Bill Livingston Posted January 23, 2017 Share #41 Posted January 23, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) and don't mind things we embraced in the older days. Just my two cents. Totally agree. Thats one of the reasons we have so many quite heated 'discussions' on here. Sometimes its just hard to get people to let go of the mindset of the past and open themselves up to a new way of thinking. Half the time they agree, anyway, but just like to argue...! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Hi Bill Livingston, Take a look here Bad M10 ISO dial is bad. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted January 23, 2017 Share #42 Posted January 23, 2017 Umm. No. All three affect exposure. Aperture is the size of the pipe. Shutter speed is the time the tap is open. So the total quantity of light reaching the sensor or film is dependant on both speed and aperture. Aperture, shutter and ISO all affect exposure. Aperture also affects DOF. Shutter also affects blur. ISO also affects noise. That's what we balance we play with every time we push the big button. Gordon Sorry, Gordon. The ISO value of film is the nominal sensitivity of the emulsion to light and varies per film type. (And with development;)) The light sensitivity of the sensor is invariable per sensor type and we call it base ISO. -Which, incidentally, is determined by the manufacturer and is not universally defined across the industry.- What is misleadingly called ISO setting of the camera determines the handling of the immutable signal out of the sensor. On quite a few cameras, including the M8 and M9 it is a simple gain control, which means one can just as well (or better) leave the camera at base ISO or the gain setting (ISO) which allows maximum exposure latitude, underexpose and leave the ISO adjustment to the more powerful algorithms of the postprocessing software. The ISO setting on the camera is purely for user convenience - i.e. getting a decent LCD image, handling exposure warnings, preparing for the in-camera JPG, etc. And, on some cameras, will trigger inbuilt noise-reduction software. You are right that the ISO setting affects the noise - the noise from the sensor receiving less light by the underexposure is amplified along with the image signal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotofool Posted January 23, 2017 Share #43 Posted January 23, 2017 This is a shocking revelation to me. So if I shoot an underexposed frame with my M240 (or Canon 5DmkII) at ISO 200 and push the raw file by four stops in Lightroom I will get an equal (or even better!) result than taking the same shot at ISO 3200??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 23, 2017 Share #44 Posted January 23, 2017 This is a shocking revelation to me. So if I shoot an underexposed frame with my M240 (or Canon 5DmkII) at ISO 200 and push the raw file by four stops in Lightroom I will get an equal (or even better!) result than taking the same shot at ISO 3200??? Give it a go, and report back! I prefer to get the best image at the sensor I can, and if that means setting the gain in camera, then I will do that. It's just another variable to get right. Primary, secondary - who cares? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 23, 2017 Share #45 Posted January 23, 2017 It works that way on the M8 and M9, at least up to ISO 1600. The result is even a bit better. I've never tried it on the M240. It depends on the in-camera noise reduction, Canon might turn out a bit worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 23, 2017 Share #46 Posted January 23, 2017 I have tried it with M240. This pic is shot at ISO 200 and pushed +3 (or 4, I have to check) in PP with shadow recovery maxed. This allowed me to keep the highlight preserved but at the cost of heavy grain in the shadows. The issue with M240 files being pushed is that you get abundance of green channel. But if you set high ISO then in-camera hardware reduces the green channel. It means in-camera ISO setting (for M240) is more than just gain control. In my picture, the extra green channel has worked to my advantage but in other shots it may be bad thing. There has been discussion in this forum for this effect and someone wrote a LR plugin to reduce the green channel. With that plugin, M240's ISO kind of works like simple gain control. If you do search in the forum then you will find it. I have that plugin stored in my computer too (in case some one needs then ask in PM). Note that I am not asking not to use ISO wheel. It is just that it is secondary parameter and it has effect on file quality (while f and t don't). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 23, 2017 Share #47 Posted January 23, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Note that I am not asking not to use ISO wheel. It is just that it is secondary parameter and it has effect on file quality (while f and t don't). Sorry to labour the point, but if it has an effect on file quality, calling it primary, secondary, tertiary or gain control means little. It has an effect on file quality, so I like to control it. White Balance also has a an effect on file quality, but setting white balance (or leaving it on Auto) actually has little to no effect on how you select your aperture and shutter speed. Conversely, the ISO setting has a direct impact on aperture and shutter speed - two very important factors in composition. I'm quite comfortable calling it secondary, provided I can have direct control over it during the image taking process, as part of my exposure, depth of field and motion blur control. Sounds like a primary control to me, but frankly, who cares ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 23, 2017 Share #48 Posted January 23, 2017 No issues (for back and forth). My point (of calling it secondary) is that it is not equivalent to f and t as far as light gathering is considered. For best image quality you have to maximize light gathering (using f and t and not by ISO). This is the reason why tripods are popular. Edit: BTW, no issues with having direct control. It is how one uses it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 23, 2017 Share #49 Posted January 23, 2017 No issues (for back and forth). My point (of calling it secondary) is that it is not equivalent to f and t as far as light gathering is considered. For best image quality you have to maximize light gathering (using f and t and not by ISO). This is the reason why tripods are popular. I think we all understand that there is a price to be paid for moving away from the ideal ISO set by the manufacturer. PS - in all honesty, there are trade-offs in all three controls: (1) lens too wide open - unnatural depth of field, purple fringing, softness, messy and distracting out of focus areas, etc (2) lens stopped down too far - flat image, with diffraction (3) shutter speed too slow, too much blur; shutter speed too fast, an unnatural loss of sense of speed (4) ISO poorly set, image degradation It's all about the quality of the image, surely? Who set the rule that "primary controls" could only deal with light falling onto the sensor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ru2far2c Posted January 24, 2017 Share #50 Posted January 24, 2017 It's the location I don't like. Right on the corner? Seriously? Could they have chosen a spot more likely for impact? Next, I understand the need to lock it. I wish I could lock my shutter wheel on M9. But this lock is clumsy. The Fuji XT-2, of which I'm not enamored, does have a nice iso lock which can be in or out, so you can easily adjust it blind. All that said, in many situations the dial will be a nice added feature, and it would certainly not stop me from getting a M10. I would probably like it till I wrecked it. I believe most M film cameras had the rewind knob in same place..