M10M True Base Iso

[AceVentura1986]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 hours ago, Kendoo said:

One can blow highlights at any ISO as I have unashamedly discovered in my “working” this camera. I call this M10M a Hyper Camera and like any performance equipment there are ways an operator must learn to get the most from it. 
 

I love the results at 160 ISO and also at 10,000. I never used the 160 Pulled iso of MM1, it is pretty crap but not so with the M10M. 
 

 

 

Interesting. I can see, however, how shooting at higher ISOs might offset the increased sensitivity to camera shake occasioned by the 41mpx as it would require a faster shutter speed. 

On another note, do you have any sense  whether the sensor is ISO invariable like the M9M?  With my M9M I can pretty much under expose four stops and then correct in Lightroom by pushing the dng four stops. I’ve tested this time and again with great results. I tend now to shoot at either ISO 400 or 1600 depending on the light, and push in Lightroom as necessary. This helps prevent clipping of highlights. 

[shirubadanieru]

2 minutes ago, AceVentura1986 said:

Interesting. I can see, however, how shooting at higher ISOs might offset the increased sensitivity to camera shake occasioned by the 41mpx as it would require a faster shutter speed. 

On another note, do you have any sense  whether the sensor is ISO invariable like the M9M?  With my M9M I can pretty much under expose four stops and then correct in Lightroom by pushing the dng four stops. I’ve tested this time and again with great results. I tend now to shoot at either ISO 400 or 1600 depending on the light, and push in Lightroom as necessary. This helps prevent clipping of highlights. 

I was able to push four/ five stops in LR today so I’d say in terms of shadow recovery the m10M is more capable than the ccd MM from my experience; that being said the M9M is a beautiful camera too  

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AceVentura1986]

1 minute ago, shirubadanieru said:

I was able to push four/ five stops in LR today so I’d say in terms of shadow recovery the m10M is more capable than the ccd MM from my experience; that being said the M9M is a beautiful camera too  

That’s impressive. I can do four but five really taxes the dngs too much. I will keep my M9M, tho, as I have no plans to replace it w the M10M, at lest not for now. Enjoy yours, tho, it does seem to be an outstanding camera. 

[Ken Abrahams]

1 hour ago, AceVentura1986 said:

Interesting. I can see, however, how shooting at higher ISOs might offset the increased sensitivity to camera shake occasioned by the 41mpx as it would require a faster shutter speed. 

On another note, do you have any sense  whether the sensor is ISO invariable like the M9M?  With my M9M I can pretty much under expose four stops and then correct in Lightroom by pushing the dng four stops. I’ve tested this time and again with great results. I tend now to shoot at either ISO 400 or 1600 depending on the light, and push in Lightroom as necessary. This helps prevent clipping of highlights. 

I would say that the M10M by far, exceeds the M9M with regard bringing up detail in shadows. The idea of shooting subjects with bright contrasty light behind or to one side of the subject has never been ideal in photography. Exposures are governed by the highlights therefore usually the subject is underexposed. Not so with the M10M. 
 

I am against pushing the mono files too much, it kind of defeats the purpose however with Street work I do and add grain. The M9M does this beautifully. The M10M wants to hold its quality and fineness whatever you do to it. The ability to crop into images feels like cheating a bit, when I could have gone closer to some street subjects. 
 

Using layer masks and blendif In PS to blend contrasts will help to hold other useful tones from pushing M10M files or use soft contrast in Silvefxx a touch 

[dkmoore]

22 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

Interesting thread and food for thought.  I'm a few days into getting to grips with my M10M (first Monochrom), have the camera in 'A' mode and ISO set to Auto.  In my limited outings so far (hampered by Storm Ciara) I have set exposure comp to -0.3 (which I always do with my M240 anyway) with an occasional  -0.7 dialled in.  Looking at the exif for my typical landscape-type photos, ISO is shown as mostly 160 and highlights are not being blown.  Next outing I'll try 400 and possibly 800.  (The dial has hard stops at the designated numbers and intermediate settings (i.e. 640) are not selectable).

I think Sean Reid’s test conclusion was operating fully manual with no exposure comp dialed in. I think if you shot at 160 without -3 or -7 you may see brighter highlights (is my experience). So I just bumped up ISO to 400 anyway rather than using exposure comp. either way works and I don’t have a problem with blowing highlights. 

[johnbuckley]

As Adan says, Sean is a thorough tester. I won't repeat his methodology but his core point that the true base ISO is around 400+ was very interesting, and so was his recommendation of how to think of this. His writes you are better off setting the ISO at 400 and using an ND filter than setting it at 160 and losing dynamic range/clipping highlights. I suppose one could keep a 1-stop or 2-2top ND filter handy, for walking around outdoors. (I went digging in my file box last night and unearthed a few, even though most of my ND use is with darker filters so as to shoot wide open as needed.)

