Jump to content

M10 vs M10-R dynamic range


thrid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

 I shot essentially the same image with my D780 and my M10, and nothing worked until my friend showed me how to use masks, so I could process each part of the image separately.

 

You know what has extremely limited dynamic range? Darkroom paper. It's why we had to dodge and burn areas to make our prints look good. I have one image that took upwards of 21 dodges and burns (burns mostly). Scanners have much more dynamic range (as well as the film itself) but that experience of making a good wet print travels over to digital. One should capture the scene with the camera, but complete their 'vision' of it in post - i.e. perhaps the scene was dark and moody, but the 'dumb' camera made it bright and normal. It's up to the user to express their artistic vision, not the camera. 

Edited by charlesphoto99
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

One should capture the scene with the camera, but complete their 'vision' of it in post - i.e. perhaps the scene was dark and moody, but the 'dumb' camera made it bright and normal. It's up to the user to express their artistic vision, not the camera. 

Seems to me that some of the best photographers I know of became experts at giving each part of a scene the proper exposure, not a "one size fits all".  I don't know about other image editors, but DxO PhotoLab 6 is very capable of this, and the greater the skill of the person doing the editing, the better the end result.  Just like with film processing and printing.  Until a week ago, I wasn't aware of this.  With digital, you can take your time, and make every adjustment perfect.  

This may not have been the case years ago, but from my little experience, both the M10 and the D780 can create excellent images, that can be enhanced by this technique.  In my case, it was wanting the "outdoor in bright sunlight" part of my image, AND the dark areas in the shade, to show the detail and color I wanted.  I had the advantage of a very skilled tutor, who explained how this is done with "masking" (essentially, "layers").  

Ansel Adams was a master at this, and I've always wondered how he got such awesome results from such a dull image to start with.  

It takes an artist knowing what can be achieved, and the skill to create an awesome print.  I think Ansel would have loved to be alive today, with all our new technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Seems to me that some of the best photographers I know of became experts at giving each part of a scene the proper exposure, not a "one size fits all".  I don't know about other image editors, but DxO PhotoLab 6 is very capable of this, and the greater the skill of the person doing the editing, the better the end result.  Just like with film processing and printing.  Until a week ago, I wasn't aware of this.  With digital, you can take your time, and make every adjustment perfect.  

This may not have been the case years ago, but from my little experience, both the M10 and the D780 can create excellent images, that can be enhanced by this technique.  In my case, it was wanting the "outdoor in bright sunlight" part of my image, AND the dark areas in the shade, to show the detail and color I wanted.  I had the advantage of a very skilled tutor, who explained how this is done with "masking" (essentially, "layers").  

Ansel Adams was a master at this, and I've always wondered how he got such awesome results from such a dull image to start with.  

It takes an artist knowing what can be achieved, and the skill to create an awesome print.  I think Ansel would have loved to be alive today, with all our new technology.


I think I have like 5 masks going on here. No way you can expose everything perfectly there. You couldn’t see the trains well, couldn’t see the person cleaning.  couldn’t see the ceiling. You could over expose it but when everything else goes to hell. You have to work on each part separately. Can’t make global changes  

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!

Edited by Chimichurri
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 59 Minuten schrieb MikeMyers:

....  Until a week ago, I wasn't aware of this.  With digital, you can take your time, and make every adjustment perfect.  

...Ansel Adams was a master at this, and I've always wondered how he got such awesome results from such a dull image to start with.  

It takes an artist knowing what can be achieved, and the skill to create an awesome print.  I think Ansel would have loved to be alive today, with all our new technology.

I'm no different. Thanks to our excellent forums, I always learn something new in different areas, or get a deeper understanding of things that were "familiar" to me.
Thanks to all ! I look forward to a lively exchange in the future.

MR. Adams, was in a situation where he had several assistants. He also often had a vignette added to keep the view in the picture, as he said himself.
Regardless, he was a special photographer who, above all, could see. He also recognized the potential of editing in images that are irrelevant to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chimichurri said:

I think I have like 5 masks going on here. No way you can expose everything perfectly there. You couldn’t see the trains well, couldn’t see the person cleaning.  couldn’t see the ceiling. You could over expose it but when everything else goes to hell. You have to work on each part separately. Can’t make global changes  

Stunningly beautiful, and a result like that is well worth the effort you took.  Until a few days ago, I didn't know how to use masks at all.  Now this is something essential.  

It would be nice if you printed a "before" to go along with this "after".  Curious, which image editor are you using?  I know PhotoLab can do this, but I don't know about all the others......

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Stunningly beautiful, and a result like that is well worth the effort you took.  Until a few days ago, I didn't know how to use masks at all.  Now this is something essential.  

It would be nice if you printed a "before" to go along with this "after".  Curious, which image editor are you using?  I know PhotoLab can do this, but I don't know about all the others......

