New M262 disappointing - exposure problems

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suppose it comes down to how you define video.  Obviously you need to be able to read off the sensor continuously, but I would assume its not coming off as h.264.  Do we know if there is a separate chip that handles metering and video duties?  Or it is that the 262/M-D processing hardware is fully capable, but the functionality is simply turned off (which is what I assumed)? Dunno, just asking. 

 

I'm reminded that back in the early 80's I worked for a computer manufacturer that charged $600 to field upgrade their PC/terminals from 32Kb to 64 Kb (yes K). When a customer purchased the upgrade they'd send a tech out who'd spend a few minutes fooling around, then pull a jumper pin. Viola, double the memory.   It was more cost effective to wire in all the memory, disable it and then charge extra for those who had to have it.  

Real men (and M262 shooters) wouldn't accept metering as you describe it. The LV stream may be invisible from the outside - but you'd know it's there.

[Advertisement]

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

[sblutter]

Just play with the thing - you'll get the hang of it.  I started with an M9 & did pretty quickly - was a smooth transition to 240.  Classic spot metering.  Shoot to save the highs, the lows are more easily recovered

 

That said there are some lighting situations that are still tricky to get right.  At that point I think the heck with it & shoot a manual +2 / -2 bracket in 1/2 stop steps and pick the best later. 

 

I highly recc using DNG and learning Photoshop, LR or Capture One.  You'll be amazed how flexible the files are

 

And print BIG!!

[Tailwagger]

Real men (and M262 shooters) wouldn't accept metering as you describe it. The LV stream may be invisible from the outside - but you'd know it's there.

Real men use hand held spot meters. Not this built into the camera center weighted averaging crap. 

[pgk]

Real men use the histogram - real as in lazy because its too easy and simple not to .

[mjh]

I suppose it comes down to how you define video.  Obviously you need to be able to read off the sensor continuously, but I would assume its not coming off as h.264.

Compression is not the defining charaterictic of video. You need a video stream for the advanced metering modes and you need it for live view. If you also want to record video you will want to compress the video data with a codec such as H.264 but that’s just the last and certainly not essential step.

 

Constant read-out of the sensor drains the battery and creates heat that needs to be dissipated. So does the continuous processing of the sensor data. The M (Typ 240) is designed to handle all of this while the M (Typ 262) is not. That’s the very raison d’être of that model – it is a camera for still photography and nothing else.

[Tailwagger]

Compression is not the defining charaterictic of video...

 

I never said it was. I was pointing out that the camera has a CMOS sensor that is fully capable of producing a viewable video stream once processed off chip.  

 

The M (Typ 240) is designed to handle all of this while the M (Typ 262) is not. 

 

As I alluded in my previous post, I'm curious as to whether this capability is the result of an actual physical hardware change or was this neutering was carried out purely in software.  So far I've heard nothing convincing either way.

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting thing is any jpg image I have used up to now I create final images using Photoshop Elements and / or either Avery for flickr or Pic Monkey for SmugMug. I am used to working with individual images. What I have realised with Lightroom it might now even save me time compared to what I did before - I doubt it is is going to take me any longer as I may obviate the need for the other "tweaks" which often tended to be colour balance / contrast / exposure or conversion to mono.

 

Anyway I have a couple more trips coming up in the next few weeks so hope to give DNG a good try and develop a way of working with Lightroom.

 

John

 

John

John,

 

I followed this thread and found many good suggestions. It seems you are already getting comfortable with LR and it will only get better in streamlining your entire workflow.

 

I wanted to add my two cents for handling JPEG for publishing (to Flickr etc). In LR there are some plugins for popular outputs. I use Flickr too and it is simply a matter of dragging your selected pics to Flickr collection (within LR). Then LR will sync it with Flickr (you will have to provide Flickr user/pwd once in configuration). There is no need to create JPEG separately. You can work directly off DNG.

 

Same concept applies to other publication destination. Some times I export selected pics as JPEG to some other folder (such as posting here in the forum). You simply decide size,metadata,sharpness etc while exporting. The output jpegs are for publishing/posting and not to be further worked on. The originals are in LR as DNG. Giving you maximum facility.

 

If you do want to use external editor (such as photoshop) then also LR manages the files. It will create a TIFF (or whatever format you chose) for external editor and launch the editor. After saving both the files (DNG and edited files) will sit side by side managed in LR.

