M11 Dynamic Range Specification

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Maybe one of you can tell me if I'm being reasonable in thinking that the sensor on the M10 is "good enough" for today's photography?  Will you be able to look at two photos, side by side, and accurately be able to say which model M they were taken with?  I suspect not.

I'd recommend going over to the "M11 Images" thread, and looking at some of the landscapes that include the sun in the picture. And seeing just how well the M11 can capture the "color" and/or "edge" of the sun amidst the sky (and the rest of the scene) around it. Especially given the amount of detail and separation also retained in the "darker areas" in the foreground.

This one in particular - that is what 14 stops of DR looks like, and yeah, I would have a little trouble getting both ends of that range from an M10. It is virtually "HDR straight-out-of-the-camera.":

Some of Jono's pictures of silhouetted trees are similar.

Now, not every scene or subject requires that much DR, and for those scenes/subjects, the M10 and others are easily "good enough." Heck, a 2002 Nikon D100 was "good enough" for many things.

But is a technical evaluation, one has to consider capabilities, not just intentions..

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

I think you are saying is that:

• For highlights, when the signals are overwhelmed by light, there is no way to measure any additional light beyond that point = white.
• For shadows, when the signals can't detect any additional lack of light = black (dark).

Therefore, to get more dynamic range, we need to go beyond one or the other, or both of those limits.  And I guess it makes sense, that with improved technology we need to recover more information beyond the current limits.

 

Maybe one of you can tell me if I'm being reasonable in thinking that the sensor on the M10 is "good enough" for today's photography?  Will you be able to look at two photos, side by side, and accurately be able to say which model M they were taken with?  I suspect not.  ...and for a challenge, can one of you who owns both an M10 and a M11 take a photo of some scene, with each camera, using the same file size, and lens, and challenge the rest of us to pick which camera it came from?

Imagine a glass of water. You cannot go beyond full (or highlight clipping) or below empty (completely dark, e.g., with the lens cap on). However, as you get darker, the noise overwhelms the useful signal, and you can no longer discern details. It occurs way before it is completely dark. The higher the DR, the less noise you have.
Most sensors are good enough for today's photography. The limiting factor is mostly the photographer's skills.

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

47 minutes ago, adan said:

I'd recommend going over to the "M11 Images" thread, and looking at some of the landscapes that include the sun in the picture. And seeing just how well the M11 can capture the "color" and/or "edge" of the sun amidst the sky (and the rest of the scene) around it. Especially given the amount of detail and separation also retained in the "darker areas" in the foreground.

I did as you suggested, and selected what I thought was one of the best images including the sun.  I copied it to a test folder on my computer, opened it in DxO PhotoLab 5, and turned on the warning indicators for under-exposure and over-exposure.  Ouch.  I have no idea how the image was taken, or processed, but this is what people in the PhotoLab forum spent weeks on, teaching me how to avoid it.  

The only way I'm going to know for sure is to buy my own M11.  

The way I've been taught to avoid this, is to expose for the highlights (near the sun), increase the exposure by 1.7 stops, and capture the image.  The brightest parts of the image will not be blown out providing I accurately spot measure the brightest part of the scene.

Regardless of any of this, it is a beautiful, spectacular, image by @Athornton, and my mentioning his name here, I hope he will see this link, and explain how he measured the exposure.  Maybe PhotoLab5 is just more capable of checking for issues like this, or maybe the original photo is fine, and the copy posted in the forum is different than the original?

 

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!

[Al Brown]

There are absolutely zero issues with this photo. What exacly do the good people there at PhotoLab forum teach to avoid? If one would shoot his or her images avoiding all the theoretical "flaws", one would end up with a plethora of flat, boring HDR looking pictures.
Just for fun: load a Rembrandt in DxO (Try The Night Watch, a perfect reproduction thereof) and let us know what the indicators say. I would check myself but do not have the program.

[MikeMyers]

Forget the forum, this is from the program.  

