M246 Monochrom impressions after 1 month

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But *wow* blown highlights means you really lose quite a few shots until you come up with a new exposure technique that works for this camera.  Leica would do well to add more dynamic range and/or a highlight friendly exposure mode in a future model.

 

Any tips?

 

 

Yes ... when you have a camera that is so capable ... look inside to solve your dilemma. Your technique is not allowing you to meter for the highlights and DR in a scene and accommodate it. Perhaps a few months with

a handheld light meter and then find how to adjust your perception of the M246 internal metering to what you discover. 

 

The Sekonic Lightmaster Pro 478 has software that allows you to calculate the dynamic range of your camera and lens and then will measure light and guide you to an

exposure value that will protect the highlights. 

 

As others have pointed out you can grossly underexpose the M246 and pull up the shadows with very little loss to overall picture quality.

 

The M246 in my experience is less forgiving than the original MM. I am on my fifth monochrom and barely resisted the urge to buy a used RED Epic Monochrom last night.

 

But honestly blown highlights may work depending upon your subject.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Bob

 

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by docmoore

[russell]

I also get that blurred pictures are a user issue.  It means I cannot use the live view focusing in as many situations as I'd hoped.  I suspect it might be down to my eyesight and that I'm out of focus rather than blurred.  Not being able to see those teeny tiny little red in focus indicators.  I'm probably thinking I'm seeing bits of red but really imagining it.

If there was a feature to change the sensitivity or size of those it would help.  Also same as the M-P, lower contrast lenses and apertures don't excite the indicators all that well.

 

I don't get how a hand held meter is going to help much except anything that slows you down forces you to think and hence can give better result at the cost of a few lost quick shot opportunities. I used a ambient hand held meter for a number of years with the M3 and then moved on to the M7, M9, M-P and now the M246.  Only the M246 is proving to be tricky!

Are you suggesting that I use the hand held meter to isolate on a highlight zone rather than as ambient, e.g. zone VII?  If so, then why don't I point the centre weighted, in-camera metering at the brighter portion of the frame, lock exposure and recompose which should get me (almost) the same result (most of the time).  I used to do that for shadows and it worked decently but that was on the M7, M9 and M-P.  Having said that, I have been doing this for a number of shots on the M246 and guess what? -- still blown highlights

 

Does anyone have experience with the Tiffen soft contrast filters?  The description sounds intriguing

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

An incident meter should slow you down enough to think and compare the results to your in-camera metering.... until you better learn to use the latter. The goal is to learn how your camera/meter responds to light conditions so that it becomes more second nature to you. But even for experienced users, an incident meter can sometimes be useful for especially tricky lighting.

 

I personally prefer using M cameras as RF only, using the traditional metering pattern.

 

Did you ever use slide film?

 

Jeff

Edited April 16, 2017 by Jeff S

[Guest]

I don't get how a hand held meter is going to help much except anything that slows you down forces you to think and hence can give better result at the cost of a few lost quick shot opportunities. I used a ambient hand held meter for a number of years with the M3 and then moved on to the M7, M9, M-P and now the M246.  Only the M246 is proving to be tricky!

Are you suggesting that I use the hand held meter to isolate on a highlight zone rather than as ambient, e.g. zone VII?  If so, then why don't I point the centre weighted, in-camera metering at the brighter portion of the frame, lock exposure and recompose which should get me (almost) the same result (most of the time).  I used to do that for shadows and it worked decently but that was on the M7, M9 and M-P.  Having said that, I have been doing this for a number of shots on the M246 and guess what? -- still blown highlights

 

The Sekonic software has you  measure a calibrated target at set iso values for middle grey 3 stops over and 3 stops under. You import this information to the program on a computer and it calculates the dynamic range of the sensor for that

given iso and ... the lens in question. That curve is then imported to the meter ... when you face difficult lighting you measure for highlights and lowlights and the meter will calculate an exposure which will maintain the highlights capture the full dynamic range

or sacrifice a bit in the lowlights if necessary ... rather than add lighting for your specific camera and lens combination at the iso you used.

 

Yes it slows you down for a week or two and then you begin to get in the groove and will rely on it less as your knowledge and confidence grows.

 

If you are reticent to try one of the newer meters then classic metering and underexpose by 1.5 to 2 stops ... as this camera has so little noise below 5000 iso you can recover a lot of information in the shadows without

an excessive amount of noise.

 

Focus peaking ... the little red dots is very inaccurate as too much usually lights up ... not much use for focusing in my opinion ... ok if you have a large DOF from a wide angle lens. I prefer magnification ... pick your point of interest and

dial the aperture to include areas of interest. It has a bit more facility in video as nothing is static and you cannot stop the action to focus but again you rely on smaller aperture to gain a margin of safety for focus.