I just did it in camera raw. They put a mask tool. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess it's time again to point at this:

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/dynamic-range-is-not-exposure-range-part-i.html
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/dynamic-range-is-not-exposure-range-part-ii.html

And regarding the difference between M10 and M10-R ... in my tongue-in-cheek experience, the M10-R's exposure range is wider than the the M10's—but by a negligible margin. Less than one f-stop. Nothing to get excited about.

.

Am 4.11.2022 um 21:45 schrieb Adam Bonn:

As a fairly hard and fast rule ... cameras don't clip highlights, camera operators do.

Bwuhaha :lol:

You made my day. So true!

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 01af said:

And regarding the difference between M10 and M10-R ... in my tongue-in-cheek experience, the M10-R's exposure range is wider than the the M10's—but by a negligible margin. Less than one f-stop. Nothing to get excited about.

The original poster asked in the title and the post about Dynamic Range and highlight recovery.

Since then we’ve heard about exposure range, dynamic latitude etc etc (after the OP clearly said to keep it simple) trying to bury the fact that the M10 wasn’t very kind to highlights and the M10R can recover highlights much easier and it’s more flexible.

and that’s all there is to it. It cannot be said any simpler than that. 

Yes. The M10R is significantly better at recovering highlights. 
 

This is from Leica

https://leica-camera.com/en-MY/Company/Press-Centre/Press-Releases/2020/Press-Release-The-new-Leica-M10-R-Leica-Camera-presents-the-40-megapixel-variant-of-its-legendary-rangefinder-camera

”Along with the clear visibility of even the finest details, the sensor provides extensive performance reserves for cropping and larger formats. In addition, the contrast-rich rendition of subtle structures leads to an even lower risk of moiré patterns. The M10-R is therefore well suited for landscape and architectural photography.

Despite its high resolution, the M10-R offers significantly reduced image noise as well as a wider dynamic range. The M10-R completes the Leica M10 family, which also includes the M10, M10-P, M10-D and M10 Monochrom.”

Edited by Chimichurri
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 01af said:

And regarding the difference between M10 and M10-R ... in my tongue-in-cheek experience, the M10-R's exposure range is wider than the the M10's—but by a negligible margin. Less than one f-stop. Nothing to get excited about.

I would rather hear from actual users, than any kind of advertising material.   Maybe someone will take the same photo, with the same settings, and same lens, with their M10 and M10-R, and post the raw images here so we can all make our own decisions?  Or, just upload them here to the same physical size, in pixels.

Just my thoughts on this.  It no longer matters to me.  I'm content with what I've got now, my M10 and my D780.  Also, now that I use DxO PhotoLab, noise is no longer an issue.  Anyone can download the trial version, and see for themselves.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

M10 and my D780

I would stick with this set and that would be it. As long as you don’t completely screw up a picture the M10 is great. These tests are trying to recover things that are 3-4-5 stops off, but in reality we never mess up a picture that badly. The M10R will help in really challenging exposure situations, but I don’t think it’ll make a difference in every day use. I find the detail and cropping ability the thing that was most different. If i hadn’t had the issue with the 10P i would’ve kept it. That was supposed to be my forever Leica.

Edited by Chimichurri
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2022 at 12:04 AM, Chimichurri said:

I would stick with this set and that would be it. As long as you don’t completely screw up a picture the M10 is great. These tests are trying to recover things that are 3-4-5 stops off, but in reality we never mess up a picture that badly. The M10R will help in really challenging exposure situations, but I don’t think it’ll make a difference in every day use. I find the detail and cropping ability the thing that was most different. If i hadn’t had the issue with the 10P i would’ve kept it. That was supposed to be my forever Leica.

I agree, M10 and D780 is about all one really needs. 24mp is plenty, esp with how good upsizing software is now. I do have a Nikon D850, but it's never left the copy stand it's on! (using it to scan negs and slides since my Imacon bit the dust). The thing to keep in mind with the M10 is to expose as one would slide film - just consider the highlights unrecoverable (though they are some) and shoot accordingly. The 10-R does give an extra stop or two in the highlights, though I try as much as possible to get what I want in camera. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jakontil said:

.......but my chances shooting noctilux wide open on a bright sunny day is improved

Why would someone want to buy a Noctilux to shoot it wide open on a bright sunny day?  I thought the reason for the Noctilux was to capture images with very little light?  In today's world, with M cameras able to shoot at ISO 10,000, 20,000, and above  isn't an f/2 lens adequate?  Is the purpose just to make "everything else" out of focus?

I thought about buying a very fast Voigrlander lens, and even found one at KEH, but I can't think of any reason I would need it.  Dave and Josh on Red Dot Forum keep talking about the amazing ISO speeds that we can now shoot at.  

