Jump to content

M10M True Base Iso

shirubadanieru

By shirubadanieru
in Leica M Monochrom

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay, girls and boys, our topic for today is "Highlight Detail Recovery in ISO 160 vs. ISO 400 M10 Monochrom files."  How did you guess?  😂  According to the histogram, the ISO 400 file is a tiny bit less exposed than the ISO 160 file and this may explain some of the difference.  This and the fact that the ISO 400 picture was taken with the lens stopped to f/4.6 (roughly) whereas for the ISO 160 the lens was at f/2.8.  Still, the exposure is close enough that it is worth examining for highlight detail recovery and the ISO 160 file does terrifically.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-HVvQZV/

M10 Monochrom + APO 50 Summicron-M link to ISO 160 DNG download here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g888979784-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=mMIxjEyKmkz1SKZgPe840R494mRTFhfYBlYDOvlQd-w=

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 160 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

M10 Monochrom + APO 50 Summicron-M link to ISO 400 DNG download here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g799945201-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=zb7Iyon9O36p9otDJ2nooRbnMWyxMVGw-61mO0q1qDc=ISO 400 f/4.6 @1/125 sec.

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites
x
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

adan
adan

Issues with stating a "base ISO." 1) It is not all that well-defined. Reid says "somewhere between 400 and 640," and for the original M10, Stefan Daniels said "somewhere between 125 and 160." And

Ken Abrahams
Ken Abrahams

At 160 ISO exposed for highlights (sky area) the DNG here only adjusted for default profile setting and then the processed image using a variety of techniques to achieve what I was after. M10M with 50

Jager
Jager

The meme that a camera "blows highlights" ... shakes head. Rather like suggesting that a car has a propensity to drive off bridges.    

Posted Images

Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted

First, the crops from the DNG files opened in LR.  We can see here already that the ISO 400 files contains a bit more detail in the bottom of the lens but as stated above, the ISO 400 picture looks in the LR histogram slightly less exposed and the lens is at f/4.6 (roughly) vs. f/2.8 for the ISO 160 one.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-HVvQZV/

ISO 160 crop from above

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 400 crop from above

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted

And now with Exposure at -2 in LR for both.  That's how Jono looked at the difference in highlight detail recovery between ISO 100 and ISO 200 M10 files and he found a huge difference.  With the M10 Monochrom, the difference with regards to this between ISO 160 and ISO 400 is more like splitting hairs considering how significantly these pictures were cropped to even notice it.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-HVvQZV/

ISO 160 f/2.8 crop from #61 with Exposure -2 in LR

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 400 f/4.6 crop from #61 with Exposure -2 in LR

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

First, the crops from the DNG files opened in LR.  We can see here already that the ISO 400 files contains a bit more detail in the bottom of the lens but as stated above, the ISO 400 picture looks in the LR histogram slightly less exposed and the lens is at f/4.6 (roughly) vs. f/2.8 for the ISO 160 one.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-HVvQZV/

ISO 160 crop from above

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 400 crop from above

I suggest comparing ISO 160 vs 320/640. According to Sean's observation native ISO is between 400 and 640. I also think that you should test at the same aperture and vary the shutter speed instead. Changing aperture typically affects the image in some ways.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted
vor 4 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

I suggest comparing ISO 160 vs 320/640. According to Sean's observation native ISO is between 400 and 640.

I’ll try those.

vor 5 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

I also think that you should test at the same aperture and vary the shutter speed instead. Changing aperture typically affects the image in some ways.

I know.  The thing with the aperture ring is that I can balance it somewhere between half stops.  The shutter speed wheel will not allow me to use ISO 400 to compare to ISO 160, only ISO 320 and 640.  In any case, given how much cleaner the ISO 160 files are in pushed shadows and how tiny the difference in highlight detail recovery seems to be between ISO 160 and ISO 400 (at different aperture, though), I’ll very happily use ISO 160.  And the difference in highlight detail in my example above may be entirely due to the difference in aperture used, after all.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted

Did my own quick tests, and they confirm that ISO 640 has a bit better highlights preservation. For me the difference is not big enough to worry about it. Incorrect exposure is going to be more an issue than using ISO 160 vs 400/640.

My tests were done outdoors in a high contrast scene (morning sun).

M10M with APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH, same aperture (f/8 approx) and same focus, only shutter speed changes.

Scene 1: ISO 640, 1/1000 sec.

Scene 2: ISO 160, 1/250 sec.