 

Furthermore, you can organize your pictures by keywords so that you can easily find them later. Go ahead and watch LR video as suggested by other members and you will appreciate the deep features.

[Mark II]

The problem is that theM 262 meter is not a spot but elongated horizontally. This means that - unlike the film Ms - if you rotate the camera to portrait orientation even a small amount of sky appears to push down the exposure.

 

If you compare the M 262 shutter blade colouring with (say) the spot painted on the M6/7 shutter curtain you can see why this happens. Quite why Leica did this I do not know - but probably it makes the shutters cheaper to build.

 

It seems ironic, but I find the meter in my M7 to be vastly better than the M 262 because of its tighter metering pattern.

[pgk]

The problem is that theM 262 meter is not a spot but elongated horizontally.

 

Back in pre-matrix/multi-pattern metering, manufacturers used to publish diagrams of their centre-weighted metering areas to show how they were adjusted to optimise their capabilities. If I remember correctly they were typically slightly elongated and magically biased towards the bottom of the picture, but all suffered from variable changes if the camera was held vertically - easy enough to sort, simply meter horizontally and then shoot vertically - in manual of course!

[kaiserphoenix]

Get yourself a Lightroom Guide and spend 1-2 hours and you would be up and running immediately! RAW(DNG) is the only way im afraid!

[mjh]

The problem is that theM 262 meter is not a spot but elongated horizontally. This means that - unlike the film Ms - if you rotate the camera to portrait orientation even a small amount of sky appears to push down the exposure.

See the FAQ: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/216580-leica-m8-m82-m9-m9p-mm-mtyp240-faqs-questions-with-answers/page-4?do=findComment&comment=2464134. The metering pattern is actually quite similar to that of film Ms.

[pgk]

And FWIW as a bit more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metering_mode

[mwilliamsphotography]

John, all due respect for your past experience, but your posts lead me to believe that you do not quite grasp how in-camera meters actually measure reflected light. I do not just mean what portion of the scene (spot, center weighted, matrix, etc.), but how meters are fundamentally calibrated to measure the light in a scene.

 

If you aim any reflected light meter, in any mode, at a pure white wall ... the meter will indicate exposure settings resulting in a middle-grey wall. If you aim it at a black wall, the meter will indicate different settings to also produce a middle grey wall. Meters have to be calibrated to something and middle grey is it. Thus the standard issue "Grey Card" used to determine reflected light exposure.

 

When you AE lock on the ground it has to be pretty close to the reflectance of a grey card or the exposure settings indicated will be off ... if the ground is lighter, then the image will be underexposed ... if darker, then the image will be over-exposed.  

 

The principle extends to all modes ... each mode measures different area of the framed image ... and remember that also changes with focal length. 

 

- Marc

[AndrewDD]

Wow, you brought out the natives with their burning pitchforks there! Don't you know you should never mention shooting JPG around here...

 

I find the only use for a DNG is to rescue a bad photo. I'd rather spend 1/60 of a second taking a good photo than spend 60 minutes in photoshop rescuing a bad one, so I only shoot JPG.

[Bill Livingston]

I don't actually set fire to my pitchfork... but I do tend to carry a lighted torch in the other hand when descending at night on the home of an unsuspecting jpg user...

 

Far more effective and massively increases the sense of drama...!

[Ernstk]

Wow, you brought out the natives with their burning pitchforks there! Don't you know you should never mention shooting JPG around here...

 

I find the only use for a DNG is to rescue a bad photo. I'd rather spend 1/60 of a second taking a good photo than spend 60 minutes in photoshop rescuing a bad one, so I only shoot JPG.

If you set the camera to DNG and JPEG then that 1/60 of a second can be put to good use.

 

I'm not sure why you feel that it takes 60 mins in Photoshop or Lightroom to process a DNG file? On average, I take around 1-2 mins per image to process to the look that I want.

 

I have found that in no circumstances are the JPEGs from my M-P or M8 better than a DNG file processed in Lightroom.

 

Ernst

[Mark II]

See the FAQ: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/216580-leica-m8-m82-m9-m9p-mm-mtyp240-faqs-questions-with-answers/page-4?do=findComment&comment=2464134. The metering pattern is actually quite similar to that of film Ms.

 

 

Yes, I had seen that. However, I have spent a long time shooting the M7 + 50mm in the narrow streets here. On trying the M262 it is obvious that the instinctive compensation that you apply to the metering needs to be different, and that it is most obviously different when in portrait orientation (because of the sky and the shape of the meter pattern). Which is exactly what the OP reported.

