5 days with my M9 - WOW! [but...]

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks. Actually there is one difference. In manual you are adjusting to what 'you' think the exposure should be. With exposure compensation, you are adjusting or 'compensating' for what you believe the camera meter will do wrong.

 

One method is precise and stable and each image exposure values will remain constant until you make changes. The other will fluctuate inconsistently depending on the amount of light reflecting back into the camera. Exposure compensation doesn't guarantee stable results, it still changes, even under constant lighting. This is why in film-making in motion and stills, all cameras are ALWAYS set to manual exposure.

 

Anyway great discussion guys. i'm out :-)

 

Ok finally I understood what worries you. You got total control with manual, whereas there *might* be a case in auto and in fast switching (dynamically) luminosity levels, one might want to show that effect. But this can occur in series shots, like in the movies you mention.

 

It only took us 5 pages for that, obviously it was a conspiracy to uncover you hahahah anyway nice discussion, you gave me another view on manual indeed, again nice photos and his music guys is cool... come on...

 

Edit: and let me add here as well, look at what all those using dSLRs are losing with those robotic cameras they use, all this creativity lost. They can use their cameras manually but how many do they do that?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jonoslack]

Hi there Kristian

Great that you've 'come out' - I was in some quandary as to whether to post the link to your website before, obviously it was right that I didn't.

 

I think it's been a useful discussion for everyone.

 

By the way - what proportion of your work on the website was shot with an M9?

 

all the best

[jaapv]

Ok finally I understood what worries you. You got total control with manual, whereas there *might* be a case in auto and in fast switching (dynamically) luminosity levels, one might want to show that effect. But this can occur in series shots, like in the movies you mention.

 

It only took us 5 pages for that, obviously it was a conspiracy to uncover you hahahah anyway nice discussion, you gave me another view on manual indeed, again nice photos and his music guys is cool... come on...

 

Edit: and let me add here as well, look at what all those using dSLRs are losing with those robotic cameras they use, all this creativity lost. They can use their cameras manually but how many do they do that?

Everybody under the same hat - quite an achievement

 

Two files, both at 1/15th, f5.6 one with auto-ISO on, one with Auto-Iso off:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[erl]

Jaap, I think while you were fiddling with your camera controls, your subject quietly slipped away. ;)

[diogenis]

Everybody under the same hat - quite an achievement

 

Two files, both at 1/15th, f5.6 one with auto-ISO on, one with Auto-Iso off:

 

So, what's changed? What do you show here?

[leicashot]

Hi there Kristian

Great that you've 'come out' - I was in some quandary as to whether to post the link to your website before, obviously it was right that I didn't.

 

I think it's been a useful discussion for everyone.

 

By the way - what proportion of your work on the website was shot with an M9?

 

all the best

 

Currently there is only one job I shot with the M9 with a D3s/Zeiss lenses - Miss Tiffany Universe. Except this assignment wasn't very good in the end. I didn't get the access I wanted and the story has many gaps and feels incomplete.

 

I shot 'Hollywood Dreaming' with an M8 + 28/2 ASPH, but that story was cut short due to the banning of the superheroes on Hollywood Boulevard.

 

Many people ask about the kickboxing story cause it has a 'Leica look'. Well that was shot on a Nikon D3 with 24-70 lens. I'm currently working on a few things with my M9 but won't be posting the work for some time.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, what's changed? What do you show here?

That the exposure is different - so any exposure you set manually is out of the window.

[jonoslack]

That the exposure is different - so any exposure you set manually is out of the window.

 

Jaap - you must set your 'reference exposure' using the exposure compensation to make sure that the manual setting (without compensation) is the same as the auto ISO setting (with it) - then the auto-iso will give you a different ISO value relative to the changing light. But I've explained this before . . . did I do it badly?

 

In your nice oof pond pictures above you clearly haven't done that - or they'd be the same! Not sure quite what you're trying to prove.

 

But I've explained this more than once, and quite frankly I only use it occasionally myself, I was just simply trying to say that there are examples when it can be useful, not that you should always use it, or that it's the answer to life, the universe and everything!

[jaapv]

In your nice oof pond pictures above you clearly haven't done that - or they'd be the same!

:DAnd that is the reason I stay with full manual. I go to manual because I dislike blanket corrections like exposure compensation - so I go to manual - and I dial in auto-Iso and have to go to EC again - I might as well have stayed in AE. Manual and auto-Iso don't combine unless you want to make ISO the AE variable - and how often do you want to do that?.

[leicashot]

It doesn't really matter what variable is auto, cause it will suffer from variation under constant lighting conditions. The only time AE can be useful is in situations were the lighting is changing rapidly, but how often does that happen? I've gone my whole life shooting in manual and rarely come into a situation I couldn't handle in manual. Sure I've made mistakes, but I'm sure that even with those mistakes my results have been far more consistent than what a computer could have calculated. Under constant stable lighting there is NO reason to shoot in any auto mode. Under changing lighting the photographer must learn to read, react and adjust - this is not the camera's responsibility. If we're to call ourselves 'photographers' we should operate like photographers - and not digital artists correcting mistakes of the camera in PP. I'd rather correct my own mistakes and learn than sit in front of the computer annoyed that the camera got it wrong.

 

A photographer learns nothing from auto and everything from manual. I'm sorry but aperture priority is NOT manual, or semi-manual- it's auto, cause the final variable to affect the total outcome of the exposure is calculated by the camera. All you're doing is selecting depth of field.

 

Manual exposure is one of the most important aspects of photography and it is being ignored more often than not. Seems most forums goers are more interested in evaluating the bokeh smoothness. craziness in their image than actually evaluating what they can do better next time. If anyone remembers the old photo.net forum, it used to be the biggest and only place for Leica photographers to chat. Before the M7, there was no one shooting in auto, and yes most of the snappers were old school, but they understood at least the difference between reflective and ambient metering. Since then, everything has changed, and no I don't believe its for the better.

 

Shooting successfully in manual is about preparation and foresight....and I/we can always do better. In auto, we are at the mercy of a computer. I love my Apple products, but when it comes to photography, I know which I'll chose.

[vdb]

It doesn't really matter what variable is auto, cause it will suffer from variation under constant lighting conditions. The only time AE can be useful is in situations were the lighting is changing rapidly, but how often does that happen? I've gone my whole life shooting in manual and rarely come into a situation I couldn't handle in manual. Sure I've made mistakes, but I'm sure that even with those mistakes my results have been far more consistent than what a computer could have calculated. Under constant stable lighting there is NO reason to shoot in any auto mode. Under changing lighting the photographer must learn to read, react and adjust - this is not the camera's responsibility. If we're to call ourselves 'photographers' we should operate like photographers - and not digital artists correcting mistakes of the camera in PP. I'd rather correct my own mistakes and learn than sit in front of the computer annoyed that the camera got it wrong.

 

A photographer learns nothing from auto and everything from manual. I'm sorry but aperture priority is NOT manual, or semi-manual- it's auto, cause the final variable to affect the total outcome of the exposure is calculated by the camera. All you're doing is selecting depth of field.

 

Manual exposure is one of the most important aspects of photography and it is being ignored more often than not. Seems most forums goers are more interested in evaluating the bokeh smoothness. craziness in their image than actually evaluating what they can do better next time. If anyone remembers the old photo.net forum, it used to be the biggest and only place for Leica photographers to chat. Before the M7, there was no one shooting in auto, and yes most of the snappers were old school, but they understood at least the difference between reflective and ambient metering. Since then, everything has changed, and no I don't believe its for the better.

 

Shooting successfully in manual is about preparation and foresight....and I/we can always do better. In auto, we are at the mercy of a computer. I love my Apple products, but when it comes to photography, I know which I'll chose.

 

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

[leicashot]

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

 

phewww. thought i was going to get flamed ;-)

[wildlightphoto]

phewww. thought i was going to get flamed ;-)

 

Not by me! My R8/DMR has some modes besides Off and Manual but I NEVER use them.

[Scola77]

Ok I have had plenty of time now to dive into full manual mode of the M9. One observation I want to make is when metering an outdoor scene it always seems to be a single step too bright. Over and over, when using the sunny 16 rule, I would simply stop down 1 click and bam - perfection! Anybody else experience the same thing?

[leicashot]

Ok I have had plenty of time now to dive into full manual mode of the M9. One observation I want to make is when metering an outdoor scene it always seems to be a single step too bright. Over and over, when using the sunny 16 rule, I would simply stop down 1 click and bam - perfection! Anybody else experience the same thing?

 

Well whether in manual or Av, the exposure would be the same if you're using the internal meter. I wouldn't have a clue if my meter is accurate or not as I don't use it. In terms of an outdoor scene there are many different things the meter might be trying to do.

 

Example 1: If you're pointing the camera at a person with a white t-shirt the camera may underexpose a little, and vice versa for a black t-shirt. Because the camera is metering reflected light it is affected by the colours reflecting light back into the meter. Therfore the colors or brightness of objects in a scene will greatly affect the outcome, on any camera meter on the planet.

 

Example 2: In relation to example 1,if your're shooting dark colored objects/subjects up close, filling the center spot with the dark reflective surface, even against a bright background the camera will think it is dark and therefor compensate with overexposure.

 

This is why the camera meter cannot be fully trusted, and why it's important for the photographer to understand how to meter ambient light, either by guessing or using an ambient meter. I would suggest starting with manual mode and point the camera at the area you would like to meter from, keeping the central area on the meter zone, or metering your hand in the actual light of your scene. Then take a picture and check it on your LCD. Confirm with the histogram if you're unsure if the exposure looks right, especially in bright sunshine. From there look at the image and decide if the exposure needs tweaking.

 

Just ensure that when you tweak you achieve the right aperture for depth of field and right shutter to guarantee a sharp steady image. Adjust the ISO to achieve the right balance if needed.

 

It's always better to have a sharp grainy image than a soft fine grained image. The biggest mistake photographers make is to underestimate shutter speeds required to freeze motion and to hand hold. For people speaking and not moving too much, 1/125sec is the minimum. For people walking, 1/400sec or 1/250sec minimum is required. For action 1/800 is minimum, or sometimes 1/500sec may suffice for sharp face and body movement/blur. Remember, these are 'minimums' so I would recommend doubling the speeds or more when possible, guaranteeing sharp results. This for lenses up to 90mm. How do I know this? From shooting thousands of news, entertainment and professional sporting images, and making many mistakes along the way.

 

Hope this helps.

[erl]

+1

I can attest that whenever I fall below the recommendations put by Leicashot, I frequently end up with a technically imperfect result, despite my head telling me to 'give it a go'.

 

Hard lessons to learn.

 

Of course, there are times when technically perfect is not the prime criteria, but rather just getting the shot. That is when breaking the rules is acceptable, at least for me.

[jaapv]

phewww. thought i was going to get flamed ;-)

hardly by me I couldn't agree more.

[leicashot]

+1

I can attest that whenever I fall below the recommendations put by Leicashot, I frequently end up with a technically imperfect result, despite my head telling me to 'give it a go'.

 

Hard lessons to learn.

 

Of course, there are times when technically perfect is not the prime criteria, but rather just getting the shot. That is when breaking the rules is acceptable, at least for me.

 

I can understand that, but getting shots and missing shots is part of photography, part of life. If I'd gotten all the shots I'd missed, there'd be nothing to aim for. Though I can't be sure, I don't ever feel I've missed anything by shooting in manual...probably more so from checking the LCD occasionally ;-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[diogenis]

Ok I have had plenty of time now to dive into full manual mode of the M9. One observation I want to make is when metering an outdoor scene it always seems to be a single step too bright. Over and over, when using the sunny 16 rule, I would simply stop down 1 click and bam - perfection! Anybody else experience the same thing?

 

Really, differences in metering are not important.

You have the histogram to compensate, and the reason it's a bit over or under, may have to do with where you point your center patch. As the meter is calibrated to give correct exposure at 18% neutral gray. If you aim at a spot which is not 18% compared to the rest of your scene, you get out of the "balanced" exposure. The histogram will help you here.

 

For me (but I am not a pro!) it is important to be able to evaluate the scene as a whole, then meter it. I don't see how forgetting about having the meter actually helps.

 

So, I disagree with Kristian's view that the meter can go nuts and report random measurements. Actually the meter will meter what it sees. But it won't meter because it can't see outside that ceentral area the RF is located. Where you point your meter is your responsibility, because the camera uses center spot metering.

 

Try this: on a sunny day, try shooting behind a somewhat dark room through its window. Meter and lock the scene from directly the center of the window, then take some shots by metering closer to the dark areas left or right. Evaluate the result then...

[erl]

Diogenis, I am having trouble accepting your theories about the the M9 meter, which is different from the M7 and other film cameras by the way, which do act like "fat" spot meters. The M9 reads from that white strip on the shutter blade (I don't know how much of it gets read) but I think it is not as good as the M7 style, IMHO.

 

The meter does read what it is pointed at, which is random in itself, in that if your subject motif is put off centre, the meter reads to the side of the motif, which can be a totally different light value. Using the histogram to compensate may be OK for situations (landscape) where the motif sits and waits for you to make your mind up, but in live situations it is required to meter and shoot dynamically. It is always incumbent on the photographer to understand this and use the tools at his/her disposal to advantage, knowing the foibles of each tool. This can include AE, manual, sunny 16 rule and whatever. Reading the motif type is important in choosing the appropriate metering technique and your thinking needs to be dynamic with any changes, which means your decisive input must override the meter always.