Jump to content

High ISO - M10 vs Q


Guest tofu_man
 Share

Recommended Posts

So we have a 2-stop difference in shutter speed. 1/6 > 1/12 > 1/25.

 

The M10 image shown on the previous page is clearly at least 1 stop brighter than the Ricoh/Q images. That accounts for one of the two stops difference in shutter speed - if you'd exposed the M10 image at 1/12th sec, it would have the same overall brightness as the other two.

 

Did you use the M10's regular off-the-shutter-blades metering - or did you use EVF/Live view, and metering from the image sensor, to replicate how the Q and Ricoh meter? A difference in metering pattern will totally foul up any conclusions about "correctness," since they may be based on metering different combinations or percentages of dark wall and bright paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked mine with the same results, by now wit the way technology has evolved we should be able to put the same exposure settings in any camera and get an image thats at worst 1/3 stop out, not 1-2 stops as we're seeing.

How did you meter on both cameras?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With shutter dial set to auto, the Q is programmed not to go under 60th of a second unless light conditions are truly near pitch black. It would happily just raise the ISO instead. The best way to test high ISO performance between these two cameras is to use full manual settings, have both camera settings exactly the same (ISO, Aperture, SS, and metering mode), then look at the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm something isnt right. I owned a Q and still have my M10... Only at 25000 ISO and above was bothered by the noise performance of the M10, which I rarely ever hit. But the Q on the other had i was not overly impressed with by comparison.

This is my impression as well. I've not done any direct comparisons, but my impression is that I have more flexibility and less noise with the M10 than the Q under similar conditions.  

 

As it happens on a Q, 1/60 of a second is a suspicion number.  Seems unlikely, but one is forced to ask if there was a chance that auto-iso was enabled? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The funny thing is, I have no trouble getting good (IMO) pictures with my M10 (& my M9, 8 etc) without comparing them to 'other' cameras. Such a false practice will nearly always lead to dissatisfaction. What that means is, if I buy a Sony, or a Q, my M10 will suddenly be faulty! I don't think so. (Fact is I have a Sony, but I don't compare them against each other. I just use them.)

 

Some previous posters have given a clue to explaining the differences, but so what. Start using the damn thing the way it works, or sell it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

I don't get it.  From the images above, the M10 image is more exposed than the other 2.  You might feel they're over-exposed, in which case you adjust your exposure compensation to what you like (bearing in mind that you want to protect your highlights).  But it would seem to me that you meter is working perfectly on your M10 - I can't say it is two stops more exposed than the other two, but it might well be.

 

Where's the problem?  Surely it's a case of getting the exposure you want, which is little more than setting up your camera in a way which works for you; how your camera meters compared to other cameras strikes me as largely irrelevant.  Clearly the meter is working.  If you take the same picture, also at 1/25, I assume you get a similar image ...

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just point out the governing standard for digital camera ISO - ISO 12232:206

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index

 

and some salient points:

 

"The ISO standard ISO 12232:2006 gives digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different techniques for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model."

 

[Roughly speaking, based on highlight saturation exposure (blowing the highlights), or medium gray exposure ("Standard Output Sensitivity") or noise-based techniques (essentially shadow exposure - which itself has the subjective definitions of what produces an "excellent" or "usable" picture.]

"The standard specifies the measurement of light sensitivity of the entire digital camera system and not of individual components such as digital sensors..."

 

[in other words, what is the total effect of metering (before the exposure), sensor sensitivity (during the exposure) and image processing in the camera (after the exposure).]

"The Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique, new in the 2006 version of the standard, allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model’s EI choices arbitrarily. The choices are based solely on the manufacturer’s opinion of what EI values produce well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings......This is also the only technique available under the standard when multi-zone metering (also called pattern metering) is used."

"The Standard Output Sensitivity (SOS) technique, also new in the 2006 version of the standard, effectively specifies that the average level in the sRGB image must be 18% gray plus or minus 1/3 stop when the exposure is controlled by an automatic exposure control system..."