 

Pick up a used EVF-2 ... very helpful in bright light as it does not wash out like the LCD. Poor resolution but you can with magnification see your point of focus easily.

 

The soft contrast filter may have some value as long as you are willing to give up something you cannot recover .... if you measure as shoot for the dynamic range of the scene you have a choice how to

present it in post ... with the filter your choice is truncated ... which may be necessary to capture the scene ... again the M246 has tons of latitude in the shadows which can be used and in post you can

flatten the curve to mimic the filter.

 

Bob

Edited April 16, 2017 by docmoore

[Albert2]

A lot of talk around issues with the 246 etc. It is the man behind the camera that makes the picture. Using the wrong exposure means a not so pleasing result.

[Ken Abrahams]

I am not sure about the M 246 but my Leica MM CCD version is set for 95% clipping. In that way I can look at the histogram and if there is only a very small area (a few pixels) flashing overexposed then I know the exposure is spot on. The camera auto metering system which is excellent, tends to underexpose in many cases. By checking the exposure histogram, my next shot might be a manual setting, increasing the exposure 1/2 to 1 stop until I see a few pixels flashing in the histogram. I am exposing "just to the left" as I possibly can. Mind you this is after a few years of learning to "read" the image preview because what you see there is often misleading. You can through experience, judge from the image preview how the DNG file will process in your workflow to the finished result. Some lenses handle highlights better than others too. I find the 50 APO's ability to render highlights (blown) quite extraordinary.   Ken     

[russell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not sure about the M 246 but my Leica MM CCD version is set for 95% clipping. In that way I can look at the histogram and if there is only a very small area (a few pixels) flashing overexposed then I know the exposure is spot on. The camera auto metering system which is excellent, tends to underexpose in many cases. By checking the exposure histogram, my next shot might be a manual setting, increasing the exposure 1/2 to 1 stop until I see a few pixels flashing in the histogram. I am exposing "just to the left" as I possibly can. Mind you this is after a few years of learning to "read" the image preview because what you see there is often misleading. You can through experience, judge from the image preview how the DNG file will process in your workflow to the finished result. Some lenses handle highlights better than others too. I find the 50 APO's ability to render highlights (blown) quite extraordinary.   Ken     

 

95%?  Do you mean 242 clipping?  My camera's clipping settings go up to 254 (255 doesn't show blinks) and not percentage settings.  But sure, I've set it at lower clipping ratings, but I already get noticeable areas of red blinking with 254, so I'm not sure if 242 would help.  Except it would make me think to bring the exposure down quite a bit.  Perhaps this is what I need.  Also if I get around to printing, ink doesn't work all that well past 242 to differentiate so that's a decent level.

 

50 APO holds the highlights better?  That's interesting.  It would probably solve my focus shift issue as well.  Does anyone have any examples?   I tried the opposite direction this morning with a 1930s Summar and it's also blows (highlights that is).

[russell]

re: Sekonic

Sounds like you have a newer and probably larger Sekonic than I.  I have a 308 and that's about as big and heavy as I'd want to carry around.  I don't think it takes software.  I get that it might help to learn the range of the sensor and serve a purpose until I get a better feel for it.   Having said that, I think I'll play around more with the camera. e.g. spot meter mode, before springing for the advanced Sekonic.

 

re: focus peaking

Yeah, looks like this is best reserved for what you say, e.g. wide angle and stopped down.  My M-P's EVF was stolen along with the M-P, but I'll try and look for a cheap used model again to see if it helps.  I get that using the live view on the back of the body is more prone to shake than the EVF held to the eye.

 

re: Tiffen soft contrast

We lose something.  Yes, but I wonder how much is really lost and how much do we protect the highlights.  I'll probably buy one of these to try eventually, but ideally I don't want to mess with filters.  Having said that, the UV/IR on the M8 was arguably a better solution than the IR filter on the sensor even though it caused an uproar at the time.

[russell]

A lot of talk around issues with the 246 etc. It is the man behind the camera that makes the picture. Using the wrong exposure means a not so pleasing result.

 

We've already established that most (all?) of my issues are "user issues", i.e. I'm the problem and not the camera.  I feel so humbled.

 

I rarely used slide film so I'm sure that's part of the issue.  I chose a M3 years ago because I wanted the speed of candid shooting rather than fiddling around with precise (+/- 1/3 stop) exposures needed by slide film. I was spoiled with Delta 400 and TMY where I didn't get blown highlights (or to Thorsten's point boring, washed out zone VIII and IX).

