Jump to content
Guest tofu_man

High ISO - M10 vs Q

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You’re welcome, indergaard, but I’m not done yet. And, whenever BS claims about the M10 appear, this is the third thread now, I will repost the links to the Raw files. My aim is to get to about 20 to 30 pairs to counter the BS.

 

I've had a quick look at your files now, and based on the histograms, I can see that your M10 records images with about -0.2 EV less than the A7rIII at the same setting with the same lens. Shadow detail remains more or less the same on both. All files was imported to the latest Adobe Lightroom CC Classic version 7.5 with the default import settings (Adobe Color profile and no adjustments or lens corrections applied).

 

The difference is less than the tests I previously did, probably because you are using the same lens on both cameras. I compared the M10 with the Summilux 50 ASPH and the A7rIII with the Zeiss Sonnar FE 55/1.8. Apparently the Sonnar must have a higher T-Stop value than the Summilux, because the differences I saw (based on histograms) were up to about -0.6 EV less on the M10. The Sonnar is a newer lens with fewer glass elements, which probably explains why it let's more light through. Funnily enough, when I compared the M10 + Lux 50 with the A7rIII and the Sony 24-105 F4 G zoom, I got the biggest difference, about +0.8 EV advantage to the Sony, which means the zoom is very effective at gathering light.

Edited by indergaard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the smooth, organic look of the Leica DNGs. It’s just so that Leica M glass works best on its native mount, second best on the Leica L-mount. The Sony ARWs appear more digital, AWB by the camera gives them a bit of a toxic look sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the smooth, organic look of the Leica DNGs. It’s just so that Leica M glass works best on its native mount, second best on the Leica L-mount. The Sony ARWs appear more digital, AWB by the camera gives them a bit of a toxic look sometimes.

 

 

Agreed. The Sony AWB can be tricky at times. Generally I find the M10's AWB to be superior during daylight, but the Sony works better under artificial light indoors at times. What I love most about the M10 is the lenses I can put on it, not the camera itself. And that's by far the M10's biggest advantage over the Sony. I've even tried the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 and 50/2 on the Sony, and while the output is more in line with what I prefer, the lenses still doesn't compare to the Cron/Lux 35 and Lux 50 and the look I get from the M10.

 

I mostly use my Sony with the FE 24-105 and FE 100-400 zooms these days, or with the FE 28/2 for video. During a recent trip hiking around the mountains in Lofoten, northern Norway, I would not want to switch lenses all the times. The a7rIII with these two zooms were fantastic for this type of use. Windy, rainy, stormy, dusty and sunny all within the timespan of a few hours, and the terrain and landscape changes several times during one hour of hiking. Mountain tops all over the place with fantastic rapidly changing light to zoom in on between 200-400mm, which makes for some fantastic detailed landscape vignettes. For this type of use I would have regretted to only use my M10 + 24/35/50/90 lenses. And I would have to change lenses ALL the time. The M10 + lenses was mostly used for architecture and small towns during this trip, where the shooting conditions and scenery was more predictable.

 

And the fact that I can flick the Sony into movie mode and record great 4K footage at the same time is a huge bonus for me personally. I wish the M10 had a basic video recording mode.

Edited by indergaard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great, indergaard, but let's not forget about all those Sunday Raw lovers who want to see some blown highlights (resistance is futile, I will repost them and more 

). 

 

This is something I suspected all along, folks, but the α7R III blows the highlights more. In the next three pairs, even at the α7R III's sweet spot of ISO 640, the DR of the M10 looks superior with better treatment of highlights. Just adjust Exposure by 0.20 more in the Leica files than in the Sony ones and lift Shadows by an equal amount in the two images of a pair. Additionally, don't forget that there is more vignetting in the Sony pictures. Look how beautifully the M10 deals with the highlights. The Sony blows it here.

 

First pair Raw files

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/2000 sec.

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1048879071-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=fGWbSsPNQyQp9s1QY90PaZUcr4g2Bh_dmueiqOewKic=

One has to move the Highlights slider in LR a lot to reveal details in the OOF areas that the M10 file shows in the first place.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/2000 sec.

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g905440933-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=hRFREWU9Yho2pkCal4FKgSqGCBqLFurzTVvEwY8bckw=

 

 

Second Pair Raw files

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/2000 sec.

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g950388764-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=hXcp_4jHKPeWcLSdbPEJxca3xSGPUkSwMeAXmDkRMb8=

Look at the white spot on the back of the white sheep.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/2000 sec.

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g779925139-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=Ts1BUyl92tLqJsCDind8Z3dwOOHGYg5wCDvbgidGzzI=

Look at the beautiful black tones.

 

Third pair Raw files

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/2000 sec.

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g610015734-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=-M5ERUtgNG5qfO7959xhgKvOPcO7f3HY4TofC68ZkSQ=

Look at the tree leaves in the background.

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/2000 sec.

