, and trustworthy...now anything manufacturers want to put on their specifications.

 

 

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Mr Tofu

 

It does seem unusual there would be such a difference between Leica models...is the Q a Japanese camera...like the Panaleicas?

 

I have Fuji too, and find a difference in ISO.

 

Once was film and light meters, and trustworthy...now anything manufacturers want to put on their specifications.

 

 

 

that's why I needed a whisky last night: the realisation that I might have to change my default nighttime ISO from 1600 to 12500. Or replace the M10.

 

Anyway, I'll need to do some more tests but I'm worried that Leica might have gamed the M10's iso

Edited by tofu_man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Leica Q ISO1600 f/2.8 1/25

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Ricoh GR2 ISO 1600 f/2.8 1/25

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Leica M10 ISO1600 f/2.8 (exif shows f4.0)  1/6 sec

 

all test shots handheld, auto shutter, imported to LR as DNG and exported as JPG with nil adjustments 

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!

Edited by tofu_man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Hypothesis 1:  The M10 needs ISO 6400 to produce a similar exposure to the Leica Q at ISO 1600 , i.e. my M10 under-performs the Q (and the Ricoh) by approx 2 stops

 

Hypothesis 2: My M10 is faulty

Edited by tofu_man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over more years than I care to declare, I have never found any two in camera meters, hand held meters, spotmeters, et al, that agree. Their main MO is to confuse you in the presence of any competition.

 

Use any one, and learn to trust it, if it gives the result you desire . Ignore all other external 'opinions'.

 

if you get your picture, walk away smiling.

 

P.S. I have the M10 and think it is a fantastic improvement on the M9. I have no experience with the Q, so no comment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Over more years than I care to declare, I have never found any two in camera meters, hand held meters, spotmeters, et al, that agree. Their main MO is to confuse you in the presence of any competition.

 

Use any one, and learn to trust it, if it gives the result you desire . Ignore all other external 'opinions'.

 

if you get your picture, walk away smiling.

 

P.S. I have the M10 and think it is a fantastic improvement on the M9. I have no experience with the Q, so no comment.

 

 

Well my Q and Ricoh and Sony are all showing the same exposure at a given ISO so my M10 is two stops out which I don't think is trivial as I shoot a lot at night. It makes the camera not fit for purpose, in my view. I'm not prepared to shoot the M10 at 12,500 ISO at night when I can use 1600 on my Q.

 

I'm inclined to think that Leica has made blatantly false claims. I'll contact them to see what they have to say but as much as I like the M10, I can't work with with a camera that has its ISO misrepresented by two stops....that's a huge margin.

Edited by tofu_man
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see three different exposures in the samples you posted. In order of decreasing exposure M10, Q, GRII.

 

The M10 is a stop différent at the same nominal exposure at the very most. Interestingly the M10 identified the lens a stop down on the set aperture, which actually accounts for the one stop, so the difference is nullified.

Edited by Mute-on
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is about right, and also what I see in a quick comparison between my M10 and GRII. It also roughly agrees with the DXO data, which suggests that at the same ISO the M10 under-exposes by almost a full stop compared to the GR.

 

It is difficult to make a precise evaluation without using something like Raw Digger to analyse the files. But in CO11 the default processing tends to exaggerate the difference, and CO11's exposure evaluation puts the difference in exposure for two shots with the same ISO, shutter speed and f-stop at about 2/3 a stop - again broadly in agreement with the DXO data.

 

Essentially much of the perception of the M10's "improved" higher ISO performance relative to the M240 comes from this recalibration of the ISO settings. I think that the only meaningful "real" improvement is in reduced pattern noise, which tends not to be caught in the DXO measurements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...