Excerpts after applying -2EV in Lightroom:

ISO 160

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 (the sun is moving and the shade started moving on the right side)

Sean Reid's measurements show approximately the same amount of difference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Stunde schrieb SrMi:

Did my own quick tests, and they confirm that ISO 640 has a bit better highlights preservation. For me the difference is not big enough to worry about it. Incorrect exposure is going to be more an issue than using ISO 160 vs 400/640.

+1.  ISO 160 correctly exposed is to be preferred over ISO 400/640 in a picture like this, IMO.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-HVvQZV/

This is how it was shot

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 160 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

This is the crop with -84 in the LR HighlightsISO 160 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

And this as a comparison the ISO 400 version with my f/4.5 aperture setting on the lens. Highlights here -81ISO 400 f/4.5 @1/125 sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith (M)

Keith (M)

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just came across this link to Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting for the M10 Monochrom.  The compiler's findings would imply that best performance is at ISO 160 (if max Dynamic Range also equals optimum performance/results) which is different to the conclusions of Sean Reid in Reid Reviews.  

 

 

Edited by Keith (M)
Link to post
Share on other sites
UliWer

UliWer

Posted
Posted (edited)

We had this discrepancies already with the M10. The published graphs by DxO et al. indicated that ISO 100 had the maximum dynamic range. Forum members using the camera (e.g. Adan) wrote that ISO 200 showed better results. Leica changed the minimum ISO value for auto ISO for the M10 from ISO 100 to ISO 200 by firmware update, which seemed to confirm the findings in practical use. 

While I am a little bit skeptical about Sean Reid‘s method to show his findings (much larger examples from the M10 M...) I see more issues with the data published by Photonstophotos. They give different values for the M10 and M10-P or for the M(Typ 240) anf the M-D (Typ 262), though the cameras have the same sensors. I think there is some accidential way of measurement at work. 

Edited by UliWer
Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, UliWer said:

We had this discrepancies already with the M10. The published graphs by DxO et al. indicated that ISO 100 had the maximum dynamic range. Forum members using the camera (e.g. Adan) wrote that ISO 200 showed better results. Leica changed the minimum ISO value for auto ISO for the M10 from ISO 100 to ISO 200 by firmware update, which seemed to confirm the findings in practical use. 

While I am a little bit skeptical about Sean Reid‘s method to show his findings (much larger examples from the M10 M...) I see more issues with the data published by Photonstophotos. They give different values for the M10 and M10-P or for the M(Typ 240) anf the M-D (Typ 262), though the cameras have the same sensors. I think there is some accidential way of measurement at work. 

M10 and M10-P have practical identical PDR graphs (link) in PhotonsToPhotos and so do M (Typ 240) and M-D (Typ 262)  (link). Any difference displayed is irrelevant, IMO. Which graphs were you looking at?

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

Just came across this link to Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting for the M10 Monochrom.  The compiler's findings would imply that best performance is at ISO 160 (if max Dynamic Range also equals optimum performance/results) which is different to the conclusions of Sean Reid in Reid Reviews. 

Always interesting.

However, we need to remember that dynamic range is a general principle covering all kinds of analog devices and their signals, not just cameras. (Note that a "digital" sensor itself is an analog device - the sensor outputs electrons/charge/voltage/signal in amounts or levels analogous to the photons that are input. It ain't digital (1s and 0s) until that analog output runs through a separate chip; the analog/digital converter.)

An orchestra has a dynamic range - the faintest music it can produce playing ppp (very very softly) to the loudest music it can produce playing fff (very very loudly). A recording of that orchestra will have its own dynamic range, depending on the capabilites of the microphones and recording medium (wax disc, magnetic tape). And a playback of that recording will have yet another dynamic range, based on where the playback system introduces distortion ("rumble" or "fuzz" in loud sounds), and a "noise floor" (clicks, pops, tape hiss in the soft sounds).

(If you go to a concert, and in the pianissimo parts, you can hear the coughs and feet-shuffling of the audience, or the creaking of the seats, that is also a "noise floor." The music can't be heard "pure" and "correctly" at that low volume.)

The analogies (hah!) in photography are blown or miscolored highlights (distortion), and shadow noise (noise floor).

And the rated or tested dynamic range will (or should) exclude those sounds or brightnesses (recognizable, even if "damaged") that contain distortion and/or noise beyond a very limited amount (Typically, 1-3% of the total signal/sound/brightness range).

