onasj Posted February 16, 2020 Share #1 Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Very impressive overall— better high-ISO performance than any other full-frame camera on record, sandwiched between a slew of (more expensive) medium format offerings from Phase One, Fuji, and Hassy. Base ISO is 160 or 200. Dual-gain conversion switch at ISO 800. Max PDR of 10.94 stops (compared to 10.48 stops for the M10-P). High ISO performance is 2.5x better (1.3 stops better) than that of the M10-P. All consistent with my experiences shooting this amazing camera. http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%20100(FF),Leica%20M10%20MONOCHROM,Leica%20M10-P Edited February 16, 2020 by onasj 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 Hi onasj, Take a look here Photons to photos sensor measurement of the M10 Monochrom. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmradman Posted February 17, 2020 Share #2 Posted February 17, 2020 Perhaps comparing three mono cameras is more revealing. 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! 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/306523-photons-to-photos-sensor-measurement-of-the-m10-monochrom/?do=findComment&comment=3914527'>More sharing options...
onasj Posted February 17, 2020 Author Share #3 Posted February 17, 2020 Shot at their respective base ISOs, the M10M offers ~0.75 stops more DR than the 246, and ~2.3 stops more DR than the M Monochrom. So recent discussions about blown highlights in the M10M aren't caused by the camera's inability to capture a wide dynamic range—indeed, it's better than past Leica M monochrom cameras at doing so—but rather by capture conditions or post-processing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 17, 2020 Share #4 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) My conclusion from Bill's dynamic range analysis and Sean's highlight recovery: to get the same highlight recovery (and better dynamic range) when shooting below ISO 400, a negative exposure compensation should be applied. We have a similar situation with Q2 and ISO 50 vs. ISO 100. In practice, with large contrast scenes, I will likely use exposure compensation anyway (best with highlight warnings in Live View). Edited February 17, 2020 by SrMi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted February 18, 2020 Share #5 Posted February 18, 2020 10 hours ago, SrMi said: My conclusion from Bill's dynamic range analysis and Sean's highlight recovery: to get the same highlight recovery (and better dynamic range) when shooting below ISO 400, a negative exposure compensation should be applied. We have a similar situation with Q2 and ISO 50 vs. ISO 100. In practice, with large contrast scenes, I will likely use exposure compensation anyway (best with highlight warnings in Live View). When using AP and at ISO 160 in high contrast scenes, I used -.3 and -.7 and had no issue with blown highlights. I concur with your reasoning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now