Jump to content

High ISO - M10 vs Q


Guest tofu_man

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The marking of the iso scale of the M10 is over rated .

 

I have experience with the M8 , M9 , M240 and I have done comparisons various time with friends that own M10 and Q .

 

For example with same lens , the 35 Cron , and with the M9 , M240 , M10 with the same F-stop and the same shutter-speed , in order to get the same exposure you have to set the iso as following :

 

" M9 @ 2500 , M240 @ 3200 , M10 @ 5000 " with those iso the cameras have all three almost the same sensitivity that is measured around 2300 also from the DXO analysis .

 

Or in reverse with those iso setting and the same F-stop , in Aperture priority you get the same shutter-speed .

 

Like the M8 and M9 , the Q is also sincere in the iso-marking and there is a full stop of difference in comparison with the M10 . In other words the M10 at 3200 is like the Q at 1600 . 

 

Or maybe if you prefer you can see this in the other way .... the markings of the iso scale on the M8 , M9 , M240 and Q are all under rated in comparison with the ones of the M10  :D  .

 

It's not a problem of course , you have only to make familiarity with the new numeration  :) and the M10 performs nice at 6400 and with no banding , while the M240 and Q suffer of it a little .

 

Btw the real low-ight performance advantage between the M10 and the Q is almost not existing ..... and it's minimal in comparison with the M240 , around 0.5 stop .

 

Regards , Gianluca

Edited by janlu
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a little test today comparing the M10 with the Sony A7RM3.

 

Both cameras where set to manual iso (800) Manual exposure following reflected meter reading with 308s meter, both camera's using 50mm lenses set to F2

 

The meter came up with a direct reading of 1/125th second @ F3.6 iso 800, I therefore decided to shoot at 1/60th second @ f2 fixed iso of 800, centre weighted metering, no exp comp on either camera and LV off on the M10.

 

These are the resulting images:

 

 

Sony A7RM3

 

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!

 

 

Leica M10

 

 

Its clear to see that the image from the Sony is 2 stops brighter but and its a big but the Leica image is more representative of the tonality of the subject, i.e. its brightness is closest to the real life view, certainly within 1/3 of a stop.

 

So to my thinking unless both my light meter (Sekonic 308s) and the M10 are completely wrong the Sony is over exposing rather than the leica under exposing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All my M leica digitals need 1.5 to 2 stops more exposure than should be required by sunny 16 or expensive hand meters.  The camera meter will give me correct exposure but "too long" when metered off neutral grey under same light conditions.

 

Example iso 160  5.6   1/500 to 1/750 sec.   I have learned to accept this.

 

I have numerous pro level Nikons that do not behave this way.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that theme was discussed last December in the respective ISO thread. As a matter of fact the M10 is different to quite a lot of other cameras. In the mentioned other thread it was explained why that was and beside other things it had to do with the (unclear) definition of ISO. Nevertheless DxO (you might like them or not) shows a deviation of about 1 LV.

 

I must admit that despite all the arguments that I thankfully could read in this forum I still do not really understand why this should be correct with the M10. In my brain (since last December) whenever I shoot high ISO (just did a few night shots in an alpine village these last days) I half the ISO that are shown on the knob of my M10. So a setting of 6400 I see in my grey cells as 3200.

 

But to be clear: The result is stunning and I love my M10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 "Do I have a camera or photographer issue or have others experienced the same when comparing the M10 with other cameras?" but the usual forum suspects simply jump up and down at the slightest hint of implied criticism of Leica.

 

If you have a photographer issue it should be easy to resolve and not need Leica to point it out. If you see your camera underexposing or over exposing a scene you adjust it, not sit dumbly on your hands waiting for the world to change around you. You say you 'work' in low light situations, so work, being a photographer is about understanding equipment and taking charge of it, not it take charge of you. You can translate that philosophy into any pastime or industry.

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

The marking of the iso scale of the M10 is over rated .

 

I have experience with the M8 , M9 , M240 and I have done comparisons various time with friends that own M10 and Q .

 

For example with same lens , the 35 Cron , and with the M9 , M240 , M10 with the same F-stop and the same shutter-speed , in order to get the same exposure you have to set the iso as following :

 

" M9 @ 2500 , M240 @ 3200 , M10 @ 5000 " with those iso the cameras have all three almost the same sensitivity that is measured around 2300 also from the DXO analysis .

 

Or in reverse with those iso setting and the same F-stop , in Aperture priority you get the same shutter-speed .

 

Like the M8 and M9 , the Q is also sincere in the iso-marking and there is a full stop of difference in comparison with the M10 . In other words the M10 at 3200 is like the Q at 1600 . 

 

Or maybe if you prefer you can see this in the other way .... the markings of the iso scale on the M8 , M9 , M240 and Q are all under rated in comparison with the ones of the M10  :D  .

 

It's not a problem of course , you have only to make familiarity with the new numeration  :) and the M10 performs nice at 6400 and with no banding , while the M240 and Q suffer of it a little .

 

Btw the real low-ight performance advantage between the M10 and the Q is almost not existing ..... and it's minimal in comparison with the M240 , around 0.5 stop .

 

Regards , Gianluca

 

 

Leica got back to me very quickly:

 

"HQ got similar results in some cases only 1 stop difference. The light meter should work similar in all cameras. Would you please kindly provide some example pictures and the settings. Especially at the M10, if the pictures were taken in Live View or through the range finder. Thank you"

 

The more carefully taken M10 and Q DNGs I sent today showed just over 1 stop difference at ISO3200. Q at 1/400 sec and M10 at 1/180 with both at F/2.0.