 

[Note: if one manufacturer is within the tolerance +1/3rd stop, and another is within the tolerance -1/3rd stop, the total variation can be as much as 2/3rds-stop across those two different cameras and still be within the specification]

 

I did a test of the M10 using a rough version of the SOS technique - use an 18% gray subject patch, metering the 18% gray subject patch with both the M10 classic meter and a hand-held Sekonic, measuring the straight-processed rendering of the 18% gray patch (brightness of ~118 on the 0-255 8-bit brightness scale). Checked both .dngs and sRGB jpegs.

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279882-dxo-mark-leica-m10-score/?p=3435404

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

The funny thing is, I have no trouble getting good (IMO) pictures with my M10 (& my M9, 8 etc) without comparing them to 'other' cameras. Such a false practice will nearly always lead to dissatisfaction. What that means is, if I buy a Sony, or a Q, my M10 will suddenly be faulty! I don't think so. (Fact is I have a Sony, but I don't compare them against each other. I just use them.)

 

Some previous posters have given a clue to explaining the differences, but so what. Start using the damn thing the way it works, or sell it.

 

A rather silly response especially from a moderator. This is not an issue about getting 'good photos'.

 

I shoot a lot at night and my default ISO on the Q is 1600 which gives me usable shutter speeds, say 1/30 to 1/90 at wide apertures.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that using the same ISO 1600 with my M10, I'll be able to use similar shutter speeds.

 

From experience so far, I need to use ISO 5000-6400 to get the same results as I get on my Q at ISO1600. 

 

Either I and other photographers I know have a fault with our M10s or Leica has gamed the high ISO sensitivity so the M10 stands up performance-wise to the Q and SL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

I'll just point out the governing standard for digital camera ISO - ISO 12232:206

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index

 

and some salient points:

 

"The ISO standard ISO 12232:2006 gives digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different techniques for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model."

 

 [[snipped for brevity]]

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279882-dxo-mark-leica-m10-score/?p=3435404

 

Thanks but I'm not convinced that all your points are as salient as you suggest. Even given the ISO flexibility allowed to manufacturers, it's reasonable to expect that a given manufacturer such as Leica will stick to the same process and standard for their entire camera range.

 

And thank you for too for the link to an earlier thread which I had missed....I was interested to see Alex U's comment below (my bolding)

 

 

What strikes me is the inaccuracy of the ISOs (manufacturer ISO vs. measured ISO). I know no other camera with such a high deviation of almost a full stop. As a matter of fact an ISO setting of 3200 on the M10 is only 1600. For a precision instrument as the M10 should be this is very bad news. All cameras have a certain deviation. For marketing reasons this is quite usefull. But almost a full LV is too much. No wonder I said somewhere else in this forum that the M10 is capable for very high ISOs. I believed that the value was correct with a Leica.

 

Maybe DxO had a pre series camera???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only at 25000 ISO and above was bothered by the noise performance of the M10.

 

 

Wow. For colour use, I start to struggle with the M10 at ISO 3200 (and the older M262 at ISO 1600 - again broadly consistent with the ISO calibration change).

 

As well as noise, there is also the loss of dynamic range. You can offset the latter to some extent by deliberately underexposing and lifting the exposure in post processing, because at ISO 800 and up the M10 is essentially 'ISO less'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even given the ISO flexibility allowed to manufacturers, it's reasonable to expect that a given manufacturer such as Leica will stick to the same process and standard for their entire camera range.

 

 

You seem never to have worked with or inside a technology marketing team ;-)

 

Camera companies do this all the time. When Canon was struggling with its in-house sensor designs they did two things. Firstly they changed the ISO measure, and then they tried using a weaker colour filter array. Each change was marketed as a huge increase in high-ISO capability, yet the underlying sensor technology was unchanged.

 

Personally I would love to have honest product descriptions from manufacturers. But that is not what companies' sales and marketing groups do...