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g765866874-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=UCkIV_ils323HFI6Ri0XIZKXOv29P8aYXnh-iT5ZoUY=

Golden leaves sunlight shimmering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. The Sony AWB can be tricky at times. Generally I find the M10's AWB to be superior during daylight, but the Sony works better under artificial light indoors at times. What I love most about the M10 is the lenses I can put on it, not the camera itself. And that's by far the M10's biggest advantage over the Sony. I've even tried the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 and 50/2 on the Sony, and while the output is more in line with what I prefer, the lenses still doesn't compare to the Cron/Lux 35 and Lux 50 and the look I get from the M10.

 

I mostly use my Sony with the FE 24-105 and FE 100-400 zooms these days, or with the FE 28/2 for video. During a recent trip hiking around the mountains in Lofoten, northern Norway, I would not want to switch lenses all the times. The a7rIII with these two zooms were fantastic for this type of use. Windy, rainy, stormy, dusty and sunny all within the timespan of a few hours, and the terrain and landscape changes several times during one hour of hiking. Mountain tops all over the place with fantastic rapidly changing light to zoom in on between 200-400mm, which makes for some fantastic detailed landscape vignettes. For this type of use I would have regretted to only use my M10 + 24/35/50/90 lenses. And I would have to change lenses ALL the time. The M10 + lenses was mostly used for architecture and small towns during this trip, where the shooting conditions and scenery was more predictable.

 

And the fact that I can flick the Sony into movie mode and record great 4K footage at the same time is a huge bonus for me personally. I wish the M10 had a basic video recording mode.

Amen to that. I would be shooting an M10 if it had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's do one for The Emperor's New Clothes.

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/125 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g33197152-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=x6uQrtwUH9cdGX7nRnrca1Er0svrMEs4x8WHaoyyx20=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/125 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g519159193-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=sgmgm710U5ClIk4Q112LsYDhYQCQEA957Sqor1Bz9g8=

 

If one lifts the Shadows all the way and increases Exposure by 0.70 in LR

 

then the α7R III's DR can't handle it (crop with focus on the price tag of the lamp)

 

M10 (crop with focus on the price tag of the lamp)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now!

 

It is 9€ for the bulb and wire - and €100 for the concept.

Hand-soldered in Germany too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's show a few more. One has got to love how the M10 exposes and protects the highlights.

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g853356379-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=mBBChQe8ioII5DnGs7ExlYhHqUAwlJqwvxcbp9iqriA=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g739205653-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=eg2QZovkWIpEWvvyNRWzwxpTo4iBh4lqamQCM4GJmYk=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g722578329-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=kZkS82j4n1VxYD6PdDte4jgksrL17Njt6ivUfEzMzHg=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g579757105-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=6mJI2PTO_-SBbPYg21jTDxq6uOpQV54R2yiLm2eN80M=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g939220960-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=nd2i60sdfns30BKbnMAWrF-DfPJMdKtnRNXozwdF9LU=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g941195447-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=X6R2uybH7mT8sVF6BnLBW3U5xzL5qj1pJIAYYrdF42U=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1027912310-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=YQ8u5yOPqaV9zBwlQpFbBZCE_O2XjqUa9IyAY32rpb8=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. DNG file):

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g852616896-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=b_q7sezxMs1HzpLO9vQvPUTg6uLQVLikwUjgtEzGpao=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g603831017-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=ey_4eFv6ZdrpeuZYyNKym7uHPydulWtf_eyYZy8aoS8=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g961117186-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=721ptRWvSjsnTCUV8bT4MA_kT5Em-BepWE2-7_ysNkU=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, as a back check on that, we look at the exposure at 3.5 stops over - and in that image, the car "white" of 252

 

We should be careful when describing late model car colors  "white" because some contain independent reflective elements that include sky color; IOW the color depends... Toyota's Blizzard Pearl comes to mind. Try a polarizing filter for more.

Edited by pico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Raw lovers, here is a pair with the 35 Summicron stopped down. What a lens! Unfortunately, the two pictures are not framed the same so that the histogram in LR won't be useful. Still, look at the smooth, silky brown tones in the M10 picture. There is a subtle, be it small, difference to the Sony one that is visible to my eyes. Here, both pictures can be made to look the same in post processing but out of the box I like the M10 file better. I understand that DR does not affect the range of colors that a sensor captures but it should be indirectly related to the range of values for each of the colors that can be recorded. IMO, this shows on the front leg shield cover of the Piaggio scooter. It's not just the brown tones, it's also the shiny parts and the Piaggio logo.

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/8 @1/60 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1003581584-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=pkYz-7VFp4C9795ks9s_WfG9xtwTYY4RD-kFxBCpFkE=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/8 @1/60 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g861217230-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=Kx7eXcLGOsOoIHje8pOcTnoBtNvlLi9vLfpeteYGsfg=

 

Edit: I forgot to mention, the M10 file also captures the shadow details in the lower part of the front leg shield cover more effortlessly. Man, whoever supplied Leica with the M10 sensor did such a great job. 