 

Seems rather strange to me why none of the beta testers and reviewers picked up on this. Instead we got misleading plaudits about the M10's high ISO capability, e.g. "Generally speaking a 2 stop advantage seems to be about right, getting slightly less as one goes into extremely high ISO."

Edited by tofu_man
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a little test today comparing the M10 with the Sony A7RM3.

 

Both cameras where set to manual iso (800) Manual exposure following reflected meter reading with 308s meter, both camera's using 50mm lenses set to F2

 

The meter came up with a direct reading of 1/125th second @ F3.6 iso 800, I therefore decided to shoot at 1/60th second @ f2 fixed iso of 800, centre weighted metering, no exp comp on either camera and LV off on the M10.

 

These are the resulting images:

 

 

Sony A7RM3

 

attachicon.gifDSC01054.jpg

 

 

Leica M10

 

attachicon.gifL1001071.jpg

 

Its clear to see that the image from the Sony is 2 stops brighter but and its a big but the Leica image is more representative of the tonality of the subject, i.e. its brightness is closest to the real life view, certainly within 1/3 of a stop.

 

So to my thinking unless both my light meter (Sekonic 308s) and the M10 are completely wrong the Sony is over exposing rather than the leica under exposing.

 

 

Your meter came up with a reading of 1/125 , F3.6 and iso 800.... and if you decide to shoot @ F2 and 1/60  iso 800 you are deliberately overexposing of around 2.5 stop in comparison at the reading of the Sekonic .

 

If you wanted equalizer this exposure using the F2  instead of F3.6 , you had to use a faster shutter speed in order to compensate the more light coming from a larger aperture .

 

In this case : F2 and 1/400 .... iso 800 .

 

Regards , Gianluca

Edited by janlu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I compared several measurements at 3200 ISO, measured with my M10 (center-weighted)and my hand held meter.As well as with the reflected measurement method as with the diffusor on it,mostly all the situations gave the same results.If there was a difference it was never more than half a stop.( in favor of the hand held)

It's the same as in the analogue days when I compared the M6 with a hand held meter.

 

Kind regards, Roel. http://www.roelvisser.nl

Edited by roelv1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman

I've compared my M10 and A7rIII lately, and when exposed at the matching exposure (which means about 0.7 EV more exposure dialled in on the M10 due to the big ISO value differences) the A7rIII retains details in the highlights remarkably well, when the M10 simply blows them out. I noticed this very easily while making some test shots of my guitar, which has chromed hardware. To my surprise the A7rIII actually kept most of the details in the specular highlights (reflections in the chromed hardware from outside window), and I was able to recover even more. The M10 however, at the exact same exposure, blew out the details in the specular highlights completely, and they were not recoverable in post.

 

So, some cameras do better at preserving highlights than others. Otherwise the raw files from both cameras more or less looked the same, and the contrast level was about the same as well. Based on my short experience, it seems like the M10 needs to be severely under-exposed if you have very bright highlights in a scene that you want to keep. For some reason the M10 exposures almost needs to be exposed the same way as the M Monochrom (1st version) to preserve highlights... Which is not something I expected at all. I seem to remember that the M240 was more forgiving in exposure, and that highlights was more recoverable on the M240 than on the M10.

 

 

The first paragraph in the quote points in the direction of the words of the OP in this thread (post #16 above), i.e., that Leica has made blatantly false claims about the higher ISOs of the M10. The Indegaard post also states that the M10 has to be underexposed inordinately not to blow highlights. I haven't shot with my M10 for several months, but found that I had to underexpose the M10 much more than the M9 and MM that I previously had.

 

These two points go in different directions. That is, at higher ISOs with the M10: you have to expose more than with other cameras, and expose less not to blow highlights. As the OP states, this is particularly problematic for night photography.

 

I can't test because the only digital camera I have is the M10 and my l handheld light meter is the Sekonic 398A, which is inadequate for lowlight photography. Seems to me that some careful testing is needed here: has Leica really overstated the ISOs of the M10 to such a great extent — and have the usual testers missed this issue? 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Nowhereman Instagram

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been talked about before, but the one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that f/2 from one lens might be not exactly the same f/2 from another lens. To be tested more accurately the same lens needs to be placed on the different bodies - otherwise you might not be letting in quite equivalent amounts of light - this can probably account for up to 1/3 stop of error.

 

That said, the M10 ISO does seem to be a bit overstated in my experience. I live with it - but it goes in to my overall impression that the sensor is the weak point of the camera. I've learned to accept that. It's disappointing for such a pricey tool, but in the real world it doesn't limit me all that much - and when it does that's why I have the Sony cameras.

 

I'll just repeat it again - the M10 is great as working tool for most applications but is not leading technology, especially with regards to IQ. Don't buy it for the sensor. Buy it for everything else, and get ready to just accept the sensor as feeling 5 years old and use it for what it is. I wish Leica would just be more straightforward with the ISO numbers though. They probably felt pressure to say the M10 was improved from the M240 in terms of IQ, when really it seems to be more of a lateral move, just some tweaks to the processing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been talked about before, but the one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that f/2 from one lens might be not exactly the same f/2 from another lens. To be tested more accurately the same lens needs to be placed on the different bodies - otherwise you might not be letting in quite equivalent amounts of light - this can probably account for up to 1/3 stop of error.

Ummm...

Well, in any case I would advise doing a controlled experiment: Cameras on a tripod, use the same lens ( f-stop may be the same but T-stop will be different when using different lenses). use the same metering method ( multifield) on the same subject with exactly the same framing under constant light. The histograms will show you the exact exposure difference.

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...