Jump to content
shirubadanieru

M10M True Base Iso

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 45 Minuten schrieb 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?

Well, I'd try to find out if it really matters when I use ISO 200 - following your findings for the M10:

"As discussed at length in another M10 thread, the M10 ISO 100 is a "pull" - an overexposure of the sensor, with mathematical processing in-camera to bring tones back into line as much as possible. The true sensor ISO is about 135-ish. So, yes, it is prone to blowing highlights - after 6 months with the M10, I tend to avoid ISO 100 except on special occasions and with extra-careful study of the scene's brightness pattern."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nowhereman wrote
 

“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 someof the early reviewers.“

Some assuming going on Nowhereman. Thanks for your summation and reflections over various posts. 
 

I am not at all disappointed with ISO 160, in fact some of the images posted here testify to the contrary. 
 

I don’t think one can take anything away from the M10M camera however as stated previously, there are methods an operator of the camera might employ for best results.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jeff S said:

...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...

No cause to be astounded: there's no reason a beginner shouldn't buy an M10M. You don't need a "camera license" to buy it and you can certainly go from an iPhone to an M10M, and then you learn the difference. At the beginning you might even wish you stayed with the iPhone: when I bought my first digital camera, the Ricoh GRD in 2006, I initially shot only JPGs, not having ever heard about RAW files. I then got an M8 and, then, the M9. I was pushed across the line to the M9 when I saw the Cuban boxer essay in the Leica M9 brochure, much of it shot in the same harsh, midday tropical light that I was facing in Bangkok. I reasoned that, if the M9 could do so well in such harsh light, it would be a good camera for me. Some people complained about brochure not having more images in "normal light". For me, it was a brilliant marketing move in that it showed that problematic highlights could be handled by the M9.

I criticized Leica's marketing on the M10M. I still think that they could have indicated that the ISO should be considered to be ISO 400 and should have provided better example shots.

 

57 minutes ago, Kendoo said:

...Thanks for your summation and reflections over various posts...

No real experience, apart from processing a few downloaded M10M DNG files. I started with the premise that I prefer my M10 with 24 MP files and the ability to use color sliders in Lightroom rather than glass filters with the M10. Now, that the images on the M10M picture thread are improving greatly — and seeing some of the latest images — I'm inclined to think that there could be a range of looks in particularly difficult light that could yield better results than I can do with my M10, even for the high-contrast images that I'm doing.Though I'm reluctant to use glass filters.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited by Nowhereman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

No cause to be astounded: there's no reason a beginner shouldn't buy an M10M. You don't need a "camera license" to buy it and you can certainly go from an iPhone to an M10M, and then you learn the difference.

I said nothing about being a beginner.  Apparently even some with lots of experience have concerns about LR sliders having to move all over the place, without first considering the readily accessible tone curve itself near the top of the LR Develop panel.  It even has 'lazy man' click options for linear, moderate and high contrast starting points.

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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?

 

set your iso dial just a hair past 400 if your sensor is 418...and two hairs past if 427. The real challenge is if you have a sensor thats rated at 497...do you just set it at 500 and live with it? 

Id would probably bug me too much, id sell the camera and find one thats rated for an even number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Jeff S said:

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

Jeff - the only problem I had with my original MM was having to use neutral density filters when shooting in any daylight using fast glass wide open - which is the only reason to buy Leica's fast glass (AFAIC).

The only reason I am holding off buying this latest incarnation is my reluctance to have to fuss around with ND filters on each and every M lens...of course my little nitpick may not be relevant to other people - however I'll put it up for discussion. 

Unfortunately I also know from past experience that straight out of camera MM files typically require very little futzing in PP - hence the appeal and allure of an MM.

Thanks to all for this thread and your contributions it is a help as I cogitate over the +/- equation.

 

Pete

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

Jeff - the only problem I had with my original MM was having to use neutral density filters when shooting in any daylight using fast glass wide open - which is the only reason to buy Leica's fast glass (AFAIC).

The only reason I am holding off buying this latest incarnation is my reluctance to have to fuss around with ND filters on each and every M lens...of course my little nitpick may not be relevant to other people - however I'll put it up for discussion. 

Unfortunately I also know from past experience that straight out of camera MM files typically require very little futzing in PP - hence the appeal and allure of an MM.

Thanks to all for this thread and your contributions it is a help as I cogitate over the +/- equation.

 

Pete

 

We’re all different.  I rarely shoot wide open in daylight, and Summicrons typically  suffice.  I don’t even currently own an ND filter for an M and get along fine with both the M9M and M10. 

I also have never made a final b/w display print, film or digital, in over 35 years, without some judicial use of PP, small or large. The MM is no exception, and often requires some tonal adjustments (different for different pics) for my tastes.  The M10 provides even more PP flexibility through the use of color channels. If the camera/gear did all the work, all our pics and prints would look the same, other than where we pointed the lens. Thankfully that’s not the case.

Different strokes...

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that as no Leica has yet lost dynamic range by a pull setting, there can be no real objection to using the lowest ISO value. When the curve of the M10M appears in PtP, i expect it to be pretty similar the the M246.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Note that as no Leica has yet lost dynamic range by a pull setting, there can be no real objection to using the lowest ISO value. When the curve of the M10M appears in PtP, i expect it to be pretty similar the the M246.

 

 

I am also waiting for Bill Claff's measurement (PtP).