 

Also, I'm still not convinced I've got the wrong exposures. Skin tones come out properly using the in camera metering, just with blown highlights elsewhere.  So the right exposure is the wrong exposure given the (dare I say without incurring wrath) limitations of the M246's sensor.  I'm fairly certain that if I made the same exposure with my M3 and black and white film that the highlights would roll.

[Jager]

Black and white negative film has much more latitude with respect to exposure variation (I'm deliberately avoiding calling it "correct" exposure because that is a personal and artistic choice).  But, for sure, the highlights in B&W film have a softer rolloff.  That's because of the progressive nature of the film curve... the shoulder walks slowly towards infinity, whereas digital cameras fall off a cliff.  Monochrom digital cameras fall off a sudden cliff.

 

Exposure is simply knowing how your recording medium is going to respond to light.  That was more apparent back in the days of film, simply because you could so quickly and so conveniently change that recording medium.  Different film stocks require(d) different exposure stratagems.  Stories were legion of longtime negative film shooters suddenly coming a cropper when they first put slide film in their camera.  Photographers very quickly learned to protect those highlights, or else they stopped using transparencies.  There was no PP that was going to save even a modestly overexposed slide.  

 

What those who persisted with slide film didn't realize... is that they were preparing themselves for the digital world just around the corner.

 

There's metering and then there's metering.  You can take a handheld light meter, read a scene, plug those settings into your camera, and call it a day.  That's what a lot (most?) photographers do.  Frankly, that's not a whole lot different from using the meter built into your camera.

 

What is really meant when you see the suggestion to use an incident meter to "learn" light, is not to read a scene generally.  What is being suggested is that you read the scene specifically.  You meter different parts of the scene so you can see how much variance there is.  Then, in your head, you map that variance - the light levels in the shadows and the midtones and the highlights - to how your recording medium will respond to those different levels.  You predict how your film or sensor will respond.  Then it's just a matter of fitting whatever your artistic desires are into those parameters.

 

Yeah, doing it that way is slower.  And, for sure, there are many, many lighting situations which exceed the capability of our recording medium.  But it's the only way I know of to learn how your film or your sensor will behave.  And it doesn't take long walking around with a Hasselblad (or that M3), loaded with slide film, before you can glance at a scene and know instantly how many stops apart the sunlight and the shadow parts of a street are.

 

The bottom line is that anyone consistently getting blown highlights is not entirely understanding exposure.  The good news with digital is that the feedback is instantaneous.  It doesn't take long to fix.  But it does require thinking about light and exposure at a deeper level.

 

One last comment... the histogram is, indeed, a powerful tool for evaluating exposure in digital cameras.  But be mindful that the clipping setting(s) simply set the point at which the clipping alert shows itself.  That setting does nothing at all to actually change where clipping occurs.  So set it early - 253 or 244 or whatever - if you like.  But just remember that it's a little white lie.  Your sensor is still going to clip at 255.

[Ken Abrahams]

95%?  Do you mean 242 clipping?  My camera's clipping settings go up to 254 (255 doesn't show blinks) and not percentage settings.  But sure, I've set it at lower clipping ratings, but I already get noticeable areas of red blinking with 254, so I'm not sure if 242 would help.  Except it would make me think to bring the exposure down quite a bit.  Perhaps this is what I need.  Also if I get around to printing, ink doesn't work all that well past 242 to differentiate so that's a decent level.

 

50 APO holds the highlights better?  That's interesting.  It would probably solve my focus shift issue as well.  Does anyone have any examples?   I tried the opposite direction this morning with a 1930s Summar and it's also blows (highlights that is).

 

 

In the MM version 1 the menu setting has "Clipping" where you can set the histogram to show clipping (red pixels flashing) at a value less than the metering system would normally show. That is, to show highlight clipping at 95% rather than 100% of the exposure (pick whatever percentage you like). Its not exposure compensation Russell, that camera setting was been clumsily placed in the sub menu where its hard to get to. One doesn't really need to adjust clipping for shadows with a Monochrom camera but its good to have a "safety" for highlights I think.  Ken

[Ken Abrahams]

Blurry images require faster shutter speeds. I used to be able to hold a camera rock steady at 1/15th second but I am only dreaming that now. Try shooting around 1/90th at least and take time with focusing. Its not that hard if you want a good image. On the go image work such as street photography, I will anticipate a potential shot and work with zone focussing. Guess the distance on the lens and with an aperture to f5.6 - f 8 with a 35 mm lens you are bound to get a sharp image (as long as your shutter  is > 1/60th).  It really isn't that hard. 

