Impressions of the M10

Agree Mitch and I find it to be also has better DR than my M 262. I do love my M-E in bright light but the M 10 I find just as good but like Mitch mentioned you have to work the files a bit to get that M9 look.

___________

Nowhereman said:
airfrogusmc - Glad you were able to snag one now. I'm sure you'll love it and will do great stuff with it. I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you say about it. Also, I find that I'm not missing my MM because conversions from M10 color to B&W are so easy and flexible.

raid - I'm not an authority on the M240. On the color compared with the M9, I essentially agree with what Andy Piper ("adan") recently wrote on LUF: essentially that the M10 has substantially more dynamic range and that the Leica profile for it goes part of the way towards the "transparency film look" of the M9 — and that the files are so malleable that you can increase contrast and go for the M9 look or process the files in the other direction towards a negative color film or even an HDR look. Also, my feeling is that, as you start processing an image, the M10 often needs to be roughed up if you want the magic of the M9 look. I should add, though, that the white balance is generally better than that of the M9.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Click to expand...
 
Here's Some Data

Here's Some Data

Looking at links links below, statistical analyses of raw file data show the M10 outperforms the Type 240 and 246 in terms of analog dynamic range (signal-to-noise ratio), ISO invariance and read noise levels.

These objective attributes can not completely characterize image rendering aesthetics. Subjective rendering preferences are equally important and impossible to dispute.

Unintended sensor underexposure would negate the M10's inherent advantages compared to the previous M generations' used with maximum (optimized) exposure. The potential for higher performance and actually taking advantage of the differences are two different things.

Dynamic Range

ISO Invariance

Read Noise
 
willie_901 said:
...Unintended sensor underexposure would negate the M10's inherent advantages compared to the previous M generations' used with maximum (optimized) exposure. The potential for higher performance and actually taking advantage of the differences are two different things...
Click to expand...
Unless I've completely misunderstood you, the above statement looks meaningless: if you underexpose any camera compared to the optimized exposure it's reasonable that the performance will be less than optimum, by definition. However, the concept of "optimized exposure" itself is questionable, considering that there is generally a trade-off depending on the results you are seeking: the best exposure to show a certain level of shadow detail often will differ from that required to show a certain level of highlight detail. That's what gradation control in photography is all about.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
 
Nowhereman said:
Unless I've completely misunderstood you, the above statement looks meaningless: if you underexpose any camera compared to the optimized exposure it's reasonable that the performance will be less than optimum, by definition. However, the concept of "optimized exposure" itself is questionable, considering that there is generally a trade-off depending on the results you are seeking: the best exposure to show a certain level of shadow detail often will differ from that required to show a certain level of highlight detail. That's what gradation control in photography is all about.
...
Click to expand...

Unintended underexposure most often happens when ISO is higher than necessary.

With in-camera JPEGs, unnecessary underexposure is often used intentionally to insure none of the three channels are clipped. In this case the clipping is usually caused by exceeding the ADC's maximum voltage levels, i.e. when ISO is above base ISO.

Unintended underexposure can also happen when certain film exposure techniques are used with digital cameras or when exposure techniques appropriate for cameras with different data-stream designs are inappropriate for the camera at hand.

"there is generally a trade-off depending on the results you are seeking: the best exposure to show a certain level of shadow detail often will differ from that required to show a certain level of highlight detail."

The goal of optimizing exposure is to achieve the least problematic trade off.

Optimized exposure means using a shutter time, aperture and ISO that produces a raw file with the highest possible, overall signal-to-noise ratio. For a given camera there is only one way to optimize exposure (S/N).

Here's a quote on this topic by Prof. Emil Martinec from another forum :

"What is the appropriate mantra? I would prefer "Maximize Exposure"; maximize subject to three constraints:

(1) maintaining needed DoF, which limits how much you can open up the aperture;
(2) freezing motion, which limits the exposure time;
(3) retaining highlight detail, by not clipping wanted highlight areas in any channel.

Note that ISO is not part of exposure. Exposure has only to do with aperture and shutter speed. Maximizing exposure guarantees that one captures as many photons as possible subject to photographic constraints, and therefore optimizes S/N.

