Jump to content

Auto iso coming.


hansmezger

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply
In other words “we got yer money” :(

 

+1 The auto ISO issue is not a big deal for me, but it is for many. I find Leica's lack of support and responsiveness to FW updates in general (still applies to the M9) far more appalling than their pitiful supply and distribution issues for new products.

 

If you're going to treat customers like beta testers, despite high end prices, then at least have the support in place to respond to test results.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

this seems to be sadly true: Leica cameras are seemingly shipped in a somewhat beta status- only Leica never really bothers to update the firmware significantly so they stay beta cameras. My Fuji X100 worked well out of the box- but improved a lot over time with goodly firmware 'upgrades'. I really appreciate Fuji's dedication and professionalism. It was like as if I got a new camera ever 6 months... sort of.

 

By contrast I was never once excited by the few and far between m8 and m9 firmware releases. The term 'underwhelmed' comes to mind...

 

I wonder what the explanation of the delay is for Auto ISO: some immense technical difficulty or a dedicated indifference and slothful nature?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

By contrast I was never once excited by the few and far between m8 and m9 firmware releases. The term 'underwhelmed' comes to mind...

 

...

 

Well, the original M8 had no auto-ISO-funktion at all. It came with a firmware update.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All I can say is that correct auto-ISO is important for the type of photography I like to do, and I am very disappointed that this functionality wasn't included in the original release firmware, let alone in the first round of updates. Needless to say, if Leica won't deliver on their promise to correct this issue, I will do what I can: vote with my money and give it to manufacturers that can keep promises and give value to their customers. I'd advise those in similar circumstances to follow suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Auto ISO works perfectly on my NIKON Df ..... I set the shutter speed and f-stop in manual mode. ISO moves up and down as needed (within the parameters I've set). Sometimes this is very handy.

 

Leica can do this!

This is so handy it should be on all Leica M type cameras.

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so handy it should be on all Leica M type cameras.

 

Nick

 

It works very well with the Monochrom because of the great way it deals with high ISO noise. So with Auto ISO you can go from outdoor to indoor still using the same shutter speed to stop camera shake, or peoples movement, or that is appropriate to the lens. If it were available for the M240, which I hope it eventually is, the difference in image rendering would be more extreme, and within a narrower usable ISO band, but it is still a very useful feature.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you compare the firmware updates on the M9 with the M240, we had 10 updates on the M9 over a 2 year period. On the M240, if you ignore the initial update which was in effect the first production firmware as it came out as the camera was released and 2.0.0.12 update, which made no changes to the user, we have only had a single update in over a year. Over the last 10 months on my Olympus EP-5, I have had three updates for the body and two for the lens. If we get nothing on April 24, I will be disappointed. Auto ISO, improved exposure control and AWB are just three of the updates required. Having been using my M9 quite a bit over the last two days, it is noticeable how much better the light metering is than the M240 in pretty much any of its metering modes. The M9 menu is also much more readable notwithstanding the lower resolution LCD.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree with the need for an AWB update, Wilson, but you are absolutely correct. The Auto=Iso update is a promise - Leica should keep their promises, and knowing the company, I am still hopeful. But time is slipping by...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap,

 

IMHO, AWB in either tungsten or fluorescent is pretty dreadful still on the M240. It is not just a question of Kº either, tint is wrong as well. Outside it is OK but not wonderful, particularly in flat light and when I compare how good the AWB is on my Olympus EP-5, it is very evident that there is a considerable way to go with the M240. The out of camera JPEG’s are very usable from my Olympus and developing from ORF (RAW) in Capture One does not make much, if any, improvement. I never use the out of camera JPEG’s from the M240 other than quick shots for eBay, as the ones I generate in Capture One are so much better. I think the out of camera M9 JPEG’s are slightly better than the M240 in contrast to the DNG’s where it is the other way round.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap,

 

IMHO, AWB in either tungsten or fluorescent is pretty dreadful still on the M240. It is not just a question of Kº either, tint is wrong as well. Outside it is OK but not wonderful, particularly in flat light and when I compare how good the AWB is on my Olympus EP-5, it is very evident that there is a considerable way to go with the M240. The out of camera JPEG’s are very usable from my Olympus and developing from ORF (RAW) in Capture One does not make much, if any, improvement. I never use the out of camera JPEG’s from the M240 other than quick shots for eBay, as the ones I generate in Capture One are so much better. I think the out of camera M9 JPEG’s are slightly better than the M240 in contrast to the DNG’s where it is the other way round.

 

Wilson

I think tungsten and fluorescent are pretty awful on any camera, with only degrees of worse. I like the greycard balance by the M, It gives a perfectly neutral starting point. Well, as neutral as possible...:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do the same in auto mode. My cam is called M240 BTW. :D

 

Yes - the problem is, that many M-users prefer manual mode.

 

And there seem to be two camps of users who prefer manual mode:

 

First camp says: manual is strictly manual and I do not want any automatic function intervening in my manual handling of the camera. This sounds good when you read it,...

 

...but life is different: you might use manual settings of shutter time and aperture and have Auto-ISO to help to keep these manual settings. This is the second camp of users who prefer manual mode.

 

Now Leica seems to have taken side for the first camp - setting the camera to manual mode does not allow you to use Auto-Iso. So many users in the second manual camp feel as if the camera doesn't allow Auto-Iso at all.

 

Those who are in the first camp of strictly manual usage as well as those just outside both camps who use automatic mode do not understand the problem. Both say: why don't you use automatic mode and have your Auto-Iso, if you want it. Though users who generally prefer manual mode but also wish that Auto-Iso helps them to keep their manual setting (e.g. minimum shutter speed for long lenses) have a right to their "compromising option". It was possible with the M9 - if someone was strictly against any automatic intervention he might switch Auto-Iso off - it didn't bother him.

 

BTW: I am rather sure, that the manual for the M (240) said, that you could not use Auto-Iso in manual mode. I just looked it up, but couldn't find this statement any more. Was the download-manual from the Leica website changed, or am I just missing something or remembering wrong about this statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - the problem is, that many M-users prefer manual mode.

 

There is a set that think of themselves as purists only wanting manual settings, but the irony of this is that if they were using film they'd be happily talking about the 'latitude' of various films, and developers that stretch the film's latitude.

 

So they would be shooting scenes that required flexibility of the films ISO. In fact film wouldn't work nearly as well without that 'automatic' flexible latitude, and yet they have the temerity to suggest the same flexibility shouldn't be part of a digital camera. Auto ISO in a digital camera and over exposing Tri-X and letting the highlights take care of themselves, or using a particular developer to process it, are essentially the same functions, they refine exposure around a set manual shutter speed and set aperture. True the outcome isn't exactly the same because film can be processed to contract or expand its dynamic range, and digital can only aim for a perfect exposure if highlight and shadow detail is essential. But they both rely on the ISO being flexible.

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...