edwardkaraa Posted January 24, 2017 Share #61 Posted January 24, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) So Leica doesn't have analog signal amplification on the sensor anymore? If that is true, then ISO would be completely useless and actually Lightroom would be the better place to push the exposure. However in my experience, that is not the case as pushing in Lightroom produces different color casts that are not easy to correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Hi edwardkaraa, Take a look here Bad M10 ISO dial is bad. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rick Posted January 24, 2017 Share #62 Posted January 24, 2017 Who set the rule that "primary controls" could only deal with light falling onto the sensor? Nobody said that. The guy that said ISO isn't a parameter of exposure, only said that ISO isn't a parameter of exposure. John, there are only two parameters of exposure. The amount of time the window is open to pass photons and the area of the window controlling how many photons pass through the window. Anything else besides time and area of the opening have nothing to do with the exposure of the sensor. Nobody (that knows anything ) said that these parameters could only deal with exposure. RickTimeOut Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 24, 2017 Share #63 Posted January 24, 2017 Come now, this is semantics and splitting hairs. What was originally said is (a) ISO isn't a factor in exposure (actually, that ISO isn't a primary control, as if that was really important), and ( it therefore shouldn't be a direct control. Don't erect a straw man, Rick. These are not terms about which I give a toss. The point I was objecting to is that ISO isn't a parameter in the exposure of the final image (it is), and it should be a direct control item. You can argue the rest on your own as it really isn't important to me or to the final image. Jaap's point that you can take any picture at any ISO and end up with a perfectly good image by correcting in post is interesting, but fiction (in my experience). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 24, 2017 Share #64 Posted January 24, 2017 You are going to dismiss semantics? Remind me again what you do for a living. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 24, 2017 Share #65 Posted January 24, 2017 Clear and accurate communication - stick with teeth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 24, 2017 Share #66 Posted January 24, 2017 Can I throw another of my hats into the ring? Had a few drinks, so forgive me. No photo image can be created (properly) without control over Shutter speed, aperture and ISO. To me these are basic. I avoid the use of primary because someone else assumed a definition of that. Either manually or by automation, one must have these three under one's control. Is that so difficult to understand. If I missed something, blame the shiraz (great vintage). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #67 Posted January 24, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) So Leica doesn't have analog signal amplification on the sensor anymore? If that is true, then ISO would be completely useless and actually Lightroom would be the better place to push the exposure. However in my experience, that is not the case as pushing in Lightroom produces different color casts that are not easy to correct. I seem to recall from the threads on the forum that the M8 and M9 had analog amplification up to 800 with digital enhancement coming in over that. I don't know about later cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #68 Posted January 24, 2017 Come now, this is semantics and splitting hairs. What was originally said is (a) ISO isn't a factor in exposure (actually, that ISO isn't a primary control, as if that was really important), and ( it therefore shouldn't be a direct control. Don't erect a straw man, Rick. These are not terms about which I give a toss. The point I was objecting to is that ISO isn't a parameter in the exposure of the final image (it is), and it should be a direct control item. You can argue the rest on your own as it really isn't important to me or to the final image. Jaap's point that you can take any picture at any ISO and end up with a perfectly good image by correcting in post is interesting, but fiction (in my experience). Are you saying that you can control the exposure of the sensor (i.e.the strength of the signal coming out off the sensor by light falling on the sensor) by adjusting the ISO? No you cannot. You can adjust the signal in the processing pipeline by adjusting the ISO setting. I said nothing about the relative "importance" of the controls for the final image. A nice rhetoric trick, albeit somewhat transparant: claiming that somebody said something that he didn't say and then dismissing the words that were actually said between brackets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 24, 2017 Share #69 Posted January 24, 2017 Are you saying that you can control the exposure of the sensor (i.e.the strength of the signal coming out off the sensor by light falling on the sensor) by adjusting the ISO? No you cannot. You can adjust the signal in the processing pipeline by adjusting the ISO setting. I said nothing about the relative "importance" of the controls for the final image. A nice rhetoric trick, albeit somewhat transparant: claiming that somebody said something that he didn't say and then dismissing the words that were actually said between brackets. I clearly misunderstood you, Jaap (which is unusual, you are the model of clarity). I understood you to say that ISO should not be a direct control as it was not a primary exposure function; and that ISO could always be adjusted in post processing as it simply involved adjusting gain with no adverse impact on the final image. I apologise. What was your point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 24, 2017 Share #70 Posted January 24, 2017 Jaap, in order to use EVF and or Video on your M - you sometimes have to change ISO,,, or am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #71 Posted January 24, 2017 Why should you? The EVF works at all ISO values, and the video will switch to a maximum of 1600 automatically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 24, 2017 Share #72 Posted January 24, 2017 Are you then using auto ISO on your M for both EVF and Video shooting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #73 Posted January 24, 2017 I clearly misunderstood you, Jaap (which is unusual, you are the model of clarity). I understood you to say that ISO should not be a direct control as it was not a primary exposure function; and that ISO could always be adjusted in post processing as it simply involved adjusting gain with no adverse impact on the final image. I apologise. What was your point? The point about ISO-less sensors only cropped up when discussing the impact of the ISO setting on the processing chain.And why apologize for the cut and thrust of discussion? It is all part of the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #74 Posted January 24, 2017 Are you then using auto ISO on your M for both EVF and Video shooting?Not neccesarily; the video will max out at 1600 in manual ISO as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 24, 2017 Share #75 Posted January 24, 2017 Are these alternative facts, or Trump truths? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2017 Share #76 Posted January 24, 2017 No, it is what the camera does - I just checked it out to make sure. Set the camera to 6400 (for instance) manually and press the video button. The camera will revert to 1600. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ru2far2c Posted January 24, 2017 Share #77 Posted January 24, 2017 Have I misunderstood the exposure triangle all these years? ISO, aperture, time. Depending on your scene you change one it will affect the other two. If your trying to get it right in camera and not in post. The there is always LR or negative film too to help out your underexposed frame(s). Lower ISO's have a greater latitude don't they? The new M10 has two more stops in ISO which mean faster time and more stop's from what I've read. The new M10 has my interest. No video, visible ISO, smaller body, lager viewfinder and two more stops in ISO are all pluses to me. Sold my M9 and M6ttl many years ago with much regret now. Held on to my Leica lenses. Have been looking into M (262) and now the M 10. Gave the SL some thought as well. They all have there pluses and minuses. To me I'd rather have the ISO on top for easy access. Most 35mm cameras I've owned that is where it has been. Make it easier access that digging into a menu. YMMV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted January 24, 2017 Share #78 Posted January 24, 2017 Handled an M10 at the Leica Store in Bellevue, WA, and it's great in every way except that ISO dial. It looks nice, but from the feel of it, there will be no adjusting it blindly. It wouldn't push up with just a finger on the outside pushing it up, it would only go up by pulling on it with two fingers gripping it. With half of it recessed, gripping it and pulling it up is tricky. I would have preferred it to not be locked like it is: just give it strongish detents to keep it from rotating freely, and it'd be great. My 240, I can adjust with it to my eye: third button up, spin the thumbwheel. Functionally, it works better. Still, I wants it, my precioussss. Depends on how you use ISO. I tend to use manual ISO only, whether shooting with a Leica or a Canon, and was very excited when the M60 and then M-D came out with dedicated dials. I shoot 99% in aperture priority, change ISO fairly frequently and use AE lock instead of exposure compensation, which on a digital Leica I leave permanently on -0.3 EV to protect highlights. I even "bracket" by metering and locking two different "targets" if time allows. The new ISO dial, as well as the one on the M-D, is just about perfect. If I owned an M10, I'd have it pulled up when shooting and only push it down if shooting outdoors in bright light (ISO 100 is actually one of the most appealing new features for me). Either the M10's or M-D's solution is, to the way I shoot, vastly superior to the button press and dial in the M9 or M240 and even to the button and dial twist on my Canon 5D3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgktkr Posted January 24, 2017 Share #79 Posted January 24, 2017 This is the way I see it. The ISO setting comes into play twice during the making on an image. Firstly, in regulating the number of photons captured. ISO is used as a parameter to guide the camera to adjust shutter speed to scene brightness; either directly by automatically setting the exposure time when in Aperture Priority mode or indirectly, by indicating to you, the user, that the shutter speed will produce something more or less than the nominal exposure , i.e. neutral gray. Does this make it a pre-primary parameter? Secondly, how the charge produced by the photons in the sensor is processed. The ISO value is used to set the gain after the sensor and before the A/D convertor. As has been pointed out earlier, this gain is not completely equivalent to adjustments that can be made in post processing. If you take a picture of a dark scene, but don't raise the ISO with hopes to compensate in post processing, then you haven't used the full range of the A/D convertor in the camera and you should expect banding in what should be smooth tonal areas of your image. dgktkr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 24, 2017 Share #80 Posted January 24, 2017 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? Goethe, perhaps? Whose dying words were: In the apocryphal abridged version: "More light!" In reality: "Do open the shutters so more light may enter." The more light (signal) you pour onto the sensor via aperture and shutter time, the more your signal overpowers the noise (quantum fluctuations in the space/time continuum). At least up to the point where you blow the highlights.... Definitely a quality consideration. That being said, the physical analog knob does eliminate a button on the back. I like physical analog knobs and dials - provided they are consistent with the M3-M7 ethos. Which all had a knob or crank in that corner for film rewind. Personally, I might have preferred that that knob control drive mode, or exp. compensation - as in the Contax RX (talk about a plethora of analog dials: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MAlmS_S7k8k/maxresdefault.jpg ). But ISO works as well, and I don't get upset about it. Always remember, that in the story The Princess and the Pea, the princess wasn't really a heroine, she was just a spoiled brat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Pea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.