Thanks for this comparison… Nice to see a real technical comparison versus some dude walking around telling how it feels in his hand. I’ve had my fill of those ones. I’ve had the M240 for about for years and absolutely love it. The files I’ve been able to get from it have never disappointed and I generally always under expose a tiny bit anyway… It seems to preserve those highlights given that the camera has the ability to recover shadow detail quite well. I have been looking to add the M 10 to the fleet and this review was very helpful. Thanks mate. J
This test is BS dude, Im sorry. Just shoot in complete darkness and push exposure 5 stops and recover shadows, thats will show you how good DR is. P.S. I downloaded around 10 DNG images from M10 ( I own Q at the moment), few of these was shit at ISO 12800. I can tell you guys noise quality at such high ISO on M10 is very good. What drives me crazy its sensor quality. Steve Huff said that there is no problems with this camera. But there is one -HUGE ONE! BANDING - stripes/lines across images when you shoot at night and recover shadows in editing. Same thing was with M9, same thing I can see on my Q, same $hit with M10. Not always, but its there.
That is true, but not always. For that matter I usually add a little more blacks. Because if I need to push the shadows, sometimes bring exposure down will not work, banding is so bad that is still visible. Steve Huff was saying in a review for M10 - "all issues are gone". Nope. Thinking to get my own review on that, I mean sensor quality in terms of banding.
You mention that the M10 shots were shot at ISO200, but at least the first 2 images that are shown, LR is noting that the ISO of the M10 is ISO400. Is that an error of LR, or just a 'typo' (so to say) of your description of such? Thanks for the video & showing the files. Best Regards!
Definitely a flatter tonal curve with the M10 - the older Leica digital cameras have that rep for highlight blowout which could well devalue them in the longer term. The M10 looks like a real step up to quality though. Guess there will be plenty of offloading and upgrading.
Pencil Jockey yeah I like to think it was a real world test in a similar space as I've taken the M240. The improvements in the highlight recovery is great on the M10 and the reds are more realistic. The M240 used to over saturate reds a bit.
Thx for taking the time for this. And it does demonstrate (as many have before) that he M10's IQ is a big improvement in what feels like the first modern sensor from Leica. Where I disagree is the comparison with canon and sony. I've only seen demos of Sony's dr prowess, but I have first hand experience with canon, and its comparable to the M10. I've "lived" in ISO 6400 on a 5diii and a canon m5. I had good hilight restoration in high contrast noisy image. Not record breakin, but not as bad as the old leica.
You tread the same shooting turf as I do. The Central Market is one of my favorite haunts. It does have some challenges though - strong contrasts between deep shadow and strong highlights being but one of them. It is good to know the M10 is such an improvement and explains a lot as to why my poor old M8 struggles so much in that environment (resulting in me too often leaving it at home, preferring to use something with better DR.) It also explains why your workflow looks quite similar to mine in Lightroom. You will recognise some of the same locales in my Flickr photostream (though many in this collection are taken in the Mall and nearby but there is an album of Market shots as well) : www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/ cheers Peter
Back in the film days we had to get the exposure correct in the camera without second chances. There was no lightroom or computers to edit files. How about we work on our photography skills rather than depend on post processing.
True to a point. But back in the day we were much more constrained in our choices. We could not routinely (or as successfully) shoot at ISO 3200 for a start (as an example). And shooting with digital is much more like shooting with slide film than with print film - so getting "the exposure correct" is much more problematic than most film shooters had to contend with. And we had to accept frankly quite mediocre results by comparison, quite often as most ordinary shooters like me lacked the wherewithal to get heaps of great shots on the street. Indeed some of the shots being worked on in this video would not have been successfully captured by film. Nevertheless, as for me, I wasted so much film back in the day that it taught me to be careful and only press the shutter button when I was sure of getting something usable. This is good in some ways - it made me more discriminating and bad in others - it meant I had to forego many shots in fear of wasting too much film and money. It also meant that I had less chance to learn. Shooting digital is in some ways an entirely different experience from shooting film and it should not be inferred that because post processing is used this is necessarily evidence of lack of skills. Quite the contrary.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W3D1 | Fall | สัปดาห์ตัดสิน ทีมไปไฟนอล](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZBU3GyzqErI/mqdefault.jpg)
if you wanna compare 2 cameras, gotta take 2 shot at the same time, with the same background, otherwise they're not really comparable
Thanks for this comparison… Nice to see a real technical comparison versus some dude walking around telling how it feels in his hand. I’ve had my fill of those ones. I’ve had the M240 for about for years and absolutely love it. The files I’ve been able to get from it have never disappointed and I generally always under expose a tiny bit anyway… It seems to preserve those highlights given that the camera has the ability to recover shadow detail quite well. I have been looking to add the M 10 to the fleet and this review was very helpful. Thanks mate. J
This test is BS dude, Im sorry. Just shoot in complete darkness and push exposure 5 stops and recover shadows, thats will show you how good DR is.
