M10 iso vs M240 for very low light night photography

[NickSM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

Just wanted to ask anyone who has used both the M10 and the M240 how much of a true iso performance boost there is when it comes to shooting in "bad" light. I use an M240 and walk around shooting interesting pools of light at night, on the street, and do it all hand held.

I find the M240 I can shoot in rough light up to about ISO 2000 and get away with it, again this is very bad light and at night haha. My question is, looking at the examples of my work I've attached, do you feel the M10 could produce an equally clean shot (in this this type of light) at say iso 6400 as my m240 does at iso 2000?

I realize this question is super niche so not expecting a definitive answer, more so looking for a few opinions since I've never shot the M10 and am trying to decide if I should upgrade. 

Thanks! 

ps: yes I know tripods exist haha. They really don't work for my style of shooting since I need to be super discreet and able to move quickly. I also need to be able to hide my camera quickly since I often get approached by rather "seedy" individuals since I'm usually out shooting around midnight.   

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!

[convexferret]

With the M10 I’m happy to use 6400 and will go to 10,000 when necessary. The ISO limit on the M10 for me is not due to noise but to banding in the shadows that starts to get too obvious for me at 12800.

[Toastybunzz]

10,000 or even 12,500 is very usable if you expose correctly. 

[NickSM]

21 hours ago, convexferret said:

With the M10 I’m happy to use 6400 and will go to 10,000 when necessary. The ISO limit on the M10 for me is not due to noise but to banding in the shadows that starts to get too obvious for me at 12800.

Awesome! thanks for the reply. I know what you mean with the banding, shame it's still an issue on the M10. But those iso numbers you mentioned are definitely a game changer for me. Think I need to upgrade haha  

 

9 hours ago, Toastybunzz said:

10,000 or even 12,500 is very usable if you expose correctly. 

That is unreal. Thanks for the reply. I think it's time I took the plunge! 

[convexferret]

5 hours ago, NickSM said:

Awesome! thanks for the reply. I know what you mean with the banding, shame it's still an issue on the M10. But those iso numbers you mentioned are definitely a game changer for me. Think I need to upgrade haha  

 

That is unreal. Thanks for the reply. I think it's time I took the plunge! 

I did a quick experiment with banding removal last night using the Nik DFine2 plugin for Photoshop (if you have Silver Efex you'll have this). It was able to clear up the 12800 banding completely but the 25600 banding was only partially cleanable. So there might be a little more headroom than I first mentioned if you're prepared to spend a few minutes and a few $$. On a side note the M10m has some banding at 50000 and 100000 and both clean up quite nicely..

[Dr No]

 

On 8/2/2020 at 6:28 AM, NickSM said:

Hi all,

Just wanted to ask anyone who has used both the M10 and the M240 how much of a true iso performance boost there is when it comes to shooting in "bad" light. I use an M240 and walk around shooting interesting pools of light at night, on the street, and do it all hand held.

I find the M240 I can shoot in rough light up to about ISO 2000 and get away with it, again this is very bad light and at night haha. My question is, looking at the examples of my work I've attached, do you feel the M10 could produce an equally clean shot (in this this type of light) at say iso 6400 as my m240 does at iso 2000?

I realize this question is super niche so not expecting a definitive answer, more so looking for a few opinions since I've never shot the M10 and am trying to decide if I should upgrade. 

Thanks! 

ps: yes I know tripods exist haha. They really don't work for my style of shooting since I need to be super discreet and able to move quickly. I also need to be able to hide my camera quickly since I often get approached by rather "seedy" individuals since I'm usually out shooting around midnight.   

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!

Nice pictures.

Given the static nature of your graphic compositions (which are very nice), I can't help but feel a tripod is the better and considerably cheaper option?

You could spend the money on taking the photos instead. ie. travel interesting locations when we are able to.

 

[NickSM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, convexferret said:

I did a quick experiment with banding removal last night using the Nik DFine2 plugin for Photoshop (if you have Silver Efex you'll have this). It was able to clear up the 12800 banding completely but the 25600 banding was only partially cleanable. So there might be a little more headroom than I first mentioned if you're prepared to spend a few minutes and a few $$. On a side note the M10m has some banding at 50000 and 100000 and both clean up quite nicely..

Fantastic. That sounds promising indeed. I am a pro retoucher by trade so I have experimented with every de-noise plugin out there I think haha. In my opinion Capture One still does the best job to be honest. Obviously being able to address the problem at the RAW stage is ideal compared to using a Tiff like these plugins do. That being said, I do find that Capture One's file support for Leica is not always the best. For example their limited selection of lens profiles compared to Lightroom is annoying. I also feel that you can sometimes push the Leica files further in Lightroom than Capture One. It just feels like overall Leica is sort of an after thought in Capture One. But that's just my opinion of course.   Thanks for the reminder on the Dfine plugin though, I just downloaded the trial and ran it and I must say it's results are near identical to Capture One's, which is very impressive given it's working from a Tiff not a Raw! 

 

3 hours ago, Dr No said:

 

Nice pictures.

Given the static nature of your graphic compositions (which are very nice), I can't help but feel a tripod is the better and considerably cheaper option?

You could spend the money on taking the photos instead. ie. travel interesting locations when we are able to.

 

Thanks so much for the kind words  

I am certainly not against tripods in general, it's just I rarely shoot in a locked off manor. I'm sort of just pointing all over the place and shooting. But the main reason the tripod isn't ideal for me is I need to be super discreet and able to move quickly. I also need to be able to hide my camera quickly since I often get approached by sketchy people or confronted and yelled at by people who think I'm up to no good. So the ability to quickly break down and/or stuff the camera in my jacket pocket is a must. I'm usually out shooting in Los Angeles between 11pm-1am so I understand that I look sketchy too. haha

 

 

 

[Dennis]

Nick.

The M10 is an amazing camera, and the high ISO performances are great. At least for me, it meet my requirements for low light. If you get an M10 or M10P in the future, you'll see the difference with the M240. For your records, I put here a few pictures to give you a real-world idea of the M10.

3200 ISO

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!

 

 at 6400 ISO

 

 

at 10,000 ISO

 

 

I often use 3,200 ISO. Also when I need 6,400 or 12,800 ISO, I set 3,200 and compensate in PP. Remember that the M10 is ISO invariant, which is a great advantage.

My limit is 10,000. Great result but affordable noise 😃 But, just in case of apocalypses, I have my ISO dial M set at 12,800.

Hope this helps on your choice.

Good vibes

[convexferret]

9 hours ago, NickSM said:

Fantastic. That sounds promising indeed. I am a pro retoucher by trade so I have experimented with every de-noise plugin out there I think haha. In my opinion Capture One still does the best job to be honest. Obviously being able to address the problem at the RAW stage is ideal compared to using a Tiff like these plugins do. That being said, I do find that Capture One's file support for Leica is not always the best. For example their limited selection of lens profiles compared to Lightroom is annoying. I also feel that you can sometimes push the Leica files further in Lightroom than Capture One. It just feels like overall Leica is sort of an after thought in Capture One. But that's just my opinion of course.   Thanks for the reminder on the Dfine plugin though, I just downloaded the trial and ran it and I must say it's results are near identical to Capture One's, which is very impressive given it's working from a Tiff not a Raw! 

Note that I'm not doing any noise reduction (I rarely do noise reduction), I'm zeroing everything in DFine except for the banding removal, which is hidden in the extra options panel and set to somewhere between 75 and 100 (of 200)