A walk-through of the Leica M9 and Leica M9-P menus in the Leica M9 article

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thorsten,

 

Another great addition to your article. When I find the time, I will send you a spell checked version of the entire article - just a bit busy at the moment. If you could send me a Word version, I'd be happy to mark the changes and add comment if this helps.

 

Cheers

John

 

Thanks John,

 

I may take you up on this, though spelling errors and all seem to have become part of my trademark At least we have laughed about it a few times when I have met people who have read the page extensively.

 

At some point I made up my mind that if I had to ensure everything was perfect spelled, I would never get anything done. So that is the reason. Better get it out 98% correct than nothing out.

 

 

Ther will be a section later on metering with the Leica M9 as it's very easy when you understand the whole subject of metering, and get the feel of how the M9 does. Then it becomes very intuitive, and I want to see if I can explain that in a simple way.

[IkarusJohn]

I look forward to that, Thorsten.

[01af]

Can you clarify the point above, I would like to know more about this.

 

In general my understanding is that you have the most original in the base iso, the 160 ISO, and that the quality of the colors and noise depend on the quality of the software algorithms and camera profiles in for example LR.

That's right, basically ... except that the quality of colours and noise depend on both the camera and the post-processing software. Anyway, best overall image quality you will get at the sensor's native speed which for modern APS-C-format and 35-mm-format sensors usually is ISO 160/23° or ISO 200/24°. For some very small (point-and-shoot) and very large (medium-format) sensors it sometimes is in the range ISO 50/18° - ISO 80/20°. For all the Leica sensors (DMR, M8, M9, S2) it's ISO 160/23°, as we all know—this also is explicitly stated in the M9 user manual (see p. 128).

 

Selecting anything else will reduce image quality in one way or another. However halving and doubling the ISO number won't introduce the same quality loss, neither by amount not by character. Increasing the ISO setting will gradually add noise and gradually reduce dynamic range—but for a significant quality loss you'd have to increase by a factor of, say, 8× or thereabouts. Decreasing the ISO setting will reduce noise by a small amount and reduce dynamic range by a large amount—that's the reason why the camera offers only one single step below but several steps above the native speed. Decreasing hurts image quality far more than increasing.

 

So even when there's one aspect of image quality that will get improved with Pull 80—noise, particularly (of course) in the shadows—the (potential) image quality still is considered lower overall as dynamic range will be narrower.

 

In your article, you used Pull 80 for the photo of actor Terence Hines sitting in the grass—here, the subject's overall dynamic range is fairly low so you got away with the Pull 80 setting with no ill effects. Compare this to the weird-looking images in this thread (in the German-language part of this forum) ... this is a typical result you'd get when shooting a high-contrast scene with Pull 80. Beware! It is next to impossible (or at least pretty tricky) to save this in post-processing.

 

 

So for me reducing to half or increasing to the double would be the same.

No, it definitely is not the same! Doubling (from base ISO) will cause only minor losses. Halving will cause severe losses for high-contrast subjects ... and no losses at all—in fact, even a minor advantage with regard to shadow noise—for low-contrast subjects (provided you strictly avoid over-exposure).

[jaapv]

It is even written in the manual - one loses one stop of dynamic range in Pull80. You can just as well overexpose @ 160 and pull back on post. The blown highlights will be the same.

[Overgaard]

Ok, thanks.

 

Leica Camera AG states the lower contrast range with the PULL 80 ISO in the manual on page 128.

 

I've been trying to see if I could find any numbers for these things. The closest I get is Erwin Putts who in his test seem to measure the dynamic range of the M9 to 7-8 stops at 160 ISO, and 4 stops at 400 ISO.

 

Ok, I now see that DXO has tested the Leica M9 to 11.7 stops in dynamic range at ISO 160. So that would mean that at 80 ISO the dynamic range is 10.7.

[wda]

Thorsten, just catching up with this thread. Thank you for a very useful contribution to the quest for best working practices with the M9 camera. Much has already been said; however I would like to add my weight to a better treatment of User Profiles.

 

User Profiles. As written, it is very discouraging. Anyone following your advice would be missing one of the most useful features of the menu set.

 

Just as a pilot goes through his pre-flight checks meticulously before flight, for a very good reason, so a well-prepared M9 photographer will routinely reset his User Profile whenever the lighting environment changes. How and what you set is a personal choice. Here is my proven set.

 

1. 'HiFi'' is my basic highest quality setting for all normal outdoor photography;

2. 'Summer' is my modified basic setting fine-tuned for the generally brighter light one gets in wide open spaces.

3. 'Fast' is my basic setting when I move indoors or outdoors in twilight or deteriorating lighting conditions.

4. '135mm' is reserved for occasional use of this uncoded lens. It could be used for any uncoded lens or unique lighting situation.

 

When I start, I instinctively check my User Profile and adjust accordingly. I never fail to do this; it has become second-nature. I should add that I often make changes 'on-the-fly' which makes me appreciate my routine checks on which User Profile needs to be reset. It really does reduce errors, like leaving a museum interior with ISO 800 set, forgetting to normalise my setting for outdoor sunny scenes! It can so easily happen!

 

White Balance. I use my WhiBal or ColorChecker Passport in a slightly different way. I leave WB set on Auto and take a calibrated grey card reference reading during a session where the lighting is constant. I repeat this procedure as necessary as environments or lighting changes. In LR, after importing the files I select all images shot under similar lighting making the Grey Card reference shot the 'master'. In Develop Module I use the White Balance eye-dropper to sample the reference grey and examine the result by comparing Before and After images. ('Y' key in LR) Occasionally I might fine-tune the result to give me the colours I associated with shots. This is more likely to occur with indoor shots under mixed or totally artificial lighting. Once the master image has been sampled, all selected images instantly gain the same correction so no-one can claim it it too time-consuming. Frankly I fear that if I changed to your system, there would be too many errors due to my forgetting to reset White Balance during different sessions. I know post-processing corrections are possible, but my system gives me highly satisfactory results - consistently. In truth, I find that the colours I obtain with my M9 processed in LR are highly satisfactory and seldom require fine-tuning.

 

I enjoyed your narrative pictures and seeing results from a number of current and old Leica lenses. Well done!

[twom4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thorsten,

 

Thank you for this article. Very useful indeed.

 

Understandably if the English is not perfect but the message delivered is loud, clear and benefit readers.

 

Please let us know when you post the second installment.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Tom M]

Thanks Thorsten.

 

Regarding compressed and uncompressed DNG files, I have it on the good authority of this forum and I quote:

 

(1) that "the M9 compresses its 14 bit images into a 8 bit in areas where the informations is valued as less important (it is not an across-the-board downsizing, but rather omission of non-data)".

 

(2) "compressed RAW files are at 8 bit (across the board?), whilst uncompressed RAW files are at 14 bit. Why buy the best camera and not use the best setting?"

 

Regards,

 

Tom M

[t024484]

(1) that "the M9 compresses its 14 bit images into a 8 bit in areas where the informations is valued as less important (it is not an across-the-board downsizing, but rather omission of non-data)".

Compression is not a matter of omitting non data, but by first shifting the 14 bits information 2 bits to the left in a 16 bit word, which is the same as multiplying by 4, and then taking the square root.

Expanding is by taking the square and dividing by 4.

By doing this, some 0,2 stop extra noise at ISO 160 is added over the while range from the darkest to the lightest areas which in practice will be almost invisible. At ISO 640 the extra noise is less then 0,1 stop, and above ISO 640 compression has no effect whatsoever.

 

(2) "compressed RAW files are at 8 bit (across the board?), whilst uncompressed RAW files are at 14 bit. Why buy the best camera and not use the best setting?"

When you want to maximise the number of images on your memory card, compression is an option if you take the possible extra noise, depending on the SO setting, for granted.

When working above ISO 640 there is nothing against compressing to 8 bits.

If you want to be on the safe side and your memory card is large enough, don't compress

.

Hans

[jaapv]

Won't the data loss be more in the highlights than in the dark areas?

[t024484]

Won't the data loss be more in the highlights than in the dark areas?

 

Jaap,

 

That is true in absolute value but not in relative sense.

Percentage wise the effect of compressing is the same all over the range from dark to the higlights.

That is how your eye responds, and that is why the effect is expressed in stops.

 

Hans

[swamiji]

Thanks again Thorsten.

 

I noticed you put in the article the same advice you gave me about 6 months ago. Shooting in both DNG and B/W jpeg. For street shooting I still use that advice, Studio I just shoot in DNG.

 

Using that technique i have discovered a couple of unexpected things, and a few you had mentioned as well. First I discovered I really do not like the neutral B/W that the M9 produces natively. If I want to use the image as B/W I always make the change manually or at least scripted in C1. So when I import my images I discard the B/W, and only import the DNG. Even then I see real value in creating the B/W jpeg.

 

The fact that, it's the only way to display on the LCD screen in B/W, which is the value IMO. Being B/W we are not distracted by the color, so exposer/focus/composition is better presented. Since the LCD really sucks in accuracy for color, I don't miss it. Being B/W I don't chimp as much, and likewise other people don't bug me to see their picture. After the first time, they know not to expect me give their blast of color on my LCD. They have to wait for it to be uploaded to see it.

[Overgaard]

Thanks again Thorsten.

 

I noticed you put in the article the same advice you gave me about 6 months ago. Shooting in both DNG and B/W jpeg. For street shooting I still use that advice, Studio I just shoot in DNG.

 

Using that technique i have discovered a couple of unexpected things, and a few you had mentioned as well. First I discovered I really do not like the neutral B/W that the M9 produces natively. If I want to use the image as B/W I always make the change manually or at least scripted in C1. So when I import my images I discard the B/W, and only import the DNG. Even then I see real value in creating the B/W jpeg.

 

The fact that, it's the only way to display on the LCD screen in B/W, which is the value IMO. Being B/W we are not distracted by the color, so exposer/focus/composition is better presented. Since the LCD really sucks in accuracy for color, I don't miss it. Being B/W I don't chimp as much, and likewise other people don't bug me to see their picture. After the first time, they know not to expect me give their blast of color on my LCD. They have to wait for it to be uploaded to see it.

 

Good to hear. I do actually often use the B&W the M9 produces, but usually I increase lightness and black in Lightroom to give it the look I want.

 

In a way, one should continuously follow up on new editions of software to see how one could optimize ones images, but in reality it doesn't happen. I tend to have the philosophy, that if the B&W file from the M9 can impress me, it can probably do the same with others. And often when I convert a DNG into B&W I have a hard time matching that look that I liked.

 

But I always add extra shadow details (lighten) and contrast (black).