I'm not puzzled by his calculation, and having subscribed to his site since 2006 or so, I've found him to be a font of insight, all the better to read since he updated his publishing platform.

What I am now puzzled by is Auto ISO. I have found that when using it, the camera uses ISO 160 far more often than I would have set it at manually. I assumed, and wrote, that this was because it was pushing one toward the largest dynamic range. Now I learn it is, instead, pulling one away from the optimal dynamic range -- often even in light situations where I would have welcomed ISO 400 or 640. What gives?

I now know I'll use Auto ISO only in indoors/nighttime/mixed light situations.  Lots to think about...

 

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seems like much ado about nothing.  The MM1 performed fine at base 320, without need for ND filter, at least for my needs.  And if the M10M is supposedly flexible enough to shoot ISO 25,000 or more without problem, what's the big deal going from 160 to 320 or 400?  Too much technical nuance and not enough real world results....IN PRINT... it seems to me. Will any viewer really know or care, especially given the myriad variables that go into producing a wonderful b/w pic and print?  

Meanwhile, the files and b/w conversions from the SL2 are excellent; any limitations are mine.  I have no doubt the M10M can produce as well or better....without all this agonizing.  There is huge malleability in the files of all these cameras to yield stellar results; the gear is hardly a limitation, and a little wiggle on the ISO should mean zilch for most practical purposes, assuming one can learn exposure and processing basics. I'm astounded that some here who have spend north of $8k don't yet understand tone curve basics....a tweak in ISO should be the least of their concerns.

Jeff

Edited February 12, 2020 by Jeff S

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, johnbuckley said:

As Adan says, Sean is a thorough tester. I won't repeat his methodology but his core point that the true base ISO is around 400+ was very interesting, and so was his recommendation of how to think of this. His writes you are better off setting the ISO at 400 and using an ND filter than setting it at 160 and losing dynamic range/clipping highlights. I suppose one could keep a 1-stop or 2-2top ND filter handy, for walking around outdoors. (I went digging in my file box last night and unearthed a few, even though most of my ND use is with darker filters so as to shoot wide open as needed.)

I'm not puzzled by his calculation, and having subscribed to his site since 2006 or so, I've found him to be a font of insight, all the better to read since he updated his publishing platform.

What I am now puzzled by is Auto ISO. I have found that when using it, the camera uses ISO 160 far more often than I would have set it at manually. I assumed, and wrote, that this was because it was pushing one toward the largest dynamic range. Now I learn it is, instead, pulling one away from the optimal dynamic range -- often even in light situations where I would have welcomed ISO 400 or 640. What gives?

I now know I'll use Auto ISO only in indoors/nighttime/mixed light situations.  Lots to think about...

 

From my reading of the article, Sean did not look at dynamic range, only at highlights recovery. It may be that the dynamic range is better at ISO-s lower than 400 even though highlight are best preserved at 400 when exposing without correction (as seen with Q2).

[digitalfx]

On 2/10/2020 at 9:22 PM, adan said:

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 if Reid (a great tester) and Leica themselves can't be sure of what it is, how can Leica "state" anything sensible - or accurate?

 

 

 

He goes into great detail on why he settled on a range of 400-640...I'll leave the answer in his article. But its not because the answer couldn't be found. So I would assume Leica could determine a more specific result.

[UliWer]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb johnbuckley:

What I am now puzzled by is Auto ISO. I have found that when using it, the camera uses ISO 160 far more often than I would have set it at manually. I assumed, and wrote, that this was because it was pushing one toward the largest dynamic range. Now I learn it is, instead, pulling one away from the optimal dynamic range -- often even in light situations where I would have welcomed ISO 400 or 640. What gives?

I now know I'll use Auto ISO only in indoors/nighttime/mixed light situations.  Lots to think about...

Is ISO 160 the "base" ISO value if you use Auto ISO?

The summary of technical data in the Manual they published first for the M10 monochrom said Auto Iso used values from ISO 250 to ISO 50 000. In the same first edition of the manual they said ISO 200 to 50 000 to describe the Auto Iso function. Now both entries say that Auto Iso has a range from ISO 200 to 50.000. 

This reminds me of the M10. At first Auto ISO for the M10 used ISO 100 as a "base". They changed this later to ISO 200 by firmware.  

[Keith (M)]

In my first week of use with auto ISO selected, by far the majority of the (numerous) images I have posted here have been at ISO 160.

[UliWer]

vor 48 Minuten schrieb digitalfx:

He goes into great detail on why he settled on a range of 400-640...I'll leave the answer in his article. But its not because the answer couldn't be found. So I would assume Leica could determine a more specific result.