In the meantime Digital Camera World has published their dynamic range measurements and they show that ISO 200 has greater dynamic range than ISO 400. It is my assumption that native/base ISO has the highest dynamic range.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

We’re all different.  I rarely shoot wide open in daylight, and Summicrons typically  suffice.  I don’t even currently own an ND filter for an M and get along fine with both the M9M and M10. 

I also have never made a final b/w display print, film or digital, in over 35 years, without some judicial use of PP, small or large. The MM is no exception, and often requires some tonal adjustments (different for different pics) for my tastes.  The M10 provides even more PP flexibility through the use of color channels. If the camera/gear did all the work, all our pics and prints would look the same, other than where we pointed the lens. Thankfully that’s not the case.

Different strokes...

Jeff

As you say different people shoot with differences preferences - I dug out an old snap and for conversation sake included the C1 total PP required to deliver a nicely toned image from the MM. Perhaps I am a simple guy - but I much prefer the B&W ease of getting to finished luminance values in about ten seconds flat instead of 'futzing' with colour sliders and add ons like SilverFX - call me lazy!

I think I will go ahead and buy a refurbished from Leica original MM or M9M - I do miss the CCD renditioning and I don't mind the occasional and purposeful blown highlights and deep rich blacks.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, intrigued by the discussion last night I took out a subscription to Reid Reviews (my last one was about ten years ago).  I now need to do some serious reading, assuming I can cudgel my aging grey cells into action!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 M APO lens 1/1000 at F8, 0 ev 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jeff S said:

It even has 'lazy man' click options for linear, moderate and high contrast starting points.

Love Adobe for this.  Great for a starting point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if I can use ISO 160, f/2.8, @1/180 sec. and try ISO 400, f/4.5, @1/180 sec.  I know there isn’t an f/4.5 stop on the aperture ring but I’ll try to balance it somewhere between f/4 and f/4.8.  With a bit of luck, this could give me equally exposed DNGs to check for DR and highlight detail recovery. 

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried my best to expose an ISO 160 picture equally to an ISO 400 one.  Please, keep in mind that the ISO 400 is at f/4 vs. f/2.8 for the ISO 160.  I prefer ISO 160, but not much highlights to blow in this one.

M10 Monochrom + APO 50 Summicron-M - ISO 160 with Exposure +2, Highlights -100, Shadows +100, Sharpening +50, NR +5.  DNG download link here:  https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g628062983-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=_o4RJ4xUdV52esS8GWtvkVY2qqfz8o9NYFrh2st1kZU=

ISO 160 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

M10 Monochrom + APO 50 Summicron-M - ISO 400 with Exposure +2, Highlights -100, Shadows +100, Sharpening +50, NR +10.  DNG download link here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g566200414-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=QcMoT0uTVVxIjoqmaifUTUf5U0XWSHj4YoFlMCffpsg=

ISO 400 f/4.5 @1/125 sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see much of a highlight detail recovery advantage of ISO 400 vs. ISO 160 in this one, at least.

ISO 160 picture with Exposure -0.5, Highlights -50, Shadows +50, Blacks -30, in LR. DNG download link here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g905805935-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=0kmPP4CnO69jpzPlNRW1CsEPot6f10xSzNdDPqOTZjg=

ISO 160 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

ISO 400 picture with Exposure -0.5, Highlights -50, Shadows +50, Blacks -30.  DNG download link here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g867520966-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=uZO6PBMbYSn03f0G5oKOKmstVYzML67Mf4ZjA78dhns=

ISO 400 f/4.5 @1/125 sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about in this one? Is there a highlight-detail-recovery advantage in the ISO 400 file?  Nope!  The ISO 400 picture here is slightly less exposed than the ISO 160 one as I probably moved the aperture ring too far towards f/4.8.  Let's say it'a at f/4.65. 

ISO 160 picture and link to download the DNG here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g846764758-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=gm1K4V2d169EcPZvaQ6jkMBWvexhhkhMWn5DOfRiBDc=

ISO 160 f/2.8 @1/125 sec.

ISO 400 picture and link to download the DNG here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g771575167-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=CZkwGS9BM7yCLLHni78ww_zQl7XdXMEKLBcSvQXSwX0=

ISO 400 f/4.65 @1/125 sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the M10M is out there seems to have come up a new variant of pixelpeeping: HDRN, highlight detail recovery neurosis.

Hey Chaemono, stop the testing and enjoy that wonderful beast in making interesting photo's! I remember in the 90’s, a few years after I started with Leica, after 7 years of Nikon (with pleasure and success), I got into a stream of testing, comparing and analyzing Leica gear and forgot where we are here for on earth. Leica seems to illicit such a busy-ness because it has or had the name of the best lenses and we can’t rest before we have proven it to ourselves. Waste of time.

But now that you’ve shown it: I find the 400ISO version a tiny bit more sparkling, but completely neglectable as a difference.

Edited by otto.f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 34 Minuten schrieb otto.f:

Hey Chaemono, stop the testing and enjoy that wonderful beast in making interesting photo's!

Man, whenever there are links to DNGs, these forum bullies seem to emerge from nowhere. I’ll tell you what, Otto, I’ll do another 20 pairs, just for you. 

vor 34 Minuten schrieb otto.f:

Waste of time.

Stop wasting your time and move on to another thread.

Edited by Chaemono

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