I will copy the histogram below:

I've gotten into the habit of using the histogram on any image I edit.  I'm not suggesting what anyone else could, or should do, just what I see when I open the image on my Mac using PhotoLab, with the warnings turned on for under/over exposure.

Can you open this image in your software, and copy the histogram to post here?

 

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!

[MikeMyers]

This is the histogram from DarkTable:

 

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!

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

If one would shoot his or her images avoiding all the theoretical "flaws", one would end up with a plethora of flat, boring HDR looking pictures.

Maybe you're right, and this is exactly how the photographer wanted it to look.  I'm certainly no expert, but I was hoping the M11 would capture a technically better image....   but I don't know anything about what editing was done, or how the artist wanted the image to look.  I don't see how blown highlights or shadows are better for that reason, but I'm just following what I've been taught and what I think I've learned.  I wish I had an M11 to try out........

Edited January 16, 2022 by MikeMyers

[tom.w.bn]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

Blown highlights are not related to the dynamic range but exposure. Once one of the channels is blown, your image is 'compromised,' though you may not notice. Some cameras generate DNG files that allow better recovery of highlights in the post, i.e., the post-processor is better able to reconstruct the missing data.

D850 has better DR than M10-R when using ISOs below 120. However, I think M10-R has plenty of DR, and you should focus on optimal exposure to get the most out of your sensor.

Where did you get this from? My experience is, that DR is related to both sides of the historgram. Take a camera with high DR and low DR and take photos of a bright landscape with the same exposure settings. If your raw converter can't find anything useful in the highlight-areas taken with the camera with low DR it will most likely find something useful in the same area of the camera with high DR.

The advantage of modern camers is, that I can use a normal exposure for landscape photography and don't need to underexposue a lot.

[MikeMyers]

Hi Tom, before anything else, I have a M10, not an M10R.  I wish I had the R......    or the 11.

Yes, I agree, blown highlights are from overexposure, as was pointed out up above.  I don't feel comfortable talking about the image I downloaded from the forum (as was suggested) as it's not my image.

Let's take what you wrote, and go from there.  Or, I can post one of my own photos, and you can all feel free to tear it or me apart.  Anyway, I enjoy taking sunset photos, as the sun is just vanishing behind buildings in Miami, across Biscayne Bay from me.  Some parts of the photo are very dark.  If I use a "normal" exposure, the area near the sun is always burnt out.  But, I can use a spot meter and set my exposure for that specific, very bright, part of the sky that is so bright, and it will come out fine in the image.  The trick I was taught, is to start with that exposure, and deliberately over-expose by 1.7 stops.  That very bright area will not be burnt out, and I'll get more detail in the shadows.  

(Sounded very silly to me when it was first suggested, but it works perfectly - before you shoot me, try it once.  As long as you're metering accurately, and only over-exposing by 1.7 stops, that bright part of the sky will be fine in the resulting image.)

28 minutes ago, tom.w.bn said:

The advantage of modern camers is, that I can use a normal exposure for landscape photography and don't need to underexposue a lot.

If I take a photo, and the sky is all washed out, I decrease the exposure until I'm happy with the result.  I learned how to do this years ago using a P&S camera.  

[charlesphoto99]

I think one is better off thinking about how to make a photo of a sunset more interesting (than most photos of sunsets are) than worrying about a stop of extra DR and some sort of 'exposure theory.' 

M10, 135mm APO, most likely f8, 1/4000 at iso 200, AWB. 

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!

[MikeMyers]

Here's an example - I can't post the original Nikon file here, too big, so I just will create a screen copy, and this is my discussion about it from the forum:

 

Several people in this forum, have been teaching me how to work more effectively with High Dynamic Range photos.

The first suggestion was to put away my Leica M10, and switch to my Nikon D750 which is more suited to this kind of photography. (A Nikon D850 would be even more suited, but that’s for much later, if at all.)

What they suggested I do was:

• put D750 in (M)anual mode
• Select RAW mode
• Set ISO very low (I used 100 ISO today)
• Select “Spot Metering”
• Use the exposure compensation control set to +1.7 (overexposing)
• Measure exposure with the “spot” on the brightest part of the image, and center the D750’s metering so it is “centered”.
• Adjust the composition, focus, and shoot.

Exposure was 1/320th, f/13, ISO 100

 

The exposure was metered to be correct, nothing was "clipped", and I just did my normal editing.

14 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I think one is better off thinking about how to make a photo of a sunset more interesting (than most photos of sunsets are) than worrying about a stop of extra DR and some sort of 'exposure theory.' 

I won't argue with you, but to me, if I'm going to all this trouble, and using the best gear, why not also make the resulting image technically perfect as well?  Blown highlights bother me.  Doesn't matter if anyone agrees or not, if I can avoid them, I will.  Images that look "edited" bother me too.  Especially if I made them!!!!!!!!!!!

Life was much more "fun" before I started worrying about all these details, but I got tired of people informing me of my mistakes.  It doesn't make sense for me to spend $7, 8, or 9 thousand dollars on a camera, and more for the lens, and not do everything I can to avoid mistakes.  That's just me.  ....and I still make mistakes, or maybe I just associate with people who know too much.  I dunno.  It's not a "maybe" question, the histogram doesn't lie, except that histograms really should be based on the raw data, and show all channels.....    Sorry.  

The photo below was done as a test, to see if I got everything right.  It's not necessarily a good or bad image, it's just trying to confirm I got everything right.

 

 

So, the reply from the forum:

You really nailed this for exposure, even with the sun actually in the frame.

Just a couple of really small things:

Increase the size of the Smart Lighting zones, they weren’t big enough to affect the highlight/shadow levels enough.

 

Capture d’écran 2021-10-22 à 12.45.001261×463 61 KB

 

After changing that, I could then adjust the tone curve by even less than you did, to maintain slightly more range.

To be able to do this little alteration just goes to show how well you exposed the image in the camera.

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!

[SrMi]

Clipping as shown in the camera and even post-processors is not accurate. Use RawDigger to know if there is any clipping and where accurately.

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Use RawDigger to know if there is any clipping and where accurately

Never heard of it, but that's nothing new.  It's now downloading.  Thank you!

[MikeMyers]

Installed, and my file is opened.  I guess I need to do some reading to understand this - here's what it shows me:

I think it is telling me that there are no blown highlights, and that much of the image is greatly underexposed.

Time to close my windows, and look for a YouTube how-to video on Raw Digger.

 

Thank you in advance if this turns out to be as useful as I hope it will be.....

 

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!

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Use RawDigger t

@SrMi- not sure whether to cuss at you, or drown you in thank you notes.  I think you've turned my world upside down.  

RawDigger is downloaded and working, and I started my learning with this video:

RawDigger Video

I guess I just maybe moved out of "grade school" and into "graduate school", and everything I thought before was in the right direction, but not good enough.  I thought, and people in the forum thought, that I got my exposure right in the above sunset photo.  Nope, close, but no cigar.  

I guess I'll buy it first, and then start using it.  I also need to go back to the other forum, and post about it.

Not sure what to say now, other than Thank You !!!!!

 

P.S. - I hope someone here can try RawDigger on some M11 files straight from the camera.  That's how this discussion got started.

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, MikeMyers said:

@SrMi- not sure whether to cuss at you, or drown you in thank you notes.  I think you've turned my world upside down.  

RawDigger is downloaded and working, and I started my learning with this video:

RawDigger Video

I guess I just maybe moved out of "grade school" and into "graduate school", and everything I thought before was in the right direction, but not good enough.  I thought, and people in the forum thought, that I got my exposure right in the above sunset photo.  Nope, close, but no cigar.  

I guess I'll buy it first, and then start using it.  I also need to go back to the other forum, and post about it.

Not sure what to say now, other than Thank You !!!!!

 

P.S. - I hope someone here can try RawDigger on some M11 files straight from the camera.  That's how this discussion got started.