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 24, 2017 Share #51 Posted January 24, 2017 Agree with all the above.... I guess the point of discussion, if I remember right, was whether ISO control is at the same level as f and t. Leica M10 designers certainly think so. I disagree with the premise but I am fine with direct control (after all it is a control). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #52 Posted January 24, 2017 I have tried it with M240. This pic is shot at ISO 200 and pushed +3 (or 4, I have to check) in PP with shadow recovery maxed. This allowed me to keep the highlight preserved but at the cost of heavy grain in the shadows. The issue with M240 files being pushed is that you get abundance of green channel. But if you set high ISO then in-camera hardware reduces the green channel. It means in-camera ISO setting (for M240) is more than just gain control. In my picture, the extra green channel has worked to my advantage but in other shots it may be bad thing. There has been discussion in this forum for this effect and someone wrote a LR plugin to reduce the green channel. With that plugin, M240's ISO kind of works like simple gain control. If you do search in the forum then you will find it. I have that plugin stored in my computer too (in case some one needs then ask in PM). Note that I am not asking not to use ISO wheel. It is just that it is secondary parameter and it has effect on file quality (while f and t don't). That is correct. It can indeed be done in LR as well. I suppose it has to do with noise management, as the green channel is dominant. It means the M240 is not a pure ISOless camera. It proves, btw, that raw data are not the plain sensor output. Just for the record, in my OP I started out that I have nothing against the ISO wheel. I was seeking an explanation for the way Leica implemented it, about which some people were complaining. To my mind it is because Leica are obviously aware of the difference between the various controls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #53 Posted January 24, 2017 I think we all understand that there is a price to be paid for moving away from the ideal ISO set by the manufacturer. PS - in all honesty, there are trade-offs in all three controls: (1) lens too wide open - unnatural depth of field, purple fringing, softness, messy and distracting out of focus areas, etc (2) lens stopped down too far - flat image, with diffraction (3) shutter speed too slow, too much blur; shutter speed too fast, an unnatural loss of sense of speed (4) ISO poorly set, image degradation It's all about the quality of the image, surely? Who set the rule that "primary controls" could only deal with light falling onto the sensor? It is not a rule - it is just an awareness of what you are doing - which helps avoiding the technical tradeoffs you outlined in your post - or using them for artistic reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 24, 2017 Share #54 Posted January 24, 2017 This is a shocking revelation to me. So if I shoot an underexposed frame with my M240 (or Canon 5DmkII) at ISO 200 and push the raw file by four stops in Lightroom I will get an equal (or even better!) result than taking the same shot at ISO 3200??? With the Canon EOS 5D Mark II you won’t as Canon has only recently learned how to build (almost) ISO-less sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 24, 2017 Share #55 Posted January 24, 2017 With the Canon EOS 5D Mark II you won’t as Canon has only recently learned how to build (almost) ISO-less sensors. Interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted January 24, 2017 Share #56 Posted January 24, 2017 Yes, I agree – I've been thinking the same. In the spring or early summer of 2015 I was chatting to an employee of Leica Mayfair (not Jimmy) about the digital M camera and the future of it. I was told that the company were "going back to basics" for the next digital camera and it would be "simpler" and "thinner" than the M240 which is a camera that I had been saying didn't appeal to me so much. At the time I thought it was interesting to hear this information but felt that the employee was probably mistaken about the thickness thing (it supposedly being impossible to have a thinner M). When the M-D was announced some time later I assumed that this was the camera that was being referred to in the conversation. I guess the internal 'rumours' being discussed were actually about the development of the M10 and not the M-D. ++ Agree. Both appeal to me. Had I known what was coming with the M10, I'd have waiting. Having recently bought the M-D, I'll probably stick with it instead of the M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjauch Posted January 24, 2017 Share #57 Posted January 24, 2017 How often are you actually changing the iso? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 24, 2017 Share #58 Posted January 24, 2017 How often are you actually changing the iso? Who? Me? Reasonably often - it's just another variable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted January 24, 2017 Share #59 Posted January 24, 2017 How often are you actually changing the iso? A few times a day if using the camera all day, or most of the time if I am just picking it up. I glance at the ISO almost every time I lift up the camera, which is the real benefit of having it on a dedicated dial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 24, 2017 Share #60 Posted January 24, 2017 Changing ISO really is an important feature. Even in the analog days (film days, I'm still there), it was always the first thing anyone (should have) checked. ie. what film (ISO) should I use. Being locked in till the end of the film was often a bind. Yes, I did carry a second body for a different film(ISO) choice. Now that digital gives the luxury of easily changing ISO at will, it is sensible that it be easily accomplished. Now herein lies the problem! Everyone has a different idea on convenience. Different cameras implement it differently. No one camera is going to suit everyone. How many times on this forum have I said, (paraphrasing), you are the artisan, choose the tool(s) that fit your requirement. More bluntly put, if the M10 (as it is) does not fit your work, choose it at your own dissatisfaction. You already know (if I can believe previous posters) which camera does it 'your way'. So get one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.