Link to post
Share on other sites

From just using eyeball technology I'd say split the difference, the Q and Ricoh photos are a stop under exposed (not unusual in a more amateur orientated camera to make shooting highlights 'idiot proof'), and the M10 image is one stop over exposed. As Ansel Adams once said 'work with knowledge', which patently the OP is failing to do. If the M10 is over exposing for the photographers requirements use exposure compensation, if the Q is spot on then great, you've found it works 'as intended'. 

 

It is unusual to find any photographer who actually believes their camera's meter 100% under all conditions, and even more unusual to find two meters that coincide exactly in picking up highlights and shadows the same way. But there are two things going on with un-adjusted average readings between meters and the recording medium, one is the sensitivity of the meter, the other is interpretation. Both factors have gone alongside each other throughout the history of photography, which is worth boning up on for perspectives sake. Put two different makes of film in a camera, both 400 ISO, use the same meter and with the same settings, and once processed everybody and their dog will say 'but 'x' film needs an extra half stop of exposure', or similar. It isn't any different with digital cameras, which is why the OP's sweeping statements are based simply on a basic misunderstanding of everything.

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

A rather silly response especially from a moderator. This is not an issue about getting 'good photos'.

 

I shoot a lot at night and my default ISO on the Q is 1600 which gives me usable shutter speeds, say 1/30 to 1/90 at wide apertures.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that using the same ISO 1600 with my M10, I'll be able to use similar shutter speeds.

 

From experience so far, I need to use ISO 5000-6400 to get the same results as I get on my Q at ISO1600. 

 

Either I and other photographers I know have a fault with our M10s or Leica has gamed the high ISO sensitivity so the M10 stands up performance-wise to the Q and SL.

First let me say, Moderators are just as silly as ordinary members, maybe even more so. I plead guilty without the need to be told.

 

Also, the issue IS about getting good photos. Why else use a camera?

 

However, I do have some understanding of the differences between apples and oranges. I suspect you do have a bag of fruit in your camera bag. As for the differences between the Q and the M10, well you are better qualified than me to assess that. I don't have a Q. On advertised specs and features, I would expect them to be significantly different, such that comparing them is a bit like moderators. ie silly.

 

I have spent thousands of hours shooting night and dark environs with 800iso film (the reasonable limit of film) in M7's and 6's. I do know about 'dark' shooting and it's challenges. I have also got extensive hours with M9 & 10 in the same environments. Greatly improved over the film days, for iso performance. Now if you find the Q is superior for your night experiences, why not stick to it. Personally, I find the M10 very good and definitely not unusable, but you are free to differ. My experiences were mainly paid assignments, so I had to be fussy. Now retired (I think) I find I am still fussy, but about different things.

 

I am wondering why you chose the M10 in view of your criticism of it. Don't get me wrong. Criticism is necessary, but it is one of the tools to guide choice. How did you apply it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

You seem never to have worked with or inside a technology marketing team ;-)

 

Camera companies do this all the time. When Canon was struggling with its in-house sensor designs they did two things. Firstly they changed the ISO measure, and then they tried using a weaker colour filter array. Each change was marketed as a huge increase in high-ISO capability, yet the underlying sensor technology was unchanged.

 

Personally I would love to have honest product descriptions from manufacturers. But that is not what companies' sales and marketing groups do...

 

 

funny....I had technology marketing teams reporting to me in previous career roles. I worked in technology for 30 odd years, initially with IBM in 1970 and latterly with a company with a famous lab in New Jersey that invented the Digital Signal Processor among other things.

 

And, yes, I completely agree with you about marketing honesty. 

 

Anyway, I've emailed Leica, and will be interested to see their reply. As my original post indicated: "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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest tofu_man

Let us know the reponse. I bet a roll of HP4 that you will get the ISO norm quoted bak at you, or some other form of woolly response.

 

 

I won't bother coming back here...it's not worth the time or hassle...there are too many members who like nothing better than kicking newbies in the ankles 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

The same lens on a Q and an M10? 

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...