You are most welcome :)! RawDigger and related knowledge were eye-opening for me.

[MikeMyers]

6 hours ago, SrMi said:

Imagine a glass of water. You cannot go beyond full (or highlight clipping)

Puzzled - yes, for a glass of water, once it's full, you can't "over-fill", but with pixels, as the exposure gets worse, don't more and more pixels get blown out?  Isn't that what the data indicates?  

 

.....and back to my own version of reality, once no pixels are blown our or terribly noisy, other than resolution what will be the difference in the image from the M10 and the M11 ?   I know the Maestro III is faster, but does't it have the same goal as the previous version?  Someone is going to need to put a M10 and an M11 side by side, and take the same image with the same settings and the same lens, and then compare the results.  

What we've been talking about lately is human errors.  Once both cameras have the same settings, and the settings are accurate, that's when we need to make the comparison.

 

Just to add here, if people aren't concerned with the technical details involve in getting a perfect image, then getting the best possible image is not a valid reason to buy the M11.  I understand that technical perfection doesn't automatically make a perfect image, but for an image to be perfect, to me, that's one of the requirements.  Not that what I think matters.  I bet a lot of people just want to have the M11 because it's the latest version out, and they want "the best".  To me, the camera is just the tool, and the artist is what's most important, but an artist by definition will know and understand the tools.

Time to go to sleep.  My head is spinning with all this new information.  In a few weeks when I feel safe getting around, I want to go to the Leica Store in Miami and check out the M11 for myself.  

[charlesphoto99]

That said, I'll be more than happy to have the extra DR of the M10-R on vacation in Kauai next month compared to M10/9/8 in the past years. But sunrises are always going to be the most tricky thing to shoot DR wise for any sensor. 

[adan]

29 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

other than resolution what will be the difference in the image from the M10 and the M11 ?

See your own chart in post #14

The M11 has now effectively caught up with those Nikons that beat the M10 - 14-15 stops DR, depending whether you choose 60 or 36 or 16 Mpixel output.

Edited January 17, 2022 by adan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, MikeMyers said:

Puzzled - yes, for a glass of water, once it's full, you can't "over-fill", but with pixels, as the exposure gets worse, don't more and more pixels get blown out?  Isn't that what the data indicates?  

 

.....and back to my own version of reality, once no pixels are blown our or terribly noisy, other than resolution what will be the difference in the image from the M10 and the M11 ?   I know the Maestro III is faster, but does't it have the same goal as the previous version?  Someone is going to need to put a M10 and an M11 side by side, and take the same image with the same settings and the same lens, and then compare the results.  

What we've been talking about lately is human errors.  Once both cameras have the same settings, and the settings are accurate, that's when we need to make the comparison.

 

Just to add here, if people aren't concerned with the technical details involve in getting a perfect image, then getting the best possible image is not a valid reason to buy the M11.  I understand that technical perfection doesn't automatically make a perfect image, but for an image to be perfect, to me, that's one of the requirements.  Not that what I think matters.  I bet a lot of people just want to have the M11 because it's the latest version out, and they want "the best".  To me, the camera is just the tool, and the artist is what's most important, but an artist by definition will know and understand the tools.

Time to go to sleep.  My head is spinning with all this new information.  In a few weeks when I feel safe getting around, I want to go to the Leica Store in Miami and check out the M11 for myself.  

Imagine that each pixel is a glass of water. Some pixels get saturated (full of water = white), some do not. Detail is visible only where there is variation in the amount of water (brightness). 
If we assume that M11 has more DR, then the pixels on M11 can be much darker than on M10-R before the noise overwhelms them. This is especially useful when lifting shadows.
Another element that seems to help is the BSI sensor that allows light at steep angles (aka corners) to illuminate the pixels better. While vignetting can be fixed in post, the corners will have more noise because less light is hitting them.

Are pretty objective comparison of DR between cameras can be found at PhotonsToPhotos (PDR). M11 is not yet in the list of cameras.