new FW Nuisance

[Guest roey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Roey, I know everyone has different techniques, ...

 

Agreed. I understand that you have confidence in your experience. Plus the M9's good dynamic range makes it easy to compensate for minor exposure problems in post. I am not a pro. I likely have a lot less experience than most here, and there are situations when I like to verify the exposure. My perception of the brightness of an image displayed on a screen is heavily influenced by the surrounding light levels. So I have learned to not trust the image but rather look at the histogram.

[thrice]

I shoot landscape, the histogram is invaluable until Leica figure out how to get an accurate representation of the tone and dynamic range of the image displayed on the LCD.

[KM-25]

Stefan, why are you trying to assess an image on the basis of 100% preview? I'd seriously suggest you stop worrying on this - overall framing + the histogram and blown highlights are the really useful information. IMHO you're much better off waiting until you've downloaded to a raw processor until you worry about 100% view.

 

I am not one to chimp all that much, but the statement above is utterly ridiculous.

 

I did an aerial shoot this morning with a ground ambient temperature of -5 F, meaning it was -65 F below zero windchill at 13,000 feet with the door off, me on a gunner's belt. So my eyes were watering pretty good, checking focus was *critical* as the client paid about $6,000 for the helicopter flight. My D700 was super fast at letting me check focus, even as the buffer was still filling, professional tools can make all the difference.

[KM-25]

I just shot a job yesterday where I took some 700 images in less than 3 hours. usually I have a quick instant glance at every third frame or so. having to wait three or four seconds won't work in such a situation.

 

Wow, every third frame?

 

That's insane, I would miss so many shots in doing that it's not even funny. I know this is kind of contrary to my post above, but that is just too much chimping. Welcome to one of the reasons I shoot more film these days, a nice undistracted flow of shooting.

[erl]

KM-25, I'm curious about 'checking' focus at 13,000ft. Wouldn't it be pretty close to infinity in practical terms? I can understand chimping to check exposure of course. It would be pretty natural to do in that situation.

[matlep]

KM-25, I'm curious about 'checking' focus at 13,000ft. Wouldn't it be pretty close to infinity in practical terms? I can understand chimping to check exposure of course. It would be pretty natural to do in that situation.

 

I would guess he was taking a picture of something at the same altitude and not something on the ground. Right?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quite possibly, I've done that myself at 10,000 ft, but not at those temperatures!

[cheewai_m6]

I too use the review screen never a histogram. You get better at reading the image in time.

 

 

+1. you can tell whether you got what you want just looking at the preview anyway.

 

i don't understand what the big deal is about 'i don't chimp'. good for you. if you look at the preview and that's your method? then fine. if you don't look at the preview, then fine. what's the big deal about proclaiming to the world that you don't preview?

[bybrett]

+1. you can tell whether you got what you want just looking at the preview anyway.

 

i don't understand what the big deal is about 'i don't chimp'. good for you. if you look at the preview and that's your method? then fine. if you don't look at the preview, then fine. what's the big deal about proclaiming to the world that you don't preview?

 

I agree with your reasoning. If histograms suddenly became unsharp in new firmware I would support the annoyance of those who find them useful. I think that the preview and the histogram should be sharp in auto preview. If 1.116 had been the release firmware for M9 in September this would have been picked up in reviews.

[noah_addis]

I am not one to chimp all that much, but the statement above is utterly ridiculous.

 

I did an aerial shoot this morning with a ground ambient temperature of -5 F, meaning it was -65 F below zero windchill at 13,000 feet with the door off, me on a gunner's belt. So my eyes were watering pretty good, checking focus was *critical* as the client paid about $6,000 for the helicopter flight. My D700 was super fast at letting me check focus, even as the buffer was still filling, professional tools can make all the difference.

 

You nailed it.

 

This reminds me of my own experiences. I was taking a trip to do a personal project at the beginning of 2009, and because I knew I was doing some aerial work, I decided to go with the D700s instead of the M8s.

 

I was paying for my own helicopter (it MUCH cheaper than $6k, but still, it was my own money!) and every second counted. I wanted to cover a lot of ground, do several shots in different parts of São Paulo and keep it to 45 minutes if possible. The Nikons didn't miss a beat. I never hit the buffer, never had problems doing quick previews to check exposure and sharpness, and I got just what I wanted. (Note I said sharpness instead of focus. Lots of aerial work is at infinity focus but there are other factors, such as vibration or motion blur, that can affect sharpness.)

 

During a subsequent trip I took the Leicas instead, this time the m8 and m9. The aerial work was easier this time, I only had two places to shoot. But it was a disaster. I didn't get what I wanted. We only had clearance for a few minutes at one location and the M9 locked up. Then at my second location the M9 worked slightly better but some of the best frames were corrupt or had strange squares cut out from previous frames.

 

The M9 is a wonderful tool for slow contemplative work. But as a working pro, even if you prefer to work in a slow way, sometimes the situation dictates that you work fast.

 

To some extent, it's better now that I have two cameras. Sometimes I need to do fast editorial portraits where I don't have much time. Having two cameras means I can keep shooting when one hits the buffer or if one locks up. Three cameras would be better for really tough working conditions, but I can't afford a third M9 (especially as I'm really regretting buying two of them!).

 

The new FW makes the camera worse in my opinion. It should have become faster with the new FW update, not slower. And coming up with a blurry image fast that takes several seconds to become sharp doesn't count as 'faster'.

 

It may be my imagination, but panning around when you're zoomed-in seems more sluggish to me as well.

 

Overall, between these issues and the unfixed red edge, the new FW is a big bust in my opinion. I worry about downgrading though, generally I don't think it's a good idea to go backwards in FW.

[bybrett]

 

The new FW makes the camera worse in my opinion. It should have become faster with the new FW update, not slower. And coming up with a blurry image fast that takes several seconds to become sharp doesn't count as 'faster'.

 

It may be my imagination, but panning around when you're zoomed-in seems more sluggish to me as well.

 

Overall, between these issues and the unfixed red edge, the new FW is a big bust in my opinion. I worry about downgrading though, generally I don't think it's a good idea to go backwards in FW.

 

Yes, the navigation around the image is jumpy with the bigger JPG in 1.116. I like you're analogy of sharpness/focus. Cheers Brett

[pes084k1]

Yes, the navigation around the image is jumpy with the bigger JPG in 1.116. I like you're analogy of sharpness/focus. Cheers Brett

 

I find that watching the LCD screen is a loss of time and good photo chances. The best idea is to make some trail shots for setting main parameters, then shoot on a big card and review/select all with peace on a a really big screen (PC, HDTV). It's better don't care too much about focus and sharpness during a session. If the first shoot is out of focus for some systematic reason, the others cannot be better on average. Motion blur is a random phenomenon, instead, and can be only prevented in advance and/or shooting more. Colors and print sharpness are really best fixed on a PC.

The only useful improvement to LCD for me is to jump at 100% between adjacent frames for testing, but no camera is capable of this.

My film (slide) shoots have a near-perfect technical look in about 70% of cases, while I get at most 30% good shoots form digital at poorer resolution, because of the tighter gamut which allows tight tolerances of in-camera white balance. Also film electro-mechanical cameras are generally more reliable in focusing and even exposure for an experienced photographer.

 

I believe that the main problem of M9 is computing horsepower, but I would never publish or print a digital big (>12 Mp) photo or film scan without PC post-processing.

 

Sincerely

[sclamb]

The only useful improvement to LCD for me is to jump at 100% between adjacent frames for testing, but no camera is capable of this.

 

If you mean view one picture fully zoomed in and then be able to view the next or previous one at the same amount of zoom then you can do this and could with the M8 also. Just hold the Play button down and press the left or right arrow.

 

Simon