Jump to content

M10 vs M10-R - Real dynamic Range/Highlight Recovery difference


SOHODE

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

lifting the Black point reduces noise by blocking, at the expense of detail, lowering the black point will increase  noise but may give some more detail.  All, of course,  at the very bottom of the curve. 

so based on that M10 shadows should have more details that M10-R?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Err... not quite. Nowadays we have dual gain, AKA dual native ISO.

 

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/dual-native-iso-explained/

 

It does not change the basic sensitivity of the sensor, but it certainly improves noise behaviour.

That's because sensors only have one native (basic) ISO 😉

But yes dual gain applies different amplification to the base iso at different points. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

I am sure that Leica can do more tricks than I can think of when designing their firmware. 

After all, between M10 ($4.3K new) M10-R ($6.8K new) and M11($9K new) which one do you think makes more sense to buy as the first digital M? Of course the price is very important but it's not a deal breaker. 

I don't care about image size much but some people are taking advantage of 40mpixel for cropping. The DR is more important to me though which all this discussion is about that. Maybe another factor is thinking about upgrading the camera in 2-3 years. I'm not sure if anyone would be still interested in m10 but maybe M10-R could be easier to sell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SOHODE said:

I think it's actually a weakness of M10 that doesn't let use the native ISO (160)

What is the native ISO of M10-R? Isn't it 100?

Yeah me too.. but my m10 at iso200 more often than not (like 9 out of 10 times) selects the same SS as my m9 at iso160

I just treat 200 as base iso and get on with it.

the 10r has a base iso of 100

I don’t own an m10r to compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SOHODE said:

After all, between M10 ($4.3K new) M10-R ($6.8K new) and M11($9K new) which one do you think makes more sense to buy as the first digital M? Of course the price is very important but it's not a deal breaker. 

I don't care about image size much but some people are taking advantage of 40mpixel for cropping. The DR is more important to me though which all this discussion is about that. Maybe another factor is thinking about upgrading the camera in 2-3 years. I'm not sure if anyone would be still interested in m10 but maybe M10-R could be easier to sell. 

I posted this to you in a different thread:

if you're trying to decide between the M10 and M10R, I'd think more about things like do I want 40mp and am I ok with the perception of increased noise from the larger files far more than I would about getting a potential 1/3 (or whatever) of a stop more HL recovery from 10R, and speaking personally I'd find some DNG samples online to see which native colour palette I liked more

At the end of the day, no matter the camera - if you clip data it's gone... whether the camera has 8 stops, 12 or 14.. whether you clip data will depend on your and your camera's ability to meter the scene

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

I am sure that Leica can do more tricks than I can think of when designing their firmware. 

And not just Leica….

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!

look how many cameras the Sony IMX071 base chip is used in.

Now look at all that different tonality, base ISO, max ISO the FM boffins can get from the same thing (give or take filter stacks, CFAs etc)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SOHODE said:

I believe M10-R owners are afraid to compare shadows recovery lol. That's why you can't find any on the net. :)

Maybe drop SrMi (Srdjan) a PM, he’s a smart dude, a helpful dude and has had (or still does) both M10 cameras

or just buy an M11, base iso is 64

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

if you're trying to decide between the M10 and M10R, I'd think more about things like do I want 40mp and am I ok with the perception of increased noise from the larger files far more than I would about getting a potential 1/3 (or whatever) of a stop more HL recovery from 10R

 

I don't usually crop my pictures. Or if I do it will be slightly. TBH if I make sure with half stop or so underexposing with M10 and then pushing in post processing I would get almost the same result as M10R on highlights and also shadows details, I wouldn't think even one more minute about M10-R.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Maybe drop SrMi (Srdjan) a PM, he’s a smart dude, a helpful dude and has had (or still does) both M10 cameras

or just buy an M11, base iso is 64

Will do thanks! 

Actually I think it makes more sense to decide between M10 or M11. (if the pocket helps)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a simple test of highlight recovery between M10-P, M10-R, and M11. My post is here:

Summary: M10-R and M11 have similar highlight recovery. M10-P degrades quicker from fully recoverable with color loss to useless.

The amount of possible highlight recovery depends on the quality of data in the channels that are not blown.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I did a simple test of highlight recovery between M10-P, M10-R, and M11. My post is here:

Summary: M10-R and M11 have similar highlight recovery. M10-P degrades quicker from fully recoverable with color loss to useless.

