Jump to content

High ISO - M10 vs Q


Guest tofu_man

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just two quick ones with the same lens on the α7R III and the M10 handheld at ISO 10000 before I call it a day. More to come over the next few days. Opened in LR, equal amount of sharpening and NR, WB adjusted to try to match, exposure and tones not touched. Raw files can be made available. 

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 picture upsized to 42 MPx)

 

Sony + APO 50 Summicron-M

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!

ISO 10000 f/2.0 @1/60 sec.

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

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 picture upsized to 42 MPx)

 

M10 + APO 50 Summicron-M

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!

ISO 10000 f/2.0 @1/60 sec.

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

Active threads have discussed sensor/imaging pipeline quirks for about a year now. We all experience the quirks differently and so the topics have varied, but generally any issues that have been brought up with regards to the sensor were, for the most part, met with dismissive remarks. I rarely shoot at high ISO, so it never bothered me much, however the lack of highlight retention when exposing in a way that is consistent with other digital cameras - which is tied in with this as previous posts suggest - have been remarked on consistently. That said, issues regarding the ISO have been posted about too, if not fleshed out so much because, again, of the tendency to dismiss the possibility of inherent flaws (or, um, differences) in the imaging pipeline.

 

It doesn't mean you can't make good pictures with the M10, but the way the sensor works is generally weird, and in many situations subpar - compared to other cameras out there. 

 

But to your point, these issues were spotted as soon as photographers started using it - even if they didn't know exactly how to say what was wrong. .

I have no horse in this race, not being an M10 owner - not even an aspiring one.

But I see differences in defining ISO, exposure methods, measuring techniques and personal interpretation being conflated into one big issue in this thread.

Agree, it is useful to know what is going on, but without the rationale of the designers of the camera, it is all rather up in the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman

As has pointed out several times in this thread, it what is more surprising is that the reviewers of the M10, who should have been testing the camera in an organized and complete manner, have not addressed these issues in an clear way. Makes you wonder about the quality if camera reviews these days.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Nowhereman Instagram

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap - "defining ISO, exposure methods, and measuring techniques" are already conflated, in a single field of study called "sensitometry." In the film era it also included (or conflated) development chemistry and techniques. They are inseparable, and must be "conflated," because all the parts influence each other, and a change to one means a change in the others.

 

Ansel Adams' "Zone System" is just that - a system covering practical sensitometric testing and evaluation of all those things, and also allowing for the subjective "personal interpretation" part, as "previsualizion" of the desired (as opposed to "correct") final image.

 

If anything, the mistake has been taking each of those areas of sensitometry as separate issues on separate threads. Because they probably are related.

 

DPreview .com mentioned the recoverable shadow detail situation on the date of official announcement (Jan. 18, 2017). See halfway down the page here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-m10-first-impressions-sample-images/4

 

So I knew about it from the get-go, and it factored into my buying decision (positively) - and I figured everyone else knew about it from the get-go also (after all, anyone who is anyone reads dpreview - don't they? ;) ).

 

Why is it coming up now, 18 months later? Well, the OP only just bought his "new M10" recently, and raised a question - now. A camera and its performance are "new and unexplored" so long as it is available as a current product and new users are experiencing it for the first time.

 

As it happens, also now in 9/2018, I myself am reviewing my whole calibration setup (as one should, from time to time) - printer profiles, camera calibration, updated camera and printer firmware, etc. - and also trying out a new and "different" lens (35 Summarit). The Summarit's contrast and color differences vis-à-vis my Mandler lenses revived my interest and "examination" of exactly what Leica has done in the M10 image processing, and why.

 

And while I myself know how to work around the M10's weird image processing, and accepted it as a "creative decision" by Leica for reasons already stated, I'm no longer sure it doesn't cause more "perception problems" than it solves.

 

Nowhereman just posted again as I write, so I'll continue by saying that this is 2018 and the Internet age. Anyone with a web page to support and/or a video camera, can "review" a camera. No surprise that a majority of "reviewers" have the technical expertise of a... no, strike that... but mostly come up with reviews along the lines of "The Leica M10 is a joy to hold and shoot with."