P.S. I downloaded around 10 DNG images from M10 ( I own Q at the moment), few of these was shit at ISO 12800. I can tell you guys noise quality at such high ISO on M10 is very good. What drives me crazy its sensor quality. Steve Huff said that there is no problems with this camera. But there is one -HUGE ONE! BANDING - stripes/lines across images when you shoot at night and recover shadows in editing. Same thing was with M9, same thing I can see on my Q, same $hit with M10. Not always, but its there.
Roman Arkhipov the test is real world dude. I'm a photographer, not a pixel peeper
Alright!)
Banding issues are well known with Leica rangefinder cameras. That is not pixel peeping that is just a major issue with Leicas.
Was hoping banding was gone with the M10? You just under-expose and banding is not an issue.
That is true, but not always. For that matter I usually add a little more blacks. Because if I need to push the shadows, sometimes bring exposure down will not work, banding is so bad that is still visible. Steve Huff was saying in a review for M10 - "all issues are gone". Nope. Thinking to get my own review on that, I mean sensor quality in terms of banding.
You mention that the M10 shots were shot at ISO200, but at least the first 2 images that are shown, LR is noting that the ISO of the M10 is ISO400. Is that an error of LR, or just a 'typo' (so to say) of your description of such?
Thanks for the video & showing the files. Best Regards!
drwatson12345 definitely 200. I noticed it as well maybe it's an early firmware issue?
Definitely a flatter tonal curve with the M10 - the older Leica digital cameras have that rep for highlight blowout which could well devalue them in the longer term. The M10 looks like a real step up to quality though. Guess there will be plenty of offloading and upgrading.
Not sure this was scientific, but that's great to know the files are nice.
Pencil Jockey yeah I like to think it was a real world test in a similar space as I've taken the M240. The improvements in the highlight recovery is great on the M10 and the reds are more realistic. The M240 used to over saturate reds a bit.
Adam Insights Well maybe in 4 years I'll buy one :)
Thx for taking the time for this. And it does demonstrate (as many have before) that he M10's IQ is a big improvement in what feels like the first modern sensor from Leica.
Where I disagree is the comparison with canon and sony. I've only seen demos of Sony's dr prowess, but I have first hand experience with canon, and its comparable to the M10.
I've "lived" in ISO 6400 on a 5diii and a canon m5. I had good hilight restoration in high contrast noisy image. Not record breakin, but not as bad as the old leica.
You tread the same shooting turf as I do. The Central Market is one of my favorite haunts. It does have some challenges though - strong contrasts between deep shadow and strong highlights being but one of them. It is good to know the M10 is such an improvement and explains a lot as to why my poor old M8 struggles so much in that environment (resulting in me too often leaving it at home, preferring to use something with better DR.) It also explains why your workflow looks quite similar to mine in Lightroom. You will recognise some of the same locales in my Flickr photostream (though many in this collection are taken in the Mall and nearby but there is an album of Market shots as well) : www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/ cheers Peter
Back in the film days we had to get the exposure correct in the camera without second chances. There was no lightroom or computers to edit files. How about we work on our photography skills rather than depend on post processing.
True to a point. But back in the day we were much more constrained in our choices. We could not routinely (or as successfully) shoot at ISO 3200 for a start (as an example). And shooting with digital is much more like shooting with slide film than with print film - so getting "the exposure correct" is much more problematic than most film shooters had to contend with. And we had to accept frankly quite mediocre results by comparison, quite often as most ordinary shooters like me lacked the wherewithal to get heaps of great shots on the street. Indeed some of the shots being worked on in this video would not have been successfully captured by film. Nevertheless, as for me, I wasted so much film back in the day that it taught me to be careful and only press the shutter button when I was sure of getting something usable. This is good in some ways - it made me more discriminating and bad in others - it meant I had to forego many shots in fear of wasting too much film and money. It also meant that I had less chance to learn. Shooting digital is in some ways an entirely different experience from shooting film and it should not be inferred that because post processing is used this is necessarily evidence of lack of skills. Quite the contrary.
Thanks, Adam! The first useful demonstration on M10.
KK Kikkelstrom thanks!
KK Kikkelstrom you can now download the original DNG Raws from my blog