fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell
1       2       3       …       20      
21
       22       …       39       40       end
   

Leica M11
  
 
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #1 · Leica M11


zhangyue wrote:
Yes, DR will be reduce in crop mode. But at pixel level, you can crop to a single pixel still get to the same DR.

P2P and DXO indeed measure DR at a fixed output size and not at the pixel level. That is why for 14 bit file you can get 15 stop DR at reduced output size.

The confusion part is leica claim it gain one stop better DR for low resolution mode (notice: not crop)that they go back to pixel level DR for this claim. For the same final target print size, both 60M and 18M will...Show more →

---------------------------------------------

Fred Miranda wrote:
DXO normalizes files to 8MP to get their DR numbers. I believe that PhotonsToPhotos normalizes to a SNR value based on a standard final image size and viewing distance.

Leica claims the low resolution mode (36MP and 18MP) have an increased DR but as you said that's because at pixel level, the shadows will be cleaner and therefore the total DR is increased when looking at the images at 100% magnification.


---------------------------------------------

zhangyue wrote:
This is a correct statement. Leica didn’t wrong to claim it though in theory.
They are indeed first one to have a clean implementation that both canon and Nikon failed.



OK. Thanks. I did not know that. nd it probably goes some way to why I'm seeing different results in the real world vs their measurements.

I do get that scaling a croped image to a larger size reduces DR (cropping itself would do nothing if the pitch remains the same (image size changes). And I understand how binning works to improve DR. I'm just surprised that sensors are normalised down to a tiny 8MP for these calculations.

But I do feel it's a less than complete way of measuring DR for those interested in real world use. I suppose that if you never output to more than a 4K screen you can use the DXO/P2P figures but if you go larger then those results are pretty useless in calculating real world usable DR. No one who shoots for 4K needs a GFX100. If you shoot that camera it's liely you'll print larger. Much larger. And I'd want measurement based on that. More a fixed ppi than a fixed size. I think that a measurement at say 240ppi is more useful than one at 8MP for a GFX100S.

My interests in DR are to see how sensor A and B compare when pushed. Not when some software either bins or downscales the resolution. The downscaling could be influenced by the software used which renders the results obsolete. I want to know what's happening at the pixel level so I know what to expect if I crop an image or if I massage the shit out of it in post. I'm interested in which sensors fall apart with a 5 stop shadow push. When the colour collapses. It seems saying that a GFX100 has better DR than an A7R4 is bullshit if at a pixel level they're the same. That's because I'm more likely to use 100MP when I need a bigger print and a 60Mp sensor if I print smaller. If DR shrinks when I crop the the 100MP is useful only for the extra resolution it brings. Or when downscaling, which is software dependant.

Thanks for the info. I learned something today. But if that's how P2P is measuring DR it's useless to me as it in no way simulates how I choose a camera for a shoot. So basically for my perposes the figures given are meaningless. More so if someone like Leica uses a pixel measurement to show increased DR at lower DNG sizes. It's not even a level playing field and so best ignored until you can do your own tests.

Gordon
Jan 22, 2022 at 09:20 PM
zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #2 · Leica M11


Hi Gordon, I understand. I guess the thing is they need a standard to level this up so that they can compare camera with different format and sensor. So, in this case, target 8M print size become standard that they can cross compare Medium format, FF, FF at different resolution, APSC, M43 and even iPhone to level ground.

Sensor technology has reach certain barrier for a while. If you compare pixel level performance, 8 years old D800 is still compete well with latest ones. In other word, most sensors have similar pixel level DR with the same pixel area.

In other word, at pixel level, the less resolution one (with bigger sensor area) will have more DR at pixel level assuming the similar tech used which we are reaching this normalized plateaus for a while. However, once normalized to whole sensor area, the play ground leveled again because the area are the same and tech are the same. High resolution will always win because: A, it has more resolution to print big which low one can’t. B, it has at least the same DR as lower one at same final print size. C, signal processing become more advanced with such as AI and other raw development, they can process extra data to achieve even better result. More pixel means more “signal” more “information” to do final signal processing.

As you can see, pixel is not free, it take disk space, it take time to process, it make me feel less pleasure to see higher noise at pixel level. It show me flaw of face and my focus error. 95% of time, extra pixel is useless to me but a burden. That is why I love M11’s 3 resolution mode so much.


flash wrote:
---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

OK. Thanks. I did not know that. nd it probably goes some way to why I'm seeing different results in the real world vs their measurements.

I do get that scaling a croped image to a larger size reduces DR (cropping itself would do nothing if the pitch remains the same (image size changes). And I understand how binning works to improve DR. I'm just surprised that sensors are normalised down to a tiny 8MP for these calculations.

But I do feel it's a less than complete way of measuring DR for those interested in real world use. I suppose that if...Show more →
Jan 22, 2022 at 11:44 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #3 · Leica M11


zhangyue wrote:
Hi Gordon, I understand. I guess the thing is they need a standard to level this up so that they can compare camera with different format and sensor. So, in this case, target 8M print size become standard that they can cross compare Medium format, FF, FF at different resolution, APSC, M43 and even iPhone to level ground.

Sensor technology has reach certain barrier for a while. If you compare pixel level performance, 8 years old D800 is still compete well with latest ones. In other word, most sensors have similar pixel level DR with the same pixel area.

In...Show more →

Yep. I get that. But I'm not interested in how an iPhone compares to a GFX100. I'm interested in why I can push the GFX100 files so much harder than a A7R4 in post, which have the same pixel pitch? Or if there's any advantage of a 50MP X1D sensor over a neraly the same, 47MP SL2 sensor? (There is. It's significant). Because at the sizes I print to I want to know if it's worth the extra effort to carry the X1D. At 8MP so much information has been discarded that it makes a valid comparison pointless.

I know if I downscale a huge MP camera DR goes up? So what? That's not the intended use for that camera. Absolutely irrelevant to the real world.

I've long wondered why P2P's measurements don't line up with what I see in real world usage. Why a D850 and X1D had nearly identical DR but the D850's files are not nearly as robust in post? Now I know that they can be completely ignored as they have no relevancy to me.

Gordon
Jan 23, 2022 at 01:21 AM
wolfloid
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #4 · Leica M11


“as was true of all human effort, there was never advancement. Everything added meant something lost, and about as often as not the thing lost was preferable to the thing gained, so that over time we’d be lucky if we just broke even. Any thought otherwise was empty pride.”

There is, of course, a lot of truth in this. There is also another way to look at ‘progress’, which while acknowledging the values of a simpler world that has been lost, also sees the great benefits that have occurred - the emancipation of many women is just one of those.

As to your comments about liking the rangefinder experience just as it is, just because it is more challenging, and requires considerable skill to learn well, I understand that. For me, it has many advantages as well that even the best implemented live view can’t replace.

However, your desire for challenges seems to have softened by your willingness to adopting digital capture. I am assuming you use an M10. You could continue to photograph forever using film Ms without ever worrying about Leica compromising the rangefinder experience, and at the same time increase your personal challenges and difficulties.

I remember when I used to photograph with two M6s, and four lenses. I used to think that there could not be a better photo system for me. I had an excellent darkroom technician working for me, and producing superb 24”x16” B&W prints of almost MF quality were the norm. I still have some on my walls. I loved the look of film.

Yet, here I am, using the superb M246, mostly with the rangefinder, but sometimes, now and then, I use the clunky and primitive add on EVF, when needs must. I have the M6s in a drawer and never use them, and I love the M246. If it had a Fuji style integrated EVF, for those times I need it, it would be even better. That sort of progress - improving on something already part of the feature set (EVF) in a far slicker, less clunky, easily ignorable way - seems to me a no-brainer.

If you want difficulties, then logically film Ms would suit you well.
Jan 23, 2022 at 06:38 AM
genji
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #5 · Leica M11


wolfloid wrote:
There is, of course, a lot of truth in this. There is also another way to look at ‘progress’, which while acknowledging the values of a simpler world that has been lost, also sees the great benefits that have occurred - the emancipation of many women is just one of those.

As to your comments about liking the rangefinder experience just as it is, just because it is more challenging, and requires considerable skill to learn well, I understand that. For me, it has many advantages as well that even the best implemented live view can’t replace.

However, your desire for challenges...Show more →

I have two M4s, one of which I used this afternoon.
Jan 23, 2022 at 07:48 AM
derKoekje
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #6 · Leica M11




genji wrote:
I have two M4s, one of which I used this afternoon.

Are you the one who’s listed the heavily worn AP M4 on the FB group? That thing is a beauty.


Jan 23, 2022 at 07:58 AM
genji
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #7 · Leica M11


No, that wasn’t me. I don’t have FB.

derKoekje wrote:
Are you the one who’s listed the heavily worn AP M4 on the FB group? That thing is a beauty.



Jan 23, 2022 at 08:11 AM
Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #8 · Leica M11


zhangyue wrote:
...As you can see, pixel is not free, it take disk space, it take time to process, it make me feel less pleasure to see higher noise at pixel level. It show me flaw of face and my focus error. 95% of time, extra pixel is useless to me but a burden. That is why I love M11’s 3 resolution mode so much...

Interesting, Michael.

As I wrote in my earlier post (p.9 #12), I haven't been interested in the greater resolution of the M10-R over my M10 or the still greater, 60 MP, resolution of the M11. For the high-contrast look that I like, I can print my M10 images at 150 x 100 cm (40 x 60 inches) without difficulty. I want what in films days was called the "35 mm aesthetic" and don't want to enter medium-format territory, even for my landscapes.

So, what I'm interested in is whether shooting the M11 at 18 MP could make it easier to achieve a gentler (more film-like) highlight roll-off than it is with the M10.

In the image I posted in p.9 #12, I underexposed by 3 full stops to protect the highlights, and then raised the shadows, and did some dodging on the highlights as well, to get the look in the highlights of the blinding light in the back of that frame. I probably could have gotten by by underexposing 1⅔-rds stops rather than 3 stops. I'm not sure that the M11 will give me anything better than what I can do with underexposing on the M10. But do you think that shooting the M11 at 18 MP, or even 36 MP, could make it easier to produce this type of result by need still less underexposure, say on ⅔-rds of a stop?

While I know that Michael (@zhangyue) knows my photography, perhaps it's better to show again the shot I discussed above as well as the type of landscape I was referring to for a 150 x 100 cm print.

M10 | Summaron-M 1:5.6/28 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/60 | Chiang Mai, Thailand


M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/4.0 | 1/350 sec | Wiang Pa Pai, Chiang Rai Province | Thailand

____________________
Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org

Edited on Apr 03, 2022 at 03:55 AM · View previous versions
Jan 23, 2022 at 10:06 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #9 · Leica M11


flash wrote:
Yep. I get that. But I'm not interested in how an iPhone compares to a GFX100. I'm interested in why I can push the GFX100 files so much harder than a A7R4 in post, which have the same pixel pitch? Or if there's any advantage of a 50MP X1D sensor over a neraly the same, 47MP SL2 sensor? (There is. It's significant). Because at the sizes I print to I want to know if it's worth the extra effort to carry the X1D. At 8MP so much information has been discarded that it makes a valid comparison pointless.

I know if...Show more →

Hi Gordon,

No single measure is ever going to capture everything or even most of what we need to know for real world performance. So when looking a photons to photos DR results we have to keep in mind what it is and what it is not. It is a measure of the difference between almost black at one end and almost blown out at the other end and it does so when the files are condensed to a fairly small size. So it tells us something important and is generally related (i.e., correlated) with the ability of a camera to capture images when there is big variation in light, and this measure is taken over a wide range of ISOs, there is lots of things it doesn't tell us, however.

One thing it absolutely does not tell us is how malleable the files are from a given camera and importantly the malleability of files in pulling down highlights and pulling up shadows. Some cameras will have more malleability with pulling down highlights and some will have more malleability with pulling up shadows. Photons to photos DR measure will tell us nothing about that. I don't have an M10R (yet anyway) but from what I understand it has really nice malleability for highlights and many photographers feel it is more capable than the vanilla M10 or the M10P which have less malleability in the highlights. P2P, however, have these cameras having equal DR. I would assume P2P is right and they have equal DR, and this would mean the vanilla M10 and M10P have more ability to pull the shadows up, but they have so much ability to do so that it rarely is fully tapped whereas the DR available in highlights on the M10R is almost always used. IfI am not saying this what is happening with these two cameras, (I really don't know and haven't even used an M10R) but it is a scenario in which cameras could have equal DR on P2P's measure, but in practice one would have better DR in most real world uses.

Here is a bit longer and no doubt not exhaustive lists of things the P2P DR scores don't tell us.

They don't tell us about color performance.
They don't tell us about banding.
They don't tell us about movement distortion.

Simply put as you have so usefully described they are not a replacement for real world experience comparing the cameras. They only tell us about one thing, and it is an important thing (the range of light that can be captured), but isn't nearly enough information to tell us how good the sensor is going to be at capturing images.

PS: the reason you can push GFX100s files so much more than A7rIV files even though they have the same pixel pitch is mostly likely because the A7rIV magnifies those pixels a lot more. It is the same reason that whenever we crop with any camera we lose the ability to push the files as much as if we don't crop.

Also keep in mind that that the GFX 100s and GFX 100 sensor is not simply a larger version of the A7r IV sensor even though both are made by Sony and both have the same pixel pitch. The A7r IV and the GFX 100(s) sensors have dual gain pixels and the second step in this dual gain conversion occurs at different points. It occurs at ISO 320 for the A7r IV and ISO 500 for the GFX 100(s), and the GFX100(s) has more DR at higher ISOs even when cropped to FF 35mm size:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%20100(FF),Sony%20ILCE-7RM4

Interestingly the Leica M11s dual gain conversion kicks in at even lower ISOs than the A7r IV (it is at about ISO 200):

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica%20M11,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4

This tells us although all three cameras have the same pixel pitch, the actual pixels and how they operate are different for all three camera. They have similar DR profiles, but they aren't the same.



Jan 23, 2022 at 11:11 AM
Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #10 · Leica M11


Steve Spencer wrote:
...looking a photons to photos DR...a measure of the difference between almost black at one end and almost blown out at the other end...it tells us something important...the ability of a camera to capture images when there is big variation in light...I don't have an M10R...but from what I understand it has really nice malleability for highlights and many photographers feel it is more capable than the vanilla M10 or the M10P which have less malleability in the highlights...

Forgive me for cutting up your post, but the quote above deals with the essence of what I'm asking about in my post just above. Ignoring the ISO 64 point on the M11, the PhotoToPhotosDR curves show the DR of the M10, M10-P, M10-R and the M11 to be extremely close to each other: too close for seeing any visual difference in the overall DR.

However, we know that Leica has applied different contrast curves to the DNGs of the M10 and the M10-R, and presumably to that of the M11 as well — so that, of the of the available DR, the M10 has a larger proportion given to the shadows than to the highlights, while the reverse is the case of the M10-R (and presumably the M11). That means that SOOC the M10-R images protect the highlights better, or at a shorter exposure, than those of the M10, which need a longer exposure for this purpose.

Now, considering that the overall available DR, at ISO 200 and above, of the M11 and M10 are virtually the same, I wonder whether one can end up with the “good highlights” of the M11 — i.e, in terms of highlight rolloff — by judicious post-processing of M10 files.
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org


Jan 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #11 · Leica M11


Mitch Alland wrote:
In the image I posted in p.9 #12, I underexposed by 3 full stops to protect the highlights, and then raised the shadows, and did some dodging on the highlights as well, to get the look in the highlights of the blinding light in the back of that frame. I probably could have gotten by by underexposing 1⅔-rds stops rather than 3 stops. I'm not sure that the M11 will give me anything better than what I can do with underexposing on the M10. But do you think that shooting the M11 at 18 MP, or even 36 MP,...Show more →

Hi Mitch,
I believe that at ISO 100, both M10-R and M11 provide about an extra stop of data in the highlights compared to the M10. The base ISO for the M10 is 200 and the M10-R is 100. It was one of the reasons I upgraded from the M10-P to the "R". I wrote that I "believe" because I have not yet tested the M11 but know this is the case between M10 and M10-R. If the M11 performs similarly to the Sony A7R4 in regards to highlights recovery, it will be similar to what the M10-R can do as shown here. However, the M11 will likely do better in highlight recovery at ISO 64. (I'm very curious to see if this is true)

The M10-R's shadows will appear noisier at pixel level but when normalized to 24MP, it will pretty much match the M10. Based on photons and photos, the M11 downsampled to 24MP would provide even cleaner shadows at low ISO settings.

With the M11, it does not matter if you shoot at 60/36/18, the benefit from the DR downsampling won't be in the highlights. It will be in the shadows. In your example, exposing for the highlights, and pushing the shadows in post, the M11 will provide cleaner shadows if you use the in-camera resolution options or downsample in post. It's the same thing and even Leica acknowledged that.
Jan 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM
Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #12 · Leica M11


Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe both M10-R and M11 provide about an extra stop of data in the highlights compared to the M10. The base ISO for the M10 is 200 and the M10-R is 100. It was one of the reasons I upgraded from the M10-P to the "R". I wrote that I "believe" because I have not yet tested the M11 but know this is the case between M10 and M10-R. ...

Hi Fred,

We ended up posting at exactly the same time, so I didn't see your post above when I posted just above your post. So, on the basis of ISO 200 and above, what is your view on whether one can equalize things with the M10, compared to the M11, by judicious processing?
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org


Jan 23, 2022 at 12:44 PM
zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #13 · Leica M11


Mitch Alland wrote:
So, what I'm interested in is whether shooting the M11 at 18 MP could make it easier to achieve a gentler (more film-like) highlight roll-off than it is with the M10.


Shooting at 18MP at ISO 64, you will have about 1.5 stop more DR than M10. If gentler film like rendering meanings Highlight without clipping, yes, M11 will help you achieve that. If you found you mostly shooting at ISO400, then the difference is negligible. If you are not interested in all those M11 EVF/LV features, then you may well save cost from buying a "slower" shutter M11.

Mitch Alland wrote:
In the image I posted in p.9 #12, I underexposed by 3 full stops to protect the highlights, and then raised the shadows, and did some dodging on the highlights as well, to get the look in the highlights of the blinding light in the back of that frame. I probably could have gotten by by underexposing 1⅔-rds stops rather than 3 stops. I'm not sure that the M11 will give me anything better than what I can do with underexposing on the M10. But do you think that shooting the M11 at 18 MP, or even 36 MP,...Show more →

Depend on what ISO you found you mostly shooting, The difference is mainly at ISO64 (about 1.5stop), than at ISO200 (about 1 stop). at ISO400, it almost is a wash already. General speaking, having a high DR sensor is always helpful to have wide shooting envelop, to have better tolerance for exposure error.

Based on what I have seen your images (they are wonderful), I feel the answer is not a clear cut At one hand, you usually shooting high contrast BW under high DR harsh light. This is the case really challenge sensor DR. However, you seems prefer high contrast look without worry too much about black losing detail. Your style is similar to Daidō Moriyama. I think the least worry about his image is DR Is he mostly using P&S or GR?

One thing I want to emphasis is for modern digital photography, if you want maximize DR capture, there is no highlight recover or shadow recover anymore and there is no "correct" exposure anymore. The only correct exposure to maximize the DR is the exposure that keep whitest white and darkest black in a single exposure. Let RAW develop to deal with "correct" exposure with tone mapping. This is a very important concept.

For example, you can think this way: for M11, you can simple default to underexpose 1.5 stop at ISO64 to get same images as M10 but there is extra 1.5 stop highlight room for you to play with. That is benefit M11 will bring you if you feel it is needed.

Hope the concept is clear to you and this helps you one way or the other.




Jan 23, 2022 at 01:47 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #14 · Leica M11


Mitch Alland wrote:
Forgive me for cutting up your post, but the quote above deals with the essence of what I'm asking about in my post just above. Ignoring the ISO 64 point on the M11, the PhotoToPhotosDR curves show the DR of the M10, M10-P, M10-R and the M11 to be extremely close to each other: too close for seeing any visual difference in the overall DR.

However, we know that Leica has applied different contrast curves to the DNGs of the M10 and the M10-R, and presumably to that of the M11 as well — so that, of the of...Show more →

Let me try to answer your question. First you said that, "That means that SOOC the M10-R images protect the highlights better, or at a shorter exposure, than those of the M10, which need a longer exposure for this purpose." I think here you have the exposure lengths backwards. the M10-R protects the highlight better at a longer exposure (i.e., with more light hitting the sensor), and the M10 would need a shorter exposure (i.e., under exposing) to get the same protection of the highlights. I think it is true that you could underexpose the M10 in this way and kick up the darker parts of the image to compensate. You likely would get good results using this strategy. I think many of us do something a lot like this using exposure compensation set to -2/3rds as a typical setting to underexpose M10 files a bit and then bring back better exposure in post. Does this get you as good results and with the M10R with more exposure? In real life it probably isn't a big difference, but it is always better to have more light (i.e., signal) and the M10R image would have that. So, although I don't think it would be a big difference I think you would probably still be better off with the M10R, but take that with a grain of salt as I am an M10 shooter and don't have the M10R.
Jan 23, 2022 at 02:56 PM
Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #15 · Leica M11


zhangyue wrote:
Shooting at 18MP at ISO 64, you will have about 1.5 stop more DR than M10. If gentler film like rendering meanings Highlight without clipping, yes, M11 will help you achieve that. If you found you mostly shooting at ISO400, then the difference is negligible. If you are not interested in all those M11 EVF/LV features, then you may well save cost from buying a "slower" shutter M11.

Depend on what ISO you found you mostly shooting, The difference is mainly at ISO64 (about 1.5stop), than at ISO200 (about 1 stop). at ISO400, it almost is a wash already. General...Show more →

Michael - Thanks. That is absolutely helpful. Most of my shooting is ISO 400+, although the images above were both shot at 200. Actually, with the Summaron-M 1:5.6/28, I almost always shoot above ISO 200 because the maximum aperture of this lens is f/5.6. After having read your valuable comments, my conclusion is to keep to the M10. Though I can understand and appreciate why many people will want the M11, for it's not necessary to "have the best", when what makes it the best may not be relavant for you and come with other tradeoffs, like the "slower" M11 shutter that you mention. For me, the greatest benefit would be the lighter weight of the black M11, but that is a minor matter. Also, the less frequently one changes digital cameras, the less "botheration" one has with learning new ways for processing, which is of course more important for color.

On the question of which camera Moriyama uses, while he used some of the Ricoh GRDs, for several years, according to a Japanese website, he has been shooting with the Nikon Coolpix S7000, a discontinued P&S camera with a 1/ 2.3 inch sensor, 16 MP, a 25-500mm EFOV zoom lens that produces only JPGs. Here is a quote from a January 2021 article on a Japanese website: 

I once interviewed Daido Moriyama about the Ricoh GR. The last thing he said to me was "Akagi-san, when you meet someone from Ricoh, tell them to put a zoom lens on the GR". I asked him, "What? When I asked him why he said with a wry smile, "Because a zoom lens is convenient." Well, there was no way I could argue with a legend of the photography world...By the way, Daido Moriyama's favorite camera now is the COOLPIX S7000. If you are interested in it, please look it up (laugh).
SOURCE: in Google translate:
https://dc-watch-impress-co-jp.translate.goog/docs/column/akagi/1298253.html?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org



Jan 23, 2022 at 02:59 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #16 · Leica M11


Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Gordon,

No single measure is ever going to capture everything or even most of what we need to know for real world performance. So when looking a photons to photos DR results we have to keep in mind what it is and what it is not. It is a measure of the difference between almost black at one end and almost blown out at the other end and it does so when the files are condensed to a fairly small size. So it tells us something important and is generally related (i.e., correlated) with the ability of a camera...Show more →

Thanks Steve. Much appreciated.

The M10 and M10R do NOT hve the same DR. Not in the real world anyway. Maybe they have the same measurable number at 8MP but in real world usage the M10R has over a stop more usable DR. The lightest and darkest data point recordable may be the same on both but the usability of that data is not. Personally I'm not interested in what's measurable. Just what I can use in a final print.

When I get a new camera I compare the sensor to what I already have to get a feel for how it'll perform. Know your tools and all that. Nothing special. Just a side by side test at both the same exposure and also protecting the highlights (how I normally shoot in the field) using the histogram. Then I'll equalise the files in both directions. ie: I scale the larger on to the smaller (42 to 24) and smaller to larger (24 to 42) plus just as they are. These aren't scientific. Just done how I process a file with all the failings in my normal processing routine. Usually I don't worry about big changes (24 to 42) as I don't think they're comparable, but this was 2 M's so I did have a look. Normally I'd compare like with like. How does the CL go against the M10 or SL2 vs the X1D. As long as the exposures are even I get a pretty good look at any changes. I look for loss of detail but also other issues that will limit what I can do with a file. If a sensor has banding when the shadows pushed that to me, is affecting the usable DR. Same with posterisation, colour loss. Proudly claiming an extra stop is BS if that extra stop is only pulling one colour channel out of three. I'm at a point where I can basically choose a camera based on what I intend to shoot. I'm lucky I can have all these toys to play with. I'm just interested how they fit in with each other.

I've said before the I though P2P was probably empiracly correct but functionally invalid. And I've learned much from this discussion which I think supports what I was seeing in the real world. SO I'll continue to use the term *usable DR* when i comment because if the M10 and M10R show the same DR on a chart but not in real world usage I think someone comparing them would want to know the latter.

I'd have to test further but my gut feeling is that cropped to 135 format the GFX100S is still more malleable than the A7R3 I have. I use my Canon TS lenses on the GFX a bit so I do use it in cropped mode.

Back to the M11........

Gordon
Jan 23, 2022 at 03:48 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #17 · Leica M11


Mitch Alland wrote:
Interesting, Michael.

As I wrote in my earlier post (p.9 #12), I haven't been interested in the greater resolution of the M10-R over my M10 or the still greater, 60 MP, resolution of the M11. For the high-contrast look that I like, I can print my M10 images at 150 x 100 cm (40 x 60 inches) without difficulty. I want what in films days was called the "35 mm aesthetic" and don't want to enter medium-format territory, even for my landscapes.

So, what I'm interested in is whether shooting the M11 at 18 MP could make it easier to...Show more →

Stunning images. Really. Just the kind of b&w I really like.

When you say *film* I assume you mean negatives because digital sensors are not completely unrelated to slide film, exposure wise. Just with way more latitude.

You probably already know this...

Because there is an absolute cuttoff point with digital getting an exact match to negative fim is very very difficult. You'll need to protect your highlights at all costs and hope there's enough information left in the darker tones to pull out, which is where noise raises it's ugly head. Historically M's have been pretty good at this compared to some other cameras. Protect the highs and then make a curve for the rest.

Might I suggest, based on these images, you rent a Monochrom to see how you get on with it. It has gobs and gobs of usable detail in the darker parts of the frame. You need to be EXTREMELY careful of highlights but at the same time it's possible to pull up the shadows seemingly forever. If you've only experienced colour arrays in a digital camera you'll be in for a treat. If you can keep the highlights in check you'll get close to what you're looking for.

And just to get it said, no, you can't get the same thing from a colour sensor. Yes, you do lose some post processing flexibility in using colour *filters* but you have vast amounts of luminence data to push pull and prod. Get a light orange filter if you need a bit more bite.

But don't do this unless you're ready for some hip pocket pain.....

Gordon
Jan 23, 2022 at 04:17 PM
Mitch Alland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #18 · Leica M11


flash wrote:
....Might I suggest, based on these images, you rent a Monochrom to see how you get on with it. It has gobs and gobs of usable detail in the darker parts of the frame. You need to be EXTREMELY careful of highlights but at the same time it's possible to pull up the shadows seemingly forever. If you've only experienced colour arrays in a digital camera you'll be in for a treat. If you can keep the highlights in check you'll get close to what you're looking for.

And just to get it said, no, you can't get the same thing...Show more →

Yes, I had an M9-Monochrom and an M9-P, which I sold to get my M10. As I don't like to carry two cameras, I used them in "binges" of a month or so each. I got good results with the Monochrom, and also liked the rendition of leaves in landscapes when using an orange filter, However, overall, I find using electronic filters in Lightroom advantageous. Also, I don't need the extra resolution, or even gradation, because I usually want to stay away from an "exquisite" look.
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org

Edited on Apr 03, 2022 at 04:03 AM · View previous versions
Jan 23, 2022 at 04:42 PM
genji
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #19 · Leica M11


Steve Spencer wrote:
Let me try to answer your question. First you said that, "That means that SOOC the M10-R images protect the highlights better, or at a shorter exposure, than those of the M10, which need a longer exposure for this purpose." I think here you have the exposure lengths backwards. the M10-R protects the highlight better at a longer exposure (i.e., with more light hitting the sensor), and the M10 would need a shorter exposure (i.e., under exposing) to get the same protection of the highlights. I think it is true that you could underexpose the M10 in this way...Show more →

After using an M10-P for three years with the exposure compensation set to -2/3rds for scenes with a high brightness range, I’ve recently switched to an M10-R. Are you suggesting that the negative exposure compensation is no longer necessary (or even desirable) for the M10-R?
Jan 23, 2022 at 06:08 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #20 · Leica M11


genji wrote:
After using an M10-P for three years with the exposure compensation set to -2/3rds for scenes with a high brightness range, I’ve recently switched to an M10-R. Are you suggesting that the negative exposure compensation is no longer necessary (or even desirable) for the M10-R?

I'm not Steve but have owned the M10-P and current shoot with the M10-R. My answer to your question is yes. (no longer necessary if the metering gets it right)
Jan 23, 2022 at 06:36 PM
1       2       3       …       20      
21
       22       …       39       40       end
FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       …       20      
21
       22       …       39       40       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register