The amount of possible highlight recovery depends on the quality of data in the channels that are not blown.

 

I think he’s wondering if the m10 offers more shadow recovery than the 10r..?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I compared the noise in shadows between M10-P and M10-R. The test used a Color Checker card and the same exposures (shutter speed and aperture).
Using ISO 200 and ISO 1600, both cameras meter the same using Live View metering, but M10-P files are a bit darker.
At ISO 200, I could not discern any differences. At ISO 1600, only when underexposing and lifting in LrC by five stops do I see better results with M10-R (less striping). I do not see any difference when underexposing and lifting by 3 stops.
My opinion is that the noise in the shadows is similar between M10-P and M10_R and better with M10-R when doing extreme modifications.
Dynamic Range seems to be the same.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing, Thank you!  So based on your test, shadows recovery of m10 and m10-R are (almost) the same but in highlight recovery M10-R is one stop more capable to recover highlights.

This actually shows that M10-R is really covering 1 stop wider range than M10 (in highlights). And it is interesting that shadows in M10 are a bit darker.

And I think with unerexposing a half to one stop and lifting in post with M10, it loses some details in shadows or get more noise than M10-R.

So with M10 you get significant more highlight clipping or more noises in the shadows (in wider range - high contrast situations) 

Thank you again for the test.

Cheers

Edited by SOHODE
Link to post
Share on other sites

My pleasure :).
To clarify: I compared the noise at the same output size, not at 100%. Also, the M10-P image is darker, not only in its shadows.
I understand that the amount of highlight recovery contributes to the practical dynamic range. However, one should not rely on it. Once you have blown a channel (that is when highlight recovery kicks in), you are in "rescue" mode, trying to rebuild lost data. How many stops you can do that also depends on the scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SOHODE said:

And I think with unerexposing a half to one stop and lifting in post with M10, it loses some details in shadows or get more noise than M10-R.

Not really...

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

At ISO 200, I could not discern any differences. At ISO 1600, only when underexposing and lifting in LrC by five stops do I see better results with M10-R (less striping). I do not see any difference when underexposing and lifting by 3 stops.

and pay attention here too

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

To clarify: I compared the noise at the same output size, not at 100%

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SrMi said:


I understand that the amount of highlight recovery contributes to the practical dynamic range. However, one should not rely on it. Once you have blown a channel (that is when highlight recovery kicks in), you are in "rescue" mode, trying to rebuild lost data. How many stops you can do that also depends on the scene.

I understand that the highlight recovery doesn’t revive all the information but still can rebuild a significant amount of information that can save a picture from being useless to acceptable. I agree that it shouldn’t be relied for the exposure of the main part of picture but it helps manage unwanted reflections or spot lights in the city. I would really take this as one stop wider DR. For street photographers as you know there are lots of reflections in the city which one more stop flexibility can really be a savior. If you always expose for highlights in the city in many situations you need to underexpose 1 or even more stops to save the highlights. For night photography it’s even worse when you have lots of light signs. I’m also wondering about the quality of clipped highlights in M10 pictures. It looks like clipped highlights in M10 have sharper edges and  I feel they’re more noticeable and destructive that what I see in some other digital cameras. I also have a Fuji X100F which was released in 2017 the same time as M10 and it’s surprising that a camera which is 1/5 price of M10 also has one stop more highlight recovery and softer highlights clipping.  I don’t think that’s an achievement for Leica to add it to M10-R since all other cameras today have already wide highlights recovery. 

Edited by SOHODE
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

Not really...

That was actually why I was wondering if shadows recovery of M10 is better or not. According to SrMi test result there’s not a noticeable difference in the shadows recovery or noises and the M10’s picture is actually darker (I wasn’t expecting). I haven’t done a comparison myself but I think lifting one stop makes more noise and less details. But I would be happy to see a comparison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SOHODE said:

That was actually why I was wondering if shadows recovery of M10 is better or not. According to SrMi test result there’s not a noticeable difference in the shadows recovery or noises and the M10’s picture is actually darker (I wasn’t expecting). I haven’t done a comparison myself but I think lifting one stop makes more noise and less details. But I would be happy to see a comparison. 

Judging by LrC's histogram, the difference in brightness is about 1/3 stop.

My tests show 1/2 stop more highlight recover ability.

Edited by SrMi
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...