 

Which - BTW - I agree with. But it is hardly a serious observation.

 

The usually-more serious reviewers haven't been forthcoming - maybe they are as confused as we are (or simply have not yet had time, nor received a camera). Dpreview did a preview, but no deep technical review yet. LL has done nothing. Irwin Puts mostly focuses on the structural changes (thinness, viewfinder/RF, ISO knob) and differences in noise, and vs. the MM for resolution. No mention of ISO accuracy or highlights or tone curve.

 

Sean Reid, I don't know. May have to subscribe, since he has an article comparing highlight headroom on the M240, M10 and SL.

 

One might ask why the beta-testers didn't raise issues with Leica, but that of course is sub-rosa. Certainly the M8 beta-testers more or less appeared to have missed the whole IR magenta thing, and the streaks, green blobs and sensor "mirroring". The M8 had far more actual sensor issues than the M10, whose problems I'm pretty sure are strictly due to downstream processing of the images, not a sensor fault as such. (One should not blame an engine for the effects of a faulty transmission.)

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

I don’t mind if they correct it by firmware but then they should give me a sticker with the new ISO markings for the knob.

 

Probably not necessary ;) . Really, I'm sure this has nothing to do with the sensor per se, but is entirely in the downstream handling of the sensor's data. Set the camera to ISO 200 and you'll still get essentially the same image, just with less shadow and highlight recovery hoops to jump through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll just report this, to balance my other comments. Here is one of my early M10 shots, St. Patrick's Day 2017, with totally default exposure ("A", no exp. comp.) and processing (whatever the camera does, plus "0" settings in Adobe Camera Raw.)

 

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!

 

Whaddya know - on a dreary, rainy, gray winter day in the middle latitudes (Denver - or might we say, Wetzlar?), the default M10 processing looks - pretty good! Shiny highlights nudge 245-250, shadows dark but with good separation. Hmmmm....

 

Of course, the problem is that 80% of the photographable world is not Denver/Wetzlar on a gray, rainy, winter day. Maybe that was not the best "default" to aim for, in programming the M10 firmware. Hmmmmm.....?

 

To Nowhereman, as a bright tropics guy, you might be interested in Leica's own M10 "proof" samples. Especially the pictures by Maik Scharfscheer (exact location unknown, available also as downloadable .dngs). Highlights blown to smithereens in many shots - but I guess that is his aesthetic. And compare/contrast with those by Fulvio Bugani (not downloadable, so I can't check his settings, but Havana, from the looks of it). The old Dave Harvey/Alex Webb "underexposed Velvia/Kodachrome" look. Significant details rising out of an often pure black matrix.

 

In any event, Leica thinks those show off the camera well.

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M10/Images

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap - "defining ISO, exposure methods, and measuring techniques" are already conflated, in a single field of study called "sensitometry." In the film era it also included (or conflated) development chemistry and techniques. They are inseparable, and must be "conflated," because all the parts influence each other, and a change to one means a change in the others.

 

Ansel Adams' "Zone System" is just that - a system covering practical sensitometric testing and evaluation of all those things, and also allowing for the subjective "personal interpretation" part, as "previsualizion" of the desired (as opposed to "correct") final image.

 

If anything, the mistake has been taking each of those areas of sensitometry as separate issues on separate threads. Because they probably are related.

 

DPreview .com mentioned the recoverable shadow detail situation on the date of official announcement (Jan. 18, 2017). See halfway down the page here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-m10-first-impressions-sample-images/4

 

So I knew about it from the get-go, and it factored into my buying decision (positively) - and I figured everyone else knew about it from the get-go also (after all, anyone who is anyone reads dpreview - don't they? ;) ).

 

Why is it coming up now, 18 months later? Well, the OP only just bought his "new M10" recently, and raised a question - now. A camera and its performance are "new and unexplored" so long as it is available as a current product and new users are experiencing it for the first time.