When I made a shirt-cuff test of the color M10 at ISO 100 and 200 (as mentioned by Uliwer, but a different thread than the saturation one), I noted that at 200 the distortion was lower (better protection of highlights). But I also noted that at ISO 200 the noise floor was higher (the same shadows adjusted to the same brightness were noisier).

I would imagine that someone doing a rigorous DR measurement (DxO or photonstophotos) is going to measure both ends of the scale, and subtract range that shows additional noise in excess of some very low limit as "not really counting". Thus in, for example, the color M10, the loss in the highlights at ISO 100 is outweighed by the lower noise in the shadows, for a net higher dynamic range than ISO 200, when graphed.

We as photographers are usually most concerned with blown highlights as a measure of DR. But that's really only half the story.

___________________

Of note: LCD screens have a DR of about 10 stops, and glossy print paper has a DR of about 7 stops. Therefore we will never actually be able to see a full DR of 11 stops or higher on our screens or in a print - without manipulations. We can fiddle with the screen brightness or print brightness to see one end or the other better - but not both ends at once.

But the higher DR does allow more headroom or footroom for manipulations.

 

Edited by adan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
UliWer

UliWer

Posted
Posted
vor 9 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

M10 and M10-P have practical identical PDR graphs (link) in PhotonsToPhotos and so do M (Typ 240) and M-D (Typ 262)  (link). Any difference displayed is irrelevant, IMO. Which graphs were you looking at?

I looked at the „Data in tabular form“ on the lower left of the site:

M(Typ) 240 - Max.PDR 10.05; Low Light Iso 2428; Low Light EV 9.60

M-D(Typ262)-Max.PDR 10.01; Low Light Iso 2181; Low Light EV 9.45

M10   -            Max. PDR 10.60; Low Light Iso 4370; Low Light EV 10.45

M10-P            Max. PDR 10.48; Low Light Iso 3700; Low Light EV 10.21

Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, UliWer said:

I looked at the „Data in tabular form“ on the lower left of the site:

M(Typ) 240 - Max.PDR 10.05; Low Light Iso 2428; Low Light EV 9.60

M-D(Typ262)-Max.PDR 10.01; Low Light Iso 2181; Low Light EV 9.45

M10   -            Max. PDR 10.60; Low Light Iso 4370; Low Light EV 10.45

M10-P            Max. PDR 10.48; Low Light Iso 3700; Low Light EV 10.21

Thanks for the explanation. The difference of Max PDR is well within the measurements tolerances (1%). What do Low Light ISO and Low Light EV measurements mean? The graphs look practically identical (ISO/PDR data).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted (edited)

When the sun is low and bright and you want to use the 50 Noctilux wide open without an ND filter (because the yellow filter is mounted on the lens already 😁), ISO 400 is not an option.  The question is, therefore, is ISO 160 on the M10 Monochrom useable in this situation.  I would argue based on Jono's findings that ISO 100 on the M10 wouldn't be without an ND filter.  ISO 160 on the M10M, on the other hand, very much is.

I'll show JPEGs from DNGs opened in Preview and exported as TIFFs before loading them into LR for export in order to compare with JPEGs processed from DNGs in LR.  At times I thought all highlight details would be lost as 1/4000 sec. shutter speed didn't seem to be fast enough.  I have a few more with some blown out ISO 160 duck pictures which I may post later. 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-LZG7pV/

M10 Monochrom + 50 Noctilux opened in Preview, exported as TIFF, loaded in LR, and equally cropped as below, not touched otherwise (lens profile is missing)

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 160 f/0.95 @1/4000 sec.

From DNG processed directly in LR

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted (edited)

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-LZG7pV/

M10 Monochrom + 50 Noctilux opened in Preview, exported as TIFF, loaded in LR, and equally cropped as below, not touched otherwise (lens profile is missing)

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 160 f/0.95 @1/4000 sec.

From DNG processed directly in LR

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted (edited)

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-LZG7pV/

M10 Monochrom + 50 Noctilux opened in Preview, exported as TIFF, loaded in LR, and equally cropped as below, not touched otherwise (lens profile is missing)

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 160 f/0.95 @1/4000 sec.

From DNG processed directly in LR

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted (edited)

ISO 160 highlight detail recovery here is impressive, nothing like ISO 100 on the M10.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-LZG7pV/

M10 Monochrom + 50 Noctilux opened in Preview, exported as TIFF, loaded in LR, and equally cropped as below, not touched otherwise (lens profile is missing)

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 160 f/0.95 @1/4000 sec.

From DNG processed directly in LR

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...