 

With practise, of course, you learn to compensate for the metering characteristics. But for me, the closer the behaviour to a genuine spot meter, the easier is it to use effectively.

 

None of this is helped by the nature of the digital sensor, where even with DNG you have to worry a lot more about clipping highlights than with film (although for reasons that I do not entirely understand, the highlight roll-off with M262 DNGs seems subjectively much less harsh than from our 5DII and 5DIII systems). One possibility is that Leica enlarged the metering pattern deliberately to avoid highlight clipping for people who use the camera like a point-and-shoot.

[tom0511]

1) People dont agree on other threads but here I say it again: M metering is not as bullet proof as a Canikon Matrix metering

2) Even with the M240 I prefer classic metering because everything else produces a longer shutter lag which I dont like.

3) IMO its much better to nail it in the first place (when taking the image) than doing exposure comp in post. Everything else makes it harder to get the colors right and produces more noise than necessary;

My approach is to take 1 or 2 images i a certain light situation, then I see if I need to dial in some exp compensation or not and that usually works for the series

My starting point with the M is as follows:

standard outside -0,3 exp comp

standard inside or low contrast situation: no exp comp

high contrast scenes and shots into the light: better check hostogramm after the shot and take another one if necessary;

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ECohen]

If you set the camera to DNG and JPEG then that 1/60 of a second can be put to good use.

 

I'm not sure why you feel that it takes 60 mins in Photoshop or Lightroom to process a DNG file? On average, I take around 1-2 mins per image to process to the look that I want.

 

I have found that in no circumstances are the JPEGs from my M-P or M8 better than a DNG file processed in Lightroom.

 

Ernst

 

I concur !!!

I used to be a 100% JPG shooter. Didn't understand why Leica couldn't get JPG's right.

Before I switched and believed in DNG I shot both......now I'm 100% DNG.

Batch process takes almost no time, once the fear of a new way of working goes away .....there is no comparison.

 

 

"I find the only use for a DNG is to rescue a bad photo." AndrewDD

I hit most of my photos on the mark in camera.  DNG out of the camera is like having a good negative.

 

With all this said when I shoot Nikon which I don't do much of these days.

I still shoot Jpg......not sure why? I think it because Nikon file is an NEF and I avoid the extra step.

Or perhaps Nikon Jpgs are good enough and I don't care as much?

.......Leica's JPGs are not always perfect (at the factory camera settings) but the DGNs are sublime.....IMHO

and so flexable

[Tailwagger]

If you set the camera to DNG and JPEG then that 1/60 of a second can be put to good use.

 

I'm not sure why you feel that it takes 60 mins in Photoshop or Lightroom to process a DNG file? On average, I take around 1-2 mins per image to process to the look that I want.

 

I have found that in no circumstances are the JPEGs from my M-P or M8 better than a DNG file processed in Lightroom.

 

Ernst

 

Not to mention that you don't actually have to spend a second working on the photo, if you don't care to.  

 

If you shoot at base ISO, in good light all the time, you might feel you're not gaining all that much with dng over jpg.  There is still some latitude in jpg for some corrections if need be.  But if you work in variable conditions, low light, fog, golden hours, etc... DNG is mandatory.  Its not a matter of making a bad photo good,  it's a matter of making one at all.  One doesn't buy some of the finest lenses and camera bodies known to humanity to make things easier, we do it to make difficult things possible and to squeeze every last drop of goodness out that we possibly can. 

 

More importantly, I'd argue strenuously that you reap from such pursuits in direct proportion to what you invest. Spending the time to understand and master the tools and techniques at your disposal on the back end inevitably has a significant impact on you approach the front. Failure to do so is tantamount to intentionally walking with a limp.  If you fire and hope in less than ideal circumstance, there will inevitably be disappointment. If, OTOH, you work to understand more fully just how much you can pull from shadow, decrease luminance, alter contrast, etc you will develop a more refined sense of the end result before you ever release the shutter.   You are then armed to get good, even great, results where others might have failed to get anything worthwhile at all. There is no doubt that as my skills have grown on the back end, they've markedly improved on the front end as well.

 

Photography is not merely the act of capturing an image, it is nothing without the steps applied to developing it.  Leaving all the decision making to the jpg photo lab embedded in silicon might be convenient and work well enough in general circumstance. But for many reasons, relying exclusively on it is a false economy.