Side-by-side comparison of M11 vs. M10-R vs. M10-M (M10 Monochrome) at ISO 12,500 and 25,000

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, adli said:

 

This forum demonstrates a rather rough environment for the few people who actually contributes positively...

 

Cudos to onasj for sharing his thoughts with us.

It's ok—I'm old enough that it doesn't bother me (unfortunately).

Or, in the immortal view of xkcd:

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!

[adan]

16 hours ago, Torontoamateur said:

WOW ! a $9,000 camera with a $8,000 lens to take pictures of a cat perform a test of resolution and noise. Give me a break !!!!

 

Fixed that for you.

Its a technical test, for Pete's sake!

A cat makes as good an experimental subject as any other. And probably better than most, given the fine detail and structure of the crisscrossing hairs (or the complex pattern of their irises. although not included in these tests). And the fact that a cat is more interesting than a test pattern.

.....................

It is incorrect to downsample images to match resolutions, however. A bit like cutting off the feet (or head) of a taller person when comparing his/her peak running speed compared to a shorter person. Or perhaps writing intellectual examinations only in words of two or less syllables. It inherently cripples one of the test subjects and thus favors the other.

(Although such sleight-of-hand can help serve a pre-determined agenda. )

Upsampling to the same size allows both test subjects to perform at peak performance. Or even above and beyond theoretical peak performance - one can often be pleasantly surprised by just how well the "lesser subject" can punch above its weight.

I am afraid, however, that ISO 12500 is too low a standard for me. Unless and until Leica can produce a 135mm f/2.0 lens that focuses with the M rangefinder.  I shoot pictures in places that need ISO 25000 or more  at f/3.4 or f/4.

[Advertisement]

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

[RS-Colo]

22 hours ago, onasj said:

The reason the M10-M has a fundamental advantage of about 2 stops to start with is because the color filter array of almost all modern digital cameras eats about 3/4 of the photons. Which is to say that <1/4 of the photos actually make it to a photodiode.  That's the job of the color filter array: to block out non-red, non-green, or non-blue photons.  The lack of a CFA also helps preserve sharpness because there is no need to de-mosaic the image, as is done with the color cameras.

I think there is are two other reason B&W images have an advantage. First, color (chromatic) noise looks worse than B&W (luminosity) noise IMO. Second, I think many of us are more used to looking at older, grainy, B&W photos and therefore the grain looks somewhat natural. By the time color came around (National Geographic?) image quality was better. These reasons are definitely not scientific, but rather my thoughts and feelings looking at B&W photos vs. color. Then there is the whole issue of what subjects are better represented in B&W or color....

That is a whole different topic.

[lefse]

18 hours ago, onasj said:

More worthy subject: M10-R, Leica Stemar 33 mm @ f/3.5 (takes stereo pairs). If you cross your eyes, you can see the subject in 3D:

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!

Haha, it works! Though I question the sharpness when crossing my eyes. I’m the bottleneck.

[hdmesa]

On 1/16/2022 at 1:07 PM, onasj said:

I conducted the test in an extremely well-lit room ...

Shouldn't high ISO testing be done in low light? It looks like all your comparison does is compare the quality of the noise grain.

I can tell you from having used the GFX 100S (same sensor as M11 but larger) in low light at very high ISOs, it doesn't come close to comparing to the M10 Monochrom. Where it will exceed the M10M is in good light at lower ISOs.

As to all the back and forth as to how to compare, it is standard to reduce the larger file to the size of the smaller ones, though other comparisons are also helpful, such as comparing with the lower res files scaled up to the larger size. Some also like to see the noise of the higher res camera at 1:1 magnification since this is what so many love to flail their arms around about in protest when they move up to a higher res sensor. If you print to the same size you did before, such flailing is wasted protest. But if you want to print larger prints now that you have a higher res camera, it is helpful to see the results at higher magnifications.

Edited January 17, 2022 by hdmesa
Can't spell as usual

[onasj]

4 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Shouldn't high ISO testing be done in low light? It looks like all your comparison does is compare the quality of the noise grain.

I can tell you from having used the GFX 100S (same sensor as M11 but larger) in low light at very high ISOs, it doesn't come close to comparing to the M10 Monochrom. Where it will exceed the M10M is in good light at lower ISOs.

As to all the back and forth as to how to compare, it is standard to reduce the larger file to the size of the smaller ones, though other comparisons are also helpful, such as comparing with the lower res files scaled up to the larger size. Some also like to see the noise of the higher res camera at 1:1 magnification since this is what so many love to flail their arms around about in protest when they move up to a higher res sensor. If you print to the same size you did before, such flailing is wasted protest. But if you want to print larger prints now that you have a higher res camera, it is helpful to see the results at higher magnifications.

A properly exposed photo at a given ISO captures a certain amount of total photons.  Double the ISO and the photons needed to achieve the same exposure go down by (approximately) half.  So my ‘properly exposed’ photos in this test have roughly the same number of photons hitting the sensor as any other properly exposed photo taken at ISO 12500 or 25000.  The reason it’s advantageous to conduct this test with a well-lit subject is that you can reach this number of photons in 1/4000th of a second, which means you don’t worry about motion blur from the camera or subject moving.  That’s why I did the test in a well-lit room.