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should set the Q to Center Weighted metering in order to compare with the M10 using the Range Finder. I believe you had set your Q to MultiZone metering. 

The Metering setting of M10 only applies to LV or  EVF. When using RF the M10 is set to Center Weighted.

 

This might improve your exposure comparison of your M10 and Q. Or you can set the M10 to Multizone metering and use LV or EVF. 

 

Exposure values between Center Weighted and Multizone are different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the OP's central complaint in his initial post that,...

 

tofu_man wrote

"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.

...

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?"

 

...we have to use the same lens because of different T-Stop values of lenses. We cannot rely on F-Stops and compare two cameras with different lenses because the F-Stop is a theoretical value, while the T-Stop is an actual tested value. So, what better way to show that tofu_man has nothing to worry about than to use the same lens on the M10 and the α7R III and post links to pictures taken with the exact same settings. And that's what we are doing. Besides, the Q does not produce ARW files. You probably noticed but you are just pulling my leg

 

Also, the little pink guy below, who has been going around for months now in several threads saying he thinks that M10 sensor sucks, PM-ed and said he would really appreciate it if I could post Raw file comparisons between the M10 and his favorite camera, the α7R III. So more to come. Stay tuned.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's show a few more. One has got to love how the M10 exposes and protects the highlights.

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g853356379-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=mBBChQe8ioII5DnGs7ExlYhHqUAwlJqwvxcbp9iqriA=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g739205653-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=eg2QZovkWIpEWvvyNRWzwxpTo4iBh4lqamQCM4GJmYk=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g722578329-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=kZkS82j4n1VxYD6PdDte4jgksrL17Njt6ivUfEzMzHg=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g579757105-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=6mJI2PTO_-SBbPYg21jTDxq6uOpQV54R2yiLm2eN80M=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g939220960-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=nd2i60sdfns30BKbnMAWrF-DfPJMdKtnRNXozwdF9LU=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/500 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g941195447-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=X6R2uybH7mT8sVF6BnLBW3U5xzL5qj1pJIAYYrdF42U=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1027912310-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=YQ8u5yOPqaV9zBwlQpFbBZCE_O2XjqUa9IyAY32rpb8=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. DNG file):

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g852616896-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=b_q7sezxMs1HzpLO9vQvPUTg6uLQVLikwUjgtEzGpao=

 

 

α7R III + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. ARW file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g603831017-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=ey_4eFv6ZdrpeuZYyNKym7uHPydulWtf_eyYZy8aoS8=

 

M10 + 35 Summicron-M ISO 640 f/2.0 @1/250 sec. DNG file:

https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g961117186-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=721ptRWvSjsnTCUV8bT4MA_kT5Em-BepWE2-7_ysNkU=

 

 

This is a flawed comparison. Check your histograms! In every single image, the A7rIII exposures are about +0.3 EV brighter consistently. Which means that - of course - the highlights will be more clipped on the A7rIII images. The M10 doesn't protect the highlights, it's just underexposed when compared to the Sony exposures.

 

You can't really compare ISO 640 vs ISO 640 images on the M10 and the A7rIII. The A7rIII will ALWAYS create a brighter image if compared side by side. Simply because it doesn't overstate it's ISO performance as much. Try setting the M10 at ISO 800-1000, and compare to the A7rIII then, at the same f-stop. I'm pretty sure that the exposures will look more similar then.

 

Edited by indergaard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got to be joking. You post JPEGs to prove your point? That's a good one. I'll just flood this thread with Raws to show Sony burned highlights. Let's face it, the α7R III sensor is an early 2015 design. It's a bit dated. Sony made a strategic blunder to use the same sensor as in the α7R II. The Nikon Zs and Panasonic's FF cameras to be revealed tomorrow have much better sensors. But then, again, Sony may reveal the α7R IV by year end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got to be joking. You post JPEGs to prove your point? That's a good one. I'll just flood this thread with Raws to show Sony burned highlights. Let's face it, the α7R III sensor is an early 2015 design. It's a bit dated. Sony made a strategic blunder to use the same sensor as in the α7R II. The Nikon Zs and Panasonic's FF cameras to be revealed tomorrow have much better sensors. But then, again, Sony may reveal the α7R IV by year end.

 

No... That is a screen capture from a comparison view of the raw files in Capture One Pro 11.2.1. And they were imported to Capture One, and no settings were touched.

 

It seems to me like you have no idea what you are doing. Comparing two very different exposures (clearly evident by the changes in histograms) with each other, when one camera is known to use different ISO values to calculate exposures, and then saying that the camera that under-exposes images protects highlights... Seriously?

 

Your own raw files show different exposures. Just because the settings match, doesn't mean that the exposures match, when each camera calculates ISO values differently. You have to compare by having more or less matching histograms to have a valid exposure comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s why I post Raws. So that one can adjust Exposure in post to match and see that Sony at the exact same settings with EV +0.20 for the M10 picture in post still blows.

Share this post


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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy