Alnitak Posted January 10, 2010 Share #21 Posted January 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) We can give the OP a hard time about shooting jpg, etc. but the fact remains that the AWB on the M9 is pretty bad. Now AWB is never all that good on most cameras, but the M9 is worse than most and is actually worse than my M8.2--and that seems to be the common experience. Yes, you can fix it in post, but it's an extra step and sometimes its so far off that it can be hard to correct. The manual setting from an exposure works well, but I don't like to carry around a white balance card and there isn't always a plate handy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Hi Alnitak, Take a look here AWB 1.002 is really bad. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Share #22 Posted January 10, 2010 It is not based on anything Leica has said, but writing AWB firmware is apparently a very timeconsuming process, as we found out on the M8. The M9 has different colour filters, needs completly rewritten AWB software so I suppose Leica simplified and adapted the M8 firmware with the intention of -like the M8- finetuning it in a future firmware update. As for the Blackberry and compact AWB, those use sensors that are produced by the tens of millions - the manufacturer can afford to employ 100 programmers to Leica 1, and thus provide the software to their customers within a short span of time. I might add that the M9 provides excellent mixed lighting AWB with high-quality fluorescents. I use full-spectrum ones in my practice and have no problem at all when mixed with daylight and halogen. The green cast starts to appear with consumer-grade tubes. Otoh, modern low-energy lights are an absolute horror to balance. A very unpleasant yellow cast. Not just on the M9, also on my cell-phone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted January 10, 2010 Share #23 Posted January 10, 2010 I've used Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc. All these systems are inconsistent AWB wise with indoor artificial lighting. As been pointed out already, there could be different kinds of lights - incandescent, tungsten, fluorescent, and this is especially true in malls that can have daylight mixed with artificial light as well. When there are multiple light sources, the best thing to do is to shoot DNG and correct in post or keep it in mind as the photographer and do what is necessary to correct. Blaming the system in such cases won't help improve your photography... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted January 10, 2010 Share #24 Posted January 10, 2010 We can give the OP a hard time about shooting jpg, etc. but the fact remains that the AWB on the M9 is pretty bad. Now AWB is never all that good on most cameras, but the M9 is worse than most and is actually worse than my M8.2--and that seems to be the common experience. Yes, you can fix it in post, but it's an extra step and sometimes its so far off that it can be hard to correct. The manual setting from an exposure works well, but I don't like to carry around a white balance card and there isn't always a plate handy. I haven't experienced this. Auto AWB on my M9 has been more accurate than my firmware up to date M8. And certainly the M9 is no worse than my Canons when shooting mixed lighting conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Share #25 Posted January 10, 2010 I've used Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc. All these systems are inconsistent AWB wise with indoor artificial lighting. As been pointed out already, there could be different kinds of lights - incandescent, tungsten, fluorescent, and this is especially true in malls that can have daylight mixed with artificial light as well. When there are multiple light sources, the best thing to do is to shoot DNG and correct in post or keep it in mind as the photographer and do what is necessary to correct. Blaming the system in such cases won't help improve your photography...To add to that - the fluorescents used in a shopping mall in a developing country may well differ drastically from those used in Berlin, for instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted January 10, 2010 Share #26 Posted January 10, 2010 Try a WhiteBal card to nail the color temp, it works great. This thread brings me even closer to buying a color meter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted January 10, 2010 Share #27 Posted January 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) In a large no. of pictures there will invariably be a sheet of white paper or a white shirt, or clouds. These are perfectly OK as a white balancing target. But in for me this is exactly what I do not want. Auto WB makes no sense whatsoever (to me) as it will always shift depending on the predominant colors in the image. If I take an image by candle light it needs to have the warm tones of candle light, not look like midsummer day. The original M8 whitebalance was pretty good as it only had about 5 presets, a bit like color film. We have only a few light situations: daylight (5500 K or so), incandescent (2500-3500 K), fluorescent (nasty coor casts, never really looks good), dawn/dusk (can be as high as 14000 K), night-time (crap shoot, use imagination), overcast (about 6500 K). Making some presets for this type of lighting makes sense, a continuous WB equalisation does not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Share #28 Posted January 10, 2010 Try a WhiteBal card to nail the color temp, it works great. This thread brings me even closer to buying a color meter.Which will be off as badly as awb... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.