I agree with you and Sean Reid that Leica should be more specific about the "real" base ISO value.

Though on the other hand I am not completely sure about Reid's findings. He shows 100% crops from the M Typ 246 and the M 10 Monochrom - but the examples from the M10 Monochrom are always much larger because the 100% function is based on pixels. With a larger view you see more, and might see more problems as well. 

My other concern about his method is using the Lightroom "exposure slider". When there was a similar discussion about whether the base ISO for the M10 was ISO 100 or ISO 200 (or in between), I remember that I found out that I got different results from Lightroom and Capture One - the Capture One examples showing less or no difference between the files taken at ISO 100 or ISO 200. Though this may be a "fault" of Capture One and Lightroom might be more revealing in this respect. 

[UliWer]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Keith (M):

In my first week of use with auto ISO selected, by far the majority of the (numerous) images I have posted here have been at ISO 160.

So the descriptions given by Leica are wrong (again) - on p. 70 in the English manual they say: 

"A: for automatic setting; values between ISO 200 and 100000 will be used"

Same on  p. 136.  

 

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

From my reading of the article, Sean did not look at dynamic range, only at highlights recovery. It may be that the dynamic range is better at ISO-s lower than 400 even though highlight are best preserved at 400 when exposing without correction (as seen with Q2).

+1. In this example here, the ISO 160 picture only needed +0.1 exposure adjustment in LR vs. +0.2 for the ISO 320 picture in order for both to look equally bright.  ISO 320 may have slightly better highlight detail recovery but it's not significant, IMO.  Here it doesn't make a difference.  But the ISO 320 picture shows more noise in the shadows as they are pushed to the max.

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

ISO 160 with Exposure +0.1, Highlights -75, Shadows +100, Sharpening +40, NR +15. Link to download DNG here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g268555765-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=O8YMri-A7ttIzgTffSt6tqsRiyGNQkj6-inx63y66Ww=

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 @1/125 sec.

ISO 320 with Exposure +0.2, Highlights -75, Shadows +100, Sharpening +40, NR +15. Link to download DNG here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g452691099-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=D4r0fA8A4meju-jejti_KR82AiklTi-Ittk7LsrCYt8=

ISO 320 f/2 @1/250 sec.

[Chaemono]

Am 11.2.2020 um 06:14 schrieb frame-it:

luckily this is not in the SL thread those threads would carry on forever with DR/test shots

You presume too much. 😂

[UliWer]

Thanks to Chaemono for the two DNG examples!

Edit: The histograms I posted before do not show a fair comparison; I made a fault; I therefore better deleted them to avoid misinterpretation.

Seems as if the topic needs more time and experience.

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by UliWer

[Ken Abrahams]

My initial highlight adjustment in LR is -100 for most of my images, that is the only exposure adjustment I make in LR apart from sharpness and lens profile etc. When image opened in PS I  create a curve layer and click auto. This re calibrating of the image curve is the basis for all the adjustments to the file which follow.

ND filters and raised iso may be one work around and a way to fully control exposure highlights although  I am not sure I would use that method. Sounds good for some situations.  

[adan]

I guess I have to ask.

If Leica came clean and told us "The base ISO of the M10M is 418 - unless you get a body with a sensor made on a Tuesday, in which case it is 427."

What - exactly - would you do with that information?

[Keith (M)]

23 minutes ago, adan said:

I guess I have to ask.

If Leica came clean and told us "The base ISO of the M10M is 418 - unless you get a body with a sensor made on a Tuesday, in which case it is 427."

What - exactly - would you do with that information?

Me? Probably carry on with Auto-ISO with aperture priority and either -0.3 or -0.7 depending on circumstances. Subject to on-going review as I gain more experience - but treating the sensor as a roll of b&w film  has worked for me so far.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Nowhereman]

Seems to me that all this sounds like the M10M has a characteristic similar to that the M10. With the M10 people found that (1) it was better to shoot at ISO 200 rather than ISO 100, in order to make it easier to protect the highlights, and (2) it was necessary to underexpose significantly when there was strong back- or side-light. "Significantly", could mean a range of roughly 1-3 stops, depending on the light intensity. Initially, I found this disconcerting but, as I got used to the camera, this became easy to deal with.

So, with the M10M, it presumably is better to shoot at ISO 400 rather than at ISO 160 as the base ISO. But it seems that the processing issues should be easier to deal with on the M10M because the malleability of the files makes it possible to make huge moves in the Blacks/Whites/Shadow sliders (using Lightroom terminology) and in the tone curve, with destroying the image — and this should compensate for the fact that, unlike the M10, the M10M has no scope for any recovery of blown highlights. 

I would assume that only people who were were celebrating the base ISO being 160 might be disappointed with the M10M on this, having been misguided by some of the early reviewers.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook