Jeff S Posted July 14, 2021 Share #381 Posted July 14, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 hours ago, Steven said: I hate hoods, I hate straps, I hate caps, I hate filters. sorry I shouldn’t say hate. I just really dislike all of the above. So, less than the 35 FLE. Jeff 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here M10-P or M10R. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Nowhereman Posted July 14, 2021 Share #382 Posted July 14, 2021 3 hours ago, Steven said: ...When I shoot my M10P on a bright day, with a summilux wide open, my photo is ever exposed. When I try to bring the exposure down, the photo falls apart, becomes disgusting and unusable. When I shoot my M10R on a bright day, with a summilux wide open, my photo is ever exposed. When I try to bring the exposure down, the photo holds together perfectly, becomes totaly usable all the time and is saved from overexposure... ...with my M10R, I used to carry around half a dozen VNDs. Today, I couldn’t tell you where my filters are anymore…. I gather the above is about shooting both cameras at ISO 100, so that with the M10-R you can shoot at f/1.4 and get good results, while with the M10 the highlights are blown. Indeed, that has been well documented that it's not advisable to shoot the M10 at ISO 100, which means that you would have to use ND filters and shoot at ISO 200 to be able to shoot at f/1.4 and achieve the highlights that get with the M10-R at ISO 100. That is one of points I made in post #493, the other being that, for ISO 200 and above, the M10-R does not have a superior highlight recovery than the M10. The latter point is one that I have never seen effectively refuted, but people keep on saying things such as the M10-R having better highlight falloff, or better highlight recovery than the M10 — or even saying that it has more dynamic range. It seems to me that Leica has had quite an accomplishment in the M10-R having the same dynamic range as the M10, considering that is has so much more pixel density and smaller photo sites. ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 14, 2021 Share #383 Posted July 14, 2021 49 minutes ago, Nowhereman said: I gather the above is about shooting both cameras at ISO 100, so that with the M10-R you can shoot at f/1.4 and get good results, while with the M10 the highlights are blown. Indeed, that has been well documented that it's not advisable to shoot the M10 at ISO 100, which means that you would have to use ND filters and shoot at ISO 200 to be able to shoot at f/1.4 and achieve the highlights that get with the M10-R at ISO 100. That is one of points I made in post #493, the other being that, for ISO 200 and above, the M10-R does not have a superior highlight recovery than the M10. The latter point is one that I have never seen effectively refuted, but people keep on saying things such as the M10-R having better highlight falloff, or better highlight recovery than the M10 — or even saying that it has more dynamic range. It seems to me that Leica has had quite an accomplishment in the M10-R having the same dynamic range as the M10, considering that is has so much more pixel density and smaller photo sites. ________________________Frog Leaping photobook My recollection from a previous discussion is that ISO 200 was the problem, not 100. Someone posted a graph, showing a dip at 200. The photons to photons graph for the M10-P look normal to me - https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm I take your point about dynamic range on the M10-R … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 14, 2021 Share #384 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Nowhereman said: It seems to me that Leica has had quite an accomplishment in the M10-R having the same dynamic range as the M10, considering that is has so much more pixel density and smaller photo sites. ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Indeed, due in large part to the sensor improvements I listed earlier, as this article explains (although stating even better dynamic range)… https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/07/leica-announces-m10-r-with-40-megapixels/ Jeff Edited July 14, 2021 by Jeff S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nowhereman Posted July 14, 2021 Share #385 Posted July 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: My recollection from a previous discussion is that ISO 200 was the problem, not 100... Are you sure about that? I recall @Jono posting an article stating that the base ISP of the M10 was about ISO 160, that ISO 100 was a "pull" and that ISO 200 gave a better dynamic range. I'm about to go to sleep, so don't want to do a search now... ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nowhereman Posted July 14, 2021 Share #386 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Jeff S said: Indeed, due in large part to the sensor improvements I listed earlier, as this article explains (although stating even better dynamic range)… https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/07/leica-announces-m10-r-with-40-megapixels/... Yes, the article states, due to a new, exclusive sensor architecture, per-pixel light sensitivity has been enhanced, resulting in an improvement to dynamic range and high ISO performance of around one full stop versus the M10 and M10-P. But I've never seen these types of statements reconciled with the photostophotons dynamic range graphs, which show virtually the same DR for the M10 and M10-R. Nor have I seen any criticisms that the photostophotons graphs are wrong. So, this is what puzzles me... ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Edited July 14, 2021 by Nowhereman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 14, 2021 Share #387 Posted July 14, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) 9 minutes ago, Nowhereman said: Are you sure about that? I recall @Jono posting an article stating that the base ISP of the M10 was about ISO 160, that ISO 100 was a "pull" and that ISO 200 gave a better dynamic range. I'm about to go to sleep, so don't want to do a search now... ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Correct. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 14, 2021 Share #388 Posted July 14, 2021 Sorry, I mixed up the SL - that has a dip at ISO 100. Interestingly the SL has better dynamic range at ISO 50 than any M10 based camera, apart from the M10-Monochrom: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted July 14, 2021 Share #389 Posted July 14, 2021 2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said: Sorry, I mixed up the SL - that has a dip at ISO 100. Interestingly the SL has better dynamic range at ISO 50 than any M10 based camera, apart from the M10-Monochrom: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm The SL does not have a dip at ISO 100 (though the graph looks like that), but the dual conversion gain apparently kicks in at ISO 200. Also visible here https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Leica SL (Typ 601) The max PDR of SL is 10.81 vs. M10's 10.6. It is practically the same. Has anyone observed Leica's claim of one stop better DR in M10-R vs. M10-P? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted July 14, 2021 Share #390 Posted July 14, 2021 3 hours ago, Nowhereman said: Are you sure about that? I recall @Jono posting an article stating that the base ISP of the M10 was about ISO 160, that ISO 100 was a "pull" and that ISO 200 gave a better dynamic range. I'm about to go to sleep, so don't want to do a search now... ________________________Frog Leaping photobook https://www.slack.co.uk/m10-highlights.html It seems that Jono uses blown highlights to determine base ISO. Pulled ISO-s indeed tend to blow highlights easier, but blown highlights are not an automatic indication of pulled ISO. Instead, blown highlights can be traced to metering, not to pulled ISOs. That said, it is helpful to know when automatic metering requires either EC or a change in ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted July 14, 2021 Share #391 Posted July 14, 2021 9 hours ago, Nowhereman said: @Jeff S - Yes, the sensors are different but the dynamic range measures by photonstophotos have been a reflection of reality. That is why my question remains — and I have not seen the alleged superiority in the treatment of highlights by the M10-R vs that of the M10 explained adequately. Jono's statement that you linked deals only with the performance at ISO 100, which I mentioned and acknowledged in my earlier post. ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Hi There Although I was dealing with ISO 100 I can promise you that the highlight recovery on the M10-R is a huge improvement - any over-exposure on the M10 results in nasty highlight behaviour, not just at ISO 100 (although it's worse there). This is nothing to do with dynamic range (no argument with photonstophotos measurement). Recovery of highlights with the M10 is usually just not possible, whereas with the M10-R it's very easy - I think that it has about a stop and a half advantage in recovery on post processing over the M10-R. All the best 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted July 14, 2021 Share #392 Posted July 14, 2021 1 hour ago, SrMi said: https://www.slack.co.uk/m10-highlights.html It seems that Jono uses blown highlights to determine base ISO. Pulled ISO-s indeed tend to blow highlights easier, but blown highlights are not an automatic indication of pulled ISO. Instead, blown highlights can be traced to metering, not to pulled ISOs. That said, it is helpful to know when automatic metering requires either EC or a change in ISO. Hi There No - I use what I'm told is the base ISO to determine base ISO 😁. it's about 160 on the M10 and about 100 (probably a bit less) on the M10-R. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJH Posted July 14, 2021 Share #393 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) On 4/7/2021 at 9:27 PM, leicatest said: The autofocus is still nothing I would rely on. I tested it in 4k 25p with L-Log (wich may be more difficult because flat picture profiles may not be helpful for contrast based AF) with face/body detection. I tested it with the 35mm APO wide open at F2 in artificial light. The default settings didn't seem to work for me, so I put it all to maximum and it is not as bad as it used to be. In situations when people are moving it still struggles but it gets much better, when they are sitting still. I think there is an improvement because in firmware 1.0 ist was not even reliable when people were sitting still. I´ll do some daylight testing tomorrow 1 hour ago, jonoslack said: Hi There No - I use what I'm told is the base ISO to determine base ISO 😁. it's about 160 on the M10 and about 100 (probably a bit less) on the M10-R. Personally I agree with Jono on this re highlight recovery in post #513 etc having gone from an M10P to an M10R plus I think the M10R's sensor is also actually better than the SL2 at higher ISO's, I've therefore ended up with the M10R & SL2s as they seem to be the best performing cloud sensors for highlights and higher ISO's within Leica's current full frame range. Of course people have different needs and the SL2 excels for landscapes for example. The M10R paired with the new M 35mm f2 APO is outstanding and this lens also works very well on the SL2s although you do have to get use the the long focus throw given the excellent MFD Edited July 14, 2021 by SJH 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted July 14, 2021 Share #394 Posted July 14, 2021 vor einer Stunde schrieb jonoslack: Hi There Although I was dealing with ISO 100 I can promise you that the highlight recovery on the M10-R is a huge improvement - any over-exposure on the M10 results in nasty highlight behaviour, not just at ISO 100 (although it's worse there). This is nothing to do with dynamic range (no argument with photonstophotos measurement). Recovery of highlights with the M10 is usually just not possible, whereas with the M10-R it's very easy - I think that it has about a stop and a half advantage in recovery on post processing over the M10-R. All the best That is my experience too. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nowhereman Posted July 14, 2021 Share #395 Posted July 14, 2021 2 hours ago, jonoslack said: Hi There Although I was dealing with ISO 100 I can promise you that the highlight recovery on the M10-R is a huge improvement - any over-exposure on the M10 results in nasty highlight behaviour, not just at ISO 100 (although it's worse there). This is nothing to do with dynamic range (no argument with photonstophotos measurement). Recovery of highlights with the M10 is usually just not possible, whereas with the M10-R it's very easy - I think that it has about a stop and a half advantage in recovery on post processing over the M10-R... Thanks @jonoslack, @Steven, @Jeff S - I take the point you're making on the advantage of the M10-R over the M10 in highlight recovery. What still confuses me is the following statement: 4 hours ago, SrMi said: The SL does not have a dip at ISO 100 (though the graph looks like that), but the dual conversion gain apparently kicks in at ISO 200. Also visible here https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Leica SL (Typ 601) The max PDR of SL is 10.81 vs. M10's 10.6. It is practically the same. Has anyone observed Leica's claim of one stop better DR in M10-R vs. M10-P? ...and the following chart, which shows substantially better shadow recovery at ISO 200 by the M10 compared to the M10-R. I may be misunderstanding this, but I would have thought that if, you shoot at ISO 200, and expose for the highlights, and raise shadows in post, you should end up better with the M10 than with the M10-R — or at least the same. I am not being obstreperous — simply confused by this. 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! ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ________________________ Frog Leaping photobook ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/312268-m10-p-or-m10r/?do=findComment&comment=4238005'>More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted July 14, 2021 Share #396 Posted July 14, 2021 6 minutes ago, Nowhereman said: ...and the following chart, which shows substantially better shadow recovery at ISO 200 by the M10 compared to the M10-R. I may be misunderstanding this, but I would have thought that if, you shoot at ISO 200, and expose for the highlights, and raise shadows in post, you should end up better with the M10 than with the M10-R — or at least the same. I am not being obstreperous — simply confused by this. 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! ________________________Frog Leaping photobook Hi There I don't know about these figures, but I'm quite certain that in this context shadow recovery is not at all related to highlight recovery - actually, in terms of dynamic range you might assume that better shadow recovery would mean worse highlight recovery (and vice versa). But I don't think the highlight issue with the M10 is to do with dynamic range, but with a characteristic of the sensor design (which is fixed in the M10-R). All the best 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted July 14, 2021 Share #397 Posted July 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, Nowhereman said: you should end up better with the M10 I think the point (as a M10 user) that is being made is that in some situations with the M10 you can't expose for the highlights if they are beyond what f1.4/4000 can cope with (ie they become completely 'blown' at this exposure setting). This presupposes you want/need to use f1.4 (or wider) and don't want to use a ND filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted July 14, 2021 Share #398 Posted July 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, jonoslack said: But I don't think the highlight issue with the M10 is to do with dynamic range, but with a characteristic of the sensor design (which is fixed in the M10-R). It is always interesting these things only come to light (excuse pun) when the next upgrade arrives. Same with road testers and cars.😉 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted July 14, 2021 Share #399 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, pedaes said: It is always interesting these things only come to light (excuse pun) when the next upgrade arrives. Same with road testers and cars.😉 Hah! I don't think so. https://www.slack.co.uk/m10-highlights.html This was published in summer 2018 - long before the M10-R was even a twinkle in anybody's eye . . . apologies for misplaced sarcasm gratefully accepted 😂 Edited July 14, 2021 by jonoslack 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nowhereman Posted July 14, 2021 Share #400 Posted July 14, 2021 1 hour ago, jonoslack said: ...I don't know about these figures, but I'm quite certain that in this context shadow recovery is not at all related to highlight recovery - actually, in terms of dynamic range you might assume that better shadow recovery would mean worse highlight recovery (and vice versa)... If that is the case, there must be an explanation for this, but I've no idea what it is — so, still puzzled. ________________________Frog Leaping photobook 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