 

As it happens, also now in 9/2018, I myself am reviewing my whole calibration setup (as one should, from time to time) - printer profiles, camera calibration, updated camera and printer firmware, etc. - and also trying out a new and "different" lens (35 Summarit). The Summarit's contrast and color differences vis-à-vis my Mandler lenses revived my interest and "examination" of exactly what Leica has done in the M10 image processing, and why.

 

And while I myself know how to work around the M10's weird image processing, and accepted it as a "creative decision" by Leica for reasons already stated, I'm no longer sure it doesn't cause more "perception problems" than it solves.

 

Nowhereman just posted again as I write, so I'll continue by saying that this is 2018 and the Internet age. Anyone with a web page to support and/or a video camera, can "review" a camera. No surprise that a majority of "reviewers" have the technical expertise of a... no, strike that... but mostly come up with reviews along the lines of "The Leica M10 is a joy to hold and shoot with."

 

Which - BTW - I agree with. But it is hardly a serious observation.

 

The usually-more serious reviewers haven't been forthcoming - maybe they are as confused as we are (or simply have not yet had time, nor received a camera). Dpreview did a preview, but no deep technical review yet. LL has done nothing. Irwin Puts mostly focuses on the structural changes (thinness, viewfinder/RF, ISO knob) and differences in noise, and vs. the MM for resolution. No mention of ISO accuracy or highlights or tone curve.

 

Sean Reid, I don't know. May have to subscribe, since he has an article comparing highlight headroom on the M240, M10 and SL.

 

One might ask why the beta-testers didn't raise issues with Leica, but that of course is sub-rosa. Certainly the M8 beta-testers more or less appeared to have missed the whole IR magenta thing, and the streaks, green blobs and sensor "mirroring". The M8 had far more actual sensor issues than the M10, whose problems I'm pretty sure are strictly due to downstream processing of the images, not a sensor fault as such. (One should not blame an engine for the effects of a faulty transmission.)

Completely agree - but this thread is about a very specific part of the system - the ISO settings (and, by implication, response curve) of the M10.

I completely agree with you, the end result of the whole chain is what counts, not some numbers in between. You mention the zone system; I cannot recall Ansel Adams lifting the film sensitivity out of context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once parsed out - this thread is no longer specifically about the ISO, but about the general quirks of the sensor readout, as Adan has thoughtfully pointed out and explained.

So those of us that experienced strange behavior that manifest in a different way, are in essence acknowledging the same underlying issue.

 

I am not very science-minded - I am intuitive. I shoot a lot of pictures, and my work process comes from using the tools. I appreciate Adan's explanation as to how and why the dynamic range, shadow recovery, ISO traits etc are all actually interrelated and have been from the get-go - and it reinforces the point that while the terms may have varied due to the user's habits in photography, the issues regarding Leica's....interesting...interpretation of the sensor data have been talked about on this forum for awhile now.

 

Most of us, being photographers and not scientists, or not having the knowledge of what goes in to the programming of the sensor have to go with what we know which is "this camera acts a little weird" - whether it is the poor performance of highlight retention of the previously thought base ISO of 100, or the strange exposure readings compared to ISO of other cameras. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any event, Leica thinks those show off the camera well.

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M10/Images

 

And so do I.  Hadn't noticed these before, thanks for referencing them.  Speaks strongly to how vision and skill can eviscerate virtually any concern about the imperfection of the tool. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once parsed out - this thread is no longer specifically about the ISO, but about the general quirks of the sensor readout, as Adan has thoughtfully pointed out and explained.

So those of us that experienced strange behavior that manifest in a different way, are in essence acknowledging the same underlying issue.

 

I am not very science-minded - I am intuitive. I shoot a lot of pictures, and my work process comes from using the tools. I appreciate Adan's explanation as to how and why the dynamic range, shadow recovery, ISO traits etc are all actually interrelated and have been from the get-go - and it reinforces the point that while the terms may have varied due to the user's habits in photography, the issues regarding Leica's....interesting...interpretation of the sensor data have been talked about on this forum for awhile now.

 

Most of us, being photographers and not scientists, or not having the knowledge of what goes in to the programming of the sensor have to go with what we know which is "this camera acts a little weird" - whether it is the poor performance of highlight retention of the previously thought base ISO of 100, or the strange exposure readings compared to ISO of other cameras. 