How does ISO enter? It enters as a subsidiary aspect of optimizing S/N.

Anyway, the prescription is to set the exposure (shutter speed and aperture only) according to (1) and (2); back off the exposure if at base ISO and you are compromising (3). If you are compromising (3) with your chosen exposure and you are not at base ISO, then you should have started with a lower ISO. Afterward, depending on the specifics of the camera's noise profile, further optimization results from raising the ISO, up to the limit specified by (3), or the camera's ISO point of diminishing returns, whichever is arrived at first."

Often shutter time and, or aperture requirements are not compatible with using base ISO. Now ISO should be set to maximize the raw file signal-to-noise ratio. ISO strategy differers from camera to camera because the "ISO point of diminishing returns" depends of differences in their data-stram technologies.

For the M10 the shadow region signal-to-noise ratio is essentially independent of ISO from ~ISO 320 to 51,200 link. Like many of the newest still cameras, the M10's electronic noise levels are essentially ISO invariant. This means the dominant contribution to shadow region noise will only be photon (shot) noise. This is also true for highlight regions, but the S/N decrease is less obvious to our eyes. Also photon noise contributions increase as light levels decrease.

For M10 raw files there are no "diminishing returns". When base ISO is impractical, all you need to do maximize exposure is set ISO no higher than 400 and expose to retain highlights essential to the photograph you envision. The only disadvantage is the total light level decreases is it becomes increasingly impractical review results in-camera (just like film! ... no chimping). The required rendering brightness is achieved during post production by increasing global luminance. Digital multiplication ex-camera replaces electronic amplification in-camera.
 
willie_901 - What you're describing in the last paragraph is simply the method often used for night photography with the M9: shoot at ISO 640 and push in post-processing in Lightroom. On his blog, Jim Kasson showed conclusively that, on the M9, it was better to increase ISO up to 640 and, after that push in post. (He explains why he specifies to do this in LR). For the MM, Kasson assumed that the optimum" for maximum in-camera ISO is 1600; and I assume that for the M10 it's 3200.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
 
Nowhereman said:
willie_901 - What you're describing in the last paragraph is simply the method often used for night photography with the M9: shoot at ISO 640 and push in post-processing in Lightroom. On his blog, Jim Kasson showed conclusively that, on the M9, it was better to increase ISO up to 640 and, after that push in post. (He explains why he specifies to do this in LR). For the MM, Kasson assumed that the optimum" for maximum in-camera ISO is 1600; and I assume that for the M10 it's 3200.
Click to expand...


That's right. And it underscores how knowledge of the ISO vs. noise characteristics for the cameras we use is important for shadow region detail.

I respect and admire Jim Kasson's work. The M9 uses two different ISO amplification circuits for above and below ISO 640.

Bill Claff's data (which I also trust) shows the Leica M MONOCHROM (Typ 246) shadow improvement peaks out at ISO 1000.

By contrast the M10 is essentially ISO invariant from 800 through 20,400! There should be no problem using ISO 800 through 6400 and pushing global brightness as needed in post production. The M10's data stream is very impressive.

The read noise vs ISO data is a different way of showing the same thing.

I would use completely different exposure techniques for the M9, MM and M10. But the goal would be the same – maximize the raw file S/N.
 
willie_901 said:
...the M10 is essentially ISO invariant from 800 through 20,400! There should be no problem using ISO 800 through 6400 and pushing global brightness as needed in post production. The M10's data stream is very impressive...
Click to expand...
Does that mean that shooting the M10 up to ISO 6400 the dynamic range is not reduced from shooting at ISO 200?
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
 
iso 1600; 1/90 sec; probably F2 (summicron 35)

I'm not shooting much recently, this is from last holiday trip in Liguria. Love to shoot in interiors.

U3692I1501086525.SEQ.0.jpg
 
After a few month of ownership I'm more and more satisfied by this camera. What I appreciate is the simplicity to use it. A couple of days ago a storm was approaching my town, this gave me impulso to grab it and take a few shots!

35 cron, iso 400

med_U3692I1502546198.SEQ.1.jpg


med_U3692I1502546197.SEQ.0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom