Base or Pull

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The camera takes many shots at ISO50, but I would like my camera to prefer 100 or even 200, because that gives me shorter exposure times and less shaky pictures. This should be no problem as everybody agrees that there is no quality loss.

But currently I have to leave autoISO range untouched, because of the problems mentioned.

 

Stephan

 

 

Surely this is going to be a problem if you use Auto aperture and AutoISO at the same time?  How the algorithms work to prefer shutter and/or ISO  is always going to leave someone unhappy. 

 

I do use AutoISO, but ony in M mode where I can control aperture and shutter speeds. Otherwise, I might as well use P mode ...

 

If you want ISO 100 or 200, then set it at that and use A mode. Alternatively use AutoISO (I set mine at 50-6400) and then you can set a shutter speed that suits. 

[ramarren]

Surely this is going to be a problem if you use Auto aperture and AutoISO at the same time?  How the algorithms work to prefer shutter and/or ISO  is always going to leave someone unhappy. 

 

I do use AutoISO, but ony in M mode where I can control aperture and shutter speeds. Otherwise, I might as well use P mode ...

 

If you want ISO 100 or 200, then set it at that and use A mode. Alternatively use AutoISO (I set mine at 50-6400) and then you can set a shutter speed that suits. 

 

 

I've been using Aperture Priority with Auto ISO, and settable top and bottom ISO limits, on many other cameras for over a decade. The only camera that's been inconsistent in operation in this mode is the SL. 

 

Aperture priority and "auto aperture" are not the same thing. 

 

The way it should work is quite simple: 

• you set the aperture
• the meter sets the exposure time considering the bottom limit ISO setting
• when the system has a max exposure time limit, and that limit is reached, it raises the ISO setting 
• when the top ISO limit is reached, a warning tells the user that the image will be underexposed
• if the camera has extended time override enabled  the exposure time is extended past the set limit

All of my other cameras do this flawlessly. Not all have max exposure time limit settings or bottom and top ISO limits, but the addition or lack of those features doesn't really complicate the algorithm by much at all.

 

The SL simply has a bug in the bottom limit setting and needs the exposure time extension option to be added to do what all my other cameras do. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by ramarren

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

Hmm, typo - obviously should have been Auto shutter. 

 

I'm not really sure what the "problem" is you identify. If you've been using auto shutter and AutoISO for over a decade, on what cameras, may I ask?  10 years ago, the M8 was new. On the M9, my first digital camera worth mentioning, AutoISO and auto shutter together was similarly ropey, in my view. I hate having a camera make decisions for me unless I know what they are - 2 Auto settings have never worked for me as sometimes I want better shutter control and other times better ISO. 

 

If I know the camera will stay at base ISO until the shutter limits have been hit (ie, giving base ISO priority), then I can at least understand it. But I generally prefer control over shutter speed to control over ISO. Now, I get it that if the metering gets unpredictable if you move the bottom ISO off 50, but that is a different issue. What I was trying to point out is that if you go for more control, then the problem doesn't arise. I thought that was the point you were also making. 

 

Granted, if you set the ISO limits, you can forget about it, but you still have limited control over the shutter - the camera is going to give priority to one over the other.

 

I'm not being critical, just struggling to understand how you think the camera should work (typos aside). The only camera, before the SL came along, that I used AutoISO with any confidence was the Monochrom.

[ramarren]

Hmm, typo - obviously should have been Auto shutter. 

 

I'm not really sure what the "problem" is you identify. If you've been using auto shutter and AutoISO for over a decade, on what cameras, may I ask?  10 years ago, the M8 was new. On the M9, my first digital camera worth mentioning, AutoISO and auto shutter together was similarly ropey, in my view. I hate having a camera make decisions for me unless I know what they are - 2 Auto settings have never worked for me as sometimes I want better shutter control and other times better ISO. 

 

If I know the camera will stay at base ISO until the shutter limits have been hit (ie, giving base ISO priority), then I can at least understand it. But I generally prefer control over shutter speed to control over ISO. Now, I get it that if the metering gets unpredictable if you move the bottom ISO off 50, but that is a different issue. What I was trying to point out is that if you go for more control, then the problem doesn't arise. I thought that was the point you were also making. 

 

Granted, if you set the ISO limits, you can forget about it, but you still have limited control over the shutter - the camera is going to give priority to one over the other.

 

I'm not being critical, just struggling to understand how you think the camera should work (typos aside). The only camera, before the SL came along, that I used AutoISO with any confidence was the Monochrom.

 

 

Sony F707, Canon 10D, Canon 20D, Nikon D200, D300, Pentax *ist DS, Pentax K10D, Panasonic L1, Olympus E-5, Panasonic G1, Ricoh GXR, Leica M9, Olympus E-M1, Sony A7, Leica M-P ... Amongst about a dozen others. Not all of these have all the features the SL has, but the thing they have/had that the SL lacks in this regard is consistency of operation. 