Examples:  https://www.keh.com/shop/search?q=voigtlander+nocti+lens

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example in portraits, model photography, if you want you can shoot wide open for a special release.
Even if you want to clarify a plasticity impression.
Here is an example with the VC 50 1.0

Very clear in the photo with the lantern

 

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!

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!

 

more here:

 

Edited by M Street Photographer
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Why would someone want to buy a Noctilux to shoot it wide open on a bright sunny day?  I thought the reason for the Noctilux was to capture images with very little light?  In today's world, with M cameras able to shoot at ISO 10,000, 20,000, and above  isn't an f/2 lens adequate?  Is the purpose just to make "everything else" out of focus?

I thought about buying a very fast Voigrlander lens, and even found one at KEH, but I can't think of any reason I would need it.  Dave and Josh on Red Dot Forum keep talking about the amazing ISO speeds that we can now shoot at.  

Examples:  https://www.keh.com/shop/search?q=voigtlander+nocti+lens

For portrait shoots

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 7:12 AM, charlesphoto99 said:

You know what has extremely limited dynamic range? Darkroom paper. It's why we had to dodge and burn areas to make our prints look good. I have one image that took upwards of 21 dodges and burns (burns mostly). Scanners have much more dynamic range (as well as the film itself) but that experience of making a good wet print travels over to digital. One should capture the scene with the camera, but complete their 'vision' of it in post - i.e. perhaps the scene was dark and moody, but the 'dumb' camera made it bright and normal. It's up to the user to express their artistic vision, not the camera. 

Bingo.

Film negative and RAW files from digital cameras have pretty much always exceeded the dynamic range of printed / display media. 

Unless your monitor is HDR capable it can only display about 7-8 stops in SRGB / REC709 mode. So, you need to push down the highlights from your 14 stop file into the 7 stops of display space that your monitor has. We did the same thing in the darkroom with dodging, burning and split printing (variable contrast paper).

Edited by thrid
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 10:51 PM, 01af said:

And regarding the difference between M10 and M10-R ... in my tongue-in-cheek experience, the M10-R's exposure range is wider than the the M10's—but by a negligible margin.

Having owned an m10 just shy of 2 years and an m10r just shy of 2 weeks, this —-^

Looks me to me that one gives more from the top, the other from the bottom with the R nudging it overall

If the R DNG is globally too bright, then darkening it with the exposure slider works better than it does with the 10, but if the R DNG is both too dark and too bright then so far at least I don’t see enough latitude to make MASSIVE shadow and highlight recovery on the same file. It’s one or the other. With the 10 it’s more just the shadow recovery 

The R files are quite a lot different though… they aren’t super dark like the 10 files can be, so the colours and tonality are more nuanced (on the R) and overall the R seems a more modern and grown up image renderer

I’m curious how my opinion of the R will change with time (and not only having it in wintery rainy days)

I only got the R because of impulse GAS (long story short, I met up with someone to collect something else as a favour for a friend and this guy was selling an R at a price I could stomach so I thought eff it why not, I used the word ‘serendipitous’ at lot that evening)

So far compared to my 10, I love the quiet shutter (and that’s come in jolly handy) I find the shutter nicer to use for slow handheld speeds (quite possibly sample variation here), the touchscreen is cool for image review. I like really being able to set base ISO and so far my copy seems to fire the shutter every time I press it, even in quick succession (some folks here saying that isn’t always the case)

But yeah back to the OP

IMHO and IM(limited)E 

The R has more latitude and flexibility with its files, but the overall DR of both cameras isn’t widely different, the R just offers some more ability to move it around in post.

At the end of the day… 

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!

 

The big DR jump came from the 9 to the 240 (and then again with the 11 at ISOs the others don’t have), since then at ISO200 the improvements on the chart have been smaller (at 200 about a stop really)

I appreciate that a stop of DR is like toilet paper, immaterial until you need it and if it’s not there then it gets really important 😅 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 11:28 AM, MikeMyers said:

 Just like with film processing and printing.  Until a week ago, I wasn't aware of this.  With digital, you can take your time, and make every adjustment perfect.  

 

Global vs local controls. There are many ways to achieve local adjustments (to mimic dodging and burning), not just masking, and are available in most any modern editing software, starting long ago with Photoshop. Now digital editing basics. But effective print rendering requirements haven’t fundamentally changed; mostly the tools and techniques have.  The flexibility and convenience of digital tools has been long understood; that’s its calling card. A silver print vs an inkjet print is another discussion.
 

Adams was aware by the early 80’s of the advent of electronic editing in photography, and embraced it in his writings and in public (I heard him speak not long before he passed in ‘84).  Alan Ross, his longtime assistant, expressed his thoughts on how Adams would have reacted to digital software…


If you just figured this out a week ago, there are countless resources on digital processing that would likely unveil many other editing tools and actions that could improve your pics and prints.  A lot more practical than looking at dynamic range charts.
 

Jeff

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...