[Mr Fjeld]

Also, I'm still not convinced I've got the wrong exposures. Skin tones come out properly using the in camera metering, just with blown highlights elsewhere.  So the right exposure is the wrong exposure given the (dare I say without incurring wrath) limitations of the M246's sensor.  I'm fairly certain that if I made the same exposure with my M3 and black and white film that the highlights would roll.

 

I'm wondering if this discussion is partly about misunderstandings...and that you are correct when you say that you: "made the same exposure with my M3 and white film that the highlights would roll". Welcome to digital photography

 

In some respects or situations you will have no choice but to let the highlights be blown - especially so with a digital camera. Typically on bright sunny days where your subject is located in the shadows - literally speaking, and you cannot change your own physical position you would have no choice but to blow the highlights. In other situations you will still have the possibility to chose and hence expose for the highlights and then retract details from the shadows, but thats not always possible. I think you mentioned Thorsten Overgaard earlier so here's something from his own site to explain and there is a telling example under the heading "How to trick a stupid light meter into making intelligent photos":

 

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M9-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-17-light-metering-and%20quality-of-light.html

 

I'm sure you know all this as its basic photography but then it's usually exactly this we fail to do correctly at times. As do I

This isn't only a problem with the 246 but also with the 240 and all other digital cameras. With film it's a little different but then you had to watch out for the shadows rather than the highlights.....

 

Just a couple of examples from today's hike in the local mountains. In the picture below I exposed for the darker parts in the valley below. The highlights are beyond salvation...

 

Thankfully, I have like you the rather excellent M246 which means we can retract ridiculous amounts of detail from the shadows. The next photo is exposed to save the light in the sky and the clouds:

Looks rather dark and gloomy but using Capture one to retract the details from the shadows results in this:

The end result is also more correct than the first photo as it was getting dark and the valley below wasn't illuminated by the sun. More detail could have been retracted.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Mr Fjeld

[Ken Abrahams]

 

I'm wondering if this discussion is partly about misunderstandings...and that you are correct when you say that you: "made the same exposure with my M3 and white film that the highlights would roll". Welcome to digital photography

 

In some respects or situations you will have no choice but to let the highlights be blown - especially so with a digital camera. Typically on bright sunny days where your subject is located in the shadows - literally speaking, and you cannot change your own physical position you would have no choice but to blow the highlights. In other situations you will still have the possibility to chose and hence expose for the highlights and then retract details from the shadows, but thats not always possible. I think you mentioned Thorsten Overgaard earlier so here's something from his own site to explain and there is a telling example under the heading "How to trick a stupid light meter into making intelligent photos":

 

[url="http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M9-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-17-light-metering-and%20quality-of-l

 

I'm sure you know all this as its basic photography but then it's usually exactly this we fail to do correctly at times. As do I

This isn't only a problem with the 246 but also with the 240 and all other digital cameras. With film it's a little different but then you had to watch out for the shadows rather than the highlights.....

 

Just a couple of examples from today's hike in the local mountains. In the picture below I exposed for the darker parts in the valley below. The highlights are beyond salvation...]

 

Thankfully, I have like you the rather excellent M246 which means we can retract ridiculous amounts of detail from the shadows. The next photo is exposed to save the light in the sky and the clouds:

[russell]

Ok, we're coming to a root cause now.  I shot primarily negative film for decades and carried that comfort over into the M8, M9 and M-P.  I didn't worry about the highlights on those digital bodies because either (i) they were always there and I didn't focus (pun intended) on them or (ii) those sensors were more forgiving or (iii) both i and ii.   Decades of blissful ignorance.  I will read the article.

 

So the test will be to use the M246 for long enough to convince myself the extra effort to learn to expose like slide film is worth it to me.  I don't need or want the tedium of having to specifically evaluate every scene -- that's not why I got into black and white.  I take spontaneous pictures mostly of family but sometimes of a travel or street variety.  I was never into wooden tripods and large format cameras to slow down.  I chose the M3 as it was simply the faster camera of it's day as I'd set exposure in advance and have the focus roughly right lifting the body to my eye.

 

The alternative might be to trade in for a M10 which presumably doesn't clip highlight as readily.  Or just stick with my M9.

 

In the slide days did your exposures deviate as widely from the general exposure as they do now on the M246?  The few rolls of slides I did shoot didn't lead me to be all that fussed about losing highlights, so I'm wondering if the situation is even worse with digital.

 

Also any comments about Thorsten's observation of washed out highlights.  So the issues isn't just the clipping but the higher zones that are captured. He had a image of a car crash in Paris that should have been an interesting photos but given all the high zones was a bit blah.  Until he spelled it out, I wasn't able to put words to the feeling, but I did feel like I was losing something even in the highlights that were retained.

[Jeff S]

Do you make prints..... film or digital?

 

Tonality can be affected in myriad ways beyond capture. Making a print 'sing' requires a good eye and good judgement, combined with the right PP skills, techniques and materials, and even display lighting conditions. It's never been easy or 'plug and play', no matter the quality of the gear. It's why there are fewer great printers than photographers. For me, it's always been worth the time and effort to improve, even if only in small increments. It's often the smallest adjustments that bring a print to life.

 

Getting exposure right is basic... but it's only the starting point, not nearly the end result. Of course it really starts with a great picture... but that's obvious. The car crash scene wouldn't be worth the effort IMO... unlike many other fine pics from Thorsten.... that's not because of the camera.

 

Jeff

Edited April 18, 2017 by Jeff S

[Guest]

Here is a video that in the middle shows the Sekonic and software being used ... GFX-50S and a bit slow but it does prevent clipped highlights ... and Jeff is right ... not every photo is worth the effort.

However it is very fast once you have worked with it for a bit.

 

Recommend you watch it on Youtube ...

 

 

 

Bob

Edited April 18, 2017 by docmoore

[Jager]

In the slide days did your exposures deviate as widely from the general exposure as they do now on the M246?  The few rolls of slides I did shoot didn't lead me to be all that fussed about losing highlights, so I'm wondering if the situation is even worse with digital.

 

Also any comments about Thorsten's observation of washed out highlights.  So the issues isn't just the clipping but the higher zones that are captured. He had a image of a car crash in Paris that should have been an interesting photos but given all the high zones was a bit blah.  Until he spelled it out, I wasn't able to put words to the feeling, but I did feel like I was losing something even in the highlights that were retained.

 

There's not an exposure for negatives and then one for slides.  There's just exposure.

 

The rub comes from the fact that most negative film stocks are very forgiving.  And so photographers can be lazy or sloppy and still obtain decent results.

 

If you walked into a scene carrying two cameras, one loaded, say, with Ektar 25 and one loaded with Kodachrome 25, both rated at their nominal ISO, you wouldn't have different exposures.  Assuming you wanted the same results, their exposures would have been identical.

 

The difference is you could have missed exposure by a stop or two on either side - underexposure or overexposure - and your Ektar negatives would have been printable.  Your Kodachrome?  Not so much.  

 

The narrower exposure latitude of slide film simply means that it imposes a much stricter discipline on the shooter.  It doesn't grant you the 2-3 stop "slop" that negative film gives.  So photographers who wanted/needed to be successful with it very quickly learned to be precise.

 

Color digital is more akin to shooting slide film than it is to negative film - with the very large caveat that underexposure within reason - 2-3 stops - is almost never a problem.  You can always save the shadows.  (You could save the shadows in an underexposed slide as well, but in the days before scanning became broadly accessible that option wasn't broadly available).  But lose the highlights with either digital or slide film and your image is toast.

 

The three channels in a color digital camera afford a tiny bit of buffer in the sense that you can blow one channel and the other two might allow you to recover some data.  But it's really quite slight.  By the time you blow any of those three channels the other two are going to be near saturation.

 

The Leica Monochrom's - both the original MM and the M246 - only have their one channel, of course.  But, honestly, I just have never seen any sort of exposure difficulty or irregularities with either of them.  I did shoot transparencies for decades and I'm sure that helped.

 

I like Thorsten.  One of my most enjoyable days ever as a photographer was a pleasant day walking around NYC with him.  But I wouldn't view him, or anyone else, as a singular authority.  We all have our quirks and our biases!

 

The M246 has been too well received by too many really good photographers, and any number of superb images have been made with it, for it to have the inherent problem(s) that a tiny few have attributed to it...

[russell]

Do you make prints..... film or digital?

 

The car crash scene wouldn't be worth the effort IMO... unlike many other fine pics from Thorsten.... that's not because of the camera.

Yes, prints both from digital and before in the darkroom.  With PP I can take my time.  With shooting I cannot as I have a family and like to move fast.  Again, I am not Ansel Adams with a wooden tripod and all day to wait for the light to come just right.

 

The car crash scene may not be the best compositionally.  I think you miss the point.  The point is about the highlights of the picture not working, washed out or as I would call it, blah.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[EoinC]

I've had a M246 since they first came out. Just be aware of what happens with highlights, and be aware of how much you can pull from the shadows. As Mr Fjeld demonstrated, in a scene where highlights are going to be an issue, underexpose sufficiently to bring the highlights back into the manageable spectrum, and lift the shadows in PP. Specular highlights can be left to do their thing.