 

Whether you want to operate the camera differently is a completely different question. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I don't really care whether it's SIO 50 or 100 as the true base. I can't see a difference so far. If there is it's so small that switching between 50, 100, 200 is painless. The differences are so small I can shoot them all without worry. It would be nice to know. But once I have determined that I can shoot ISO 400 at the image quality I expect for large prints, at MY requirements I tend to just go and shoot any where in that range.

 

One of my favourite features of the SL is the lower base ISO. Many cameras have bases around 200 with lossy pull to ISO 100. Having ISO 50 is so useful to me that even if it were a bit lossy I would still use it. I am delighted it's not. Being able to shoot my Noctilux and Summilux lenses at wider apertures in daylight (without filters) is why I love the SL so much and the Noctilux is a permanent part of my SL kit. I consider it an SL lens because of the ISO50 of the SL.

 

I have several cameras that have higher base ISO's of 200 (Leica M, Fuji, Olympus) and I really miss having lower ISO's on those cameras especially since the ISO 100 they have is a pull and loses DR. With those cameras I have so great lenses that I feel are limited and constrained because of the high base ISO of the camera they are on. So regardless if the SL base is ISO 50 or it's just a lossless pull I'm so very pleased Leica put it on the SL.

 

If I'm using auto ISO then ultimate sensor performance isn't a priority so I set it to ISO 400-3200. I hardly ever use it.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Sony F707, Canon 10D, Canon 20D, Nikon D200, D300, Pentax *ist DS, Pentax K10D, Panasonic L1, Olympus E-5, Panasonic G1, Ricoh GXR, Leica M9, Olympus E-M1, Sony A7, Leica M-P ... Amongst about a dozen others. Not all of these have all the features the SL has, but the thing they have/had that the SL lacks in this regard is consistency of operation. 

 

Whether you want to operate the camera differently is a completely different question. 

 

Consistency of operation is the great issue I have with the SL. We need as many as possible to stress to Leica how important it is. How are we supposed to learn the camera so well that it becomes instinctive if the thing changes functionality every time you press a bleedin' button, change modes or add a flash into the mix.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Couldn't agree more. Maybe I'm a control freak, but the only way I can learn how a camera works is if I understand how it makes the decisions it does.

 

It is too ingrained in me to fix the parameters to leave two auto functions to the camera.

 

Godfrey's list of cameras mean little to me, except that many are not decades old. I've owned a few of them, and never used AutoISO for the reasons already canvassed. The reason the Monochrom was different is because I vaguely knew what the ISO would be with a given aperture and shutter selection and at higher ISOs, the appearance of grain is quite pleasing. Conversely, the dynamic range of the M9 was sufficiently narrow I would fix the ISO and use aperture priority as I had for years with film.

 

Of course, the M60 doesn't have AutoISO.

 

Even if Leica gets the metering with higher minimum ISOs right, I doubt I will change what I do - it isn't a work around.

Edited April 25, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[ramarren]

Couldn't agree more. Maybe I'm a control freak, but the only way I can learn how a camera works is if I understand how it makes the decisions it does.

 

It is too ingrained in me to fix the parameters to leave two auto functions to the camera.

 

Godfrey's list of cameras mean little to me, except that many are not decades old. I've owned a few of them, and never used AutoISO for the reasons already canvassed. The reason the Monochrom was different is because I vaguely knew what the ISO would be with a given aperture and shutter selection and at higher ISOs, the appearance of grain is quite pleasing. Conversely, the dynamic range of the M9 was sufficiently narrow I would fix the ISO and use aperture priority as I had for years with film.

 

Of course, the M60 doesn't have AutoISO.

 

Even if Leica gets the metering with higher minimum ISOs right, I doubt I will change what I do - it isn't a work around.

 

 

The F707 I bought in Spring 2002, everything up to the Panasonic L1 pre-dates 2006. I did say " over a decade" not "for decades"..

 

again, just because you personally prefer to operate your camera a different way does not mean that cameras did not have these capabilities, nor that many other people did not use them this way. You might try it sometime... For fast work it proves a very fluid shooting configuration. 

[dgktkr]

In the German SL forum there is a thread similar to this one. One poster presented a reply he got from Leica on the issue.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/259136-base-iso/?p=3034244

 

" ...

Hier wurde mir mitgeteilt das die Leica SL kein Pull 50 nutzt.

Trotz gleichen Sensors sind hier die SL und die Q was die ISO betrifft  nicht miteinander zu vegleichen.

Hier spielen noch weitere Hard/Softwarefaktoren eine Rolle.

..."

 

Which translates to something like:

 

"...

Here it was communicated to me that the Leica SL does not use a pull 50.

In spite of the same sensor, the SL and Q are not comparable here as far as the ISO is concerned.

Additional hardware and software factors play a role here.

..."

 

Apparently, Stefan Daniel misspoke in his interview (in German) with Andreas Jürgensen http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-aktuell/2015/10/leica-sl-interview-stefan-daniel/.

 

dgktkr

Edited April 27, 2016 by dgktkr