 

Thanks for that summary. Particularly these phrases: "...the general quirks of the sensor readout," and "Leica's....interesting...interpretation of the sensor data."

 

A sensor is a pretty simple device - within each pixel, it converts photons into electrons (CCD) or a voltage (CMOS) that flow out and are counted or measured. Ideally that is straightforward and linear - 1 photon coming in results in 1 electron or picovolt out, 2 photons in equals 2 electrons/picovolts out....16000 photons in, 16000 electrons or picovolts out. ± some quantum effects, losses (photons that don't knock loose an electron) and/or "noise." And up to the saturation point, where a given pixel cannot hold any more electrons or picovolts, and can't distinguish any more tonal detail (pure white = "blown"). On the order of 10s of thousands of photons/electrons per pixel - depends on the pixel structure and size.

 

And that doesn't change if one changes the "ISO" setting - the pixel's doped silicon just plods along, pumping out 1 unit of "signal" per photon detected. We can't squeeze more electrons or picovolts out of the pixel. What we and the camera can do is amplify the output signal in processing - shoot at 4 stops higher than the natural base ISO of the sensor, and the signal gets multiplied or amplified by 16x (24x).

 

Now, after 180 years of seeing silver-based photographs, we are not used to seeing a perfectly linear depiction of the world's brightnesses. Silver captures "photons in" and converts them to "silver density out" on an S-shaped curve, not a 1:1 relationship.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurter_and_Driffield#/media/File:H%26D_curve.png

 

Therefore, even more processing of the image is done (applying a tone curve), to "bend" the straight-line linear sensor output into something that "looks" more like a film image's tonal output.

 

Bottom line - hand me the pure untouched output of the best sensor in the world, and I can apply some math to it and make it look like garbage. All we ever "see" as a photograph is the processed result, not what the sensor itself achieves. To critique a camera's image qualities, mostly we need to critique the mathematics applied, not the sensor silicon itself. Except for a few very gross physical things like S/N ratio, IR sensitivity, blurring from the glass cover plate, or resolution.

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

It's time again to compare some M10 sensor read-out vs. the α7R III shot with the same lens at the same ISO and aperture. M10 looks pretty good to me. WB adjusted to try to match, equal amount of vignetting adjustment, equal amount of sharpening, no NR, tones not touched. Raw files can be made available.

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 pictures upsized to 42 MPx)

 

α7R III + APO 50 Summicron-M

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!

ISO 200 f/2.0 @1/250 sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WB adjusted to try to match, equal amount of vignetting adjustment, equal amount of sharpening, no NR, tones not touched. Raw files can be made available.

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 pictures upsized to 42 MPx)

 

M10 + APO 50 Summicron-M

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!

ISO 200 f/2.0 @1/250 sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WB adjusted to try to match, equal amount of vignetting adjustment, equal amount of sharpening, equal amount of NR, tones not touched. Raw files can be made available.

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 pictures upsized to 42 MPx)

 

α7R III + APO 50 Summicron-M

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!

ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WB adjusted to try to match, equal amount of vignetting adjustment, equal amount of sharpening, equal amount of NR, tones not touched. Raw files can be made available.

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 pictures upsized to 42 MPx)

 

M10 + APO 50 Summicron-M

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!

ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now with these adjustments to both.

 

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!

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 pictures upsized to 42 MPx)

 

α7R III + APO 50 Summicron-M

ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, same toning as the Sony. M10 sensor read-out is kind of sh!t.

 

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!

 

I'll keep doing these.  :)

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Tf4QtS/ (M10 pictures upsized to 42 MPx)

 

M10 + APO 50 Summicron-M

ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman

Chaemono - What you're saying here is what adan said in his post #87, that, if you chose a scene with contrast that does not pose a challenge, there is no issue — but, as he says,  the problem is that 80% of the photographable world is not that type of scene, so that "maybe that was not the best "default" to aim for, in programming the M10 firmware".

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Nowhereman Instagram

Edited by Nowhereman
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...