Is the highlight clipping really that bad?

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have not used a light meter since the 70's except for flash metering...I will shoot with the M10 and verify settings with my handy Sekonic L356 

 

Isn't a Sekonic L356 a light meter?

[Advertisement]

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

[tonyniev]

I just checked in LR my shots from Oct and Nov in Italy and Aegean seas and recently from Amsterdam and did not see these blown highlights? Am I missing anything?, the DR of the landscape subjects were changing during the day and my settings are simply point and shoot Aperture priority and auto iso, in raw. Even when pointing directly to the sun, I only get blownout near the center of the sun? (I remove auto iso when shooting on slow shutters,night shots, and for effects... etc)

[tonyniev]

Isn't a Sekonic L356 a light meter?

Yes it is and I use it primarily to measure strobelights, for flash shots. It can do ambient and spot metering.

Edited February 9, 2018 by tonyniev

[evikne]

If an image shows blown highlights, you will most likely have lots of unused details in the shadows. That tells me that the fault lays in the exposure, not in the sensor.

[Jager]

It's surprising how often the challenge of exposure comes up around here.  One might as well ask "how come focusing my Leica M[fill-in-the-blank] is so fiddly?  My [sony/Nikon/Canon] focuses so quickly and easily!"

 

The ethos of Leica's M system has always been that the photographer knows what he is doing.  It will do a reasonable amount of holding your hand, but mostly it defers to the photographer.  It's not going to carry you over the finish line.

 

All digital M cameras, going back to the M8, utilize the same basic metering system that film M's did (and do) use.  

 

Photographers who want to to point their camera at something and have the camera magically determine the "right" exposure would be advised to choose one of those (most excellent!) Japanese marques.  Those companies have invested a ton of money in researching metering systems which insulate the photographer from having to know anything about exposure.  Those systems work.  So use them!

 

I don't mean to be snarky with that.  But cameras don't clip highlights.  Photographers do.

[jmahto]

It's surprising how often the challenge of exposure comes up around here.  One might as well ask "how come focusing my Leica M[fill-in-the-blank] is so fiddly?  My [sony/Nikon/Canon] focuses so quickly and easily!"

 

The ethos of Leica's M system has always been that the photographer knows what he is doing.  It will do a reasonable amount of holding your hand, but mostly it defers to the photographer.  It's not going to carry you over the finish line.

 

All digital M cameras, going back to the M8, utilize the same basic metering system that film M's did (and do) use.  

 

Photographers who want to to point their camera at something and have the camera magically determine the "right" exposure would be advised to choose one of those (most excellent!) Japanese marques.  Those companies have invested a ton of money in researching metering systems which insulate the photographer from having to know anything about exposure.  Those systems work.  So use them!

 

I don't mean to be snarky with that.  But cameras don't clip highlights.  Photographers do.

Bingo (highlight mine).

 

After going through the thread I see that OP is actually complaining about the in-camera metering but frames it as if the sensor has less DR (which is incorrect, OP can refer to DxOMark).

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, the in camera metering is fine.... I’ve been using M’s for years and generally underexpose with the M meters.

 

I had read that the M10 sensor blew highlights more quickly than the previous sensors, possibly due to having more dynamic range to raise shadows rather than preserve highlights. This is what I was asking about... by the way people make it sound, the M10 blows highlights like the M246 does.

 

Either way, I ordered my M10 this evening and will be able to tell for myself shortly. I have no issues with the M metering.

[Mr Fjeld]

No, the in camera metering is fine.... I’ve been using M’s for years and generally underexpose with the M meters.

 

I had read that the M10 sensor blew highlights more quickly than the previous sensors, possibly due to having more dynamic range to raise shadows rather than preserve highlights. This is what I was asking about... by the way people make it sound, the M10 blows highlights like the M246 does.

 

Either way, I ordered my M10 this evening and will be able to tell for myself shortly. I have no issues with the M metering.

 

Finally!

[Guest Nowhereman]

I had the impression that the M10 needed to be underexposed more than the M9 and MM in order not to blow highlights — and this had nothing to do with specular highlights, which are blown even shooting film. I just went back and look a some 50 images shot with the M10, and find that it was only an impression. If you shoot mainly in evenly lit scenes underexposing ½ to ⅔ stops will be sufficient. But I often like to shoot into the light, and doing this in harsh, blazing tropical light requires more underexposure than that. Those situation require more careful metering which, in the dynamic situation of street photography, often leads to severe underexposure that can be rescued by lifting shadows in post-processing; and can be done easily with the M10 even if the shadows need to be listed 2-3 stops.

 

So, a careful review of my processed and original DNG files shoes that the M10 is more flexible in this respect than the M9 and MM. Looking at color images, however, indicates that the M9 sometimes has more acuity than the M10 — and this often is a subtle difference that is visible in certain images and that some people may not recognize. Therefore, don't shoot the messenger. 

[Jeff S]

Not unusual for a camera with higher dynamic range to have files that appear somewhat flat OOC. A bit of tone curve and/or slider adjustments is easy.

 

All of the recent Ms, like most high end cameras these days, are fully capable of marvelous results. The photographer (and printer) is in charge... as always.

 

Jeff

[chris_livsey]

On highlight clipping: How did we ever get anything that looked half decent on Kodachrome 25 ? 

 

http://www.photoweb.ru/exusr/pdf/kodak/e88.pdf

 

K25 dynamic range (log exposure axis on the chart on Kodak publication E-88) is D 2.2, 7.3 stops, part of that is noise, so in the real world is about 6 stops, so strange how National Geographic managed.

Just for comparison here is the M10 chart:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica%20M10

Let's say 10.5 stops at base, the sensor doesn't clip unless you make it clip, light meters whether built in or waved about externally, so you look like you know what you are doing, aren't infallible they require interpretation and judgement, if you clip once that should be a lesson learnt and not repeated.

[a.noctilux]

I'm happy that I had learned the hard way with Kodachrome .

By then, no second chance or "recovery": only bracketting if possible.

 

Now I have seldom "clipping problem" with digital M.

 

It worked for me having learned how to expose correctly slides.

[jaapv]

It has just been brought to my attention that the highlight clipping on the M10 can  be problematic on the 100 ISO setting. When trying the camera out, I never used ISO 100, so I wouldn't have seen it.

[jonoslack]

No, the in camera metering is fine.... I’ve been using M’s for years and generally underexpose with the M meters.

 

I had read that the M10 sensor blew highlights more quickly than the previous sensors, possibly due to having more dynamic range to raise shadows rather than preserve highlights. This is what I was asking about... by the way people make it sound, the M10 blows highlights like the M246 does.

 

Either way, I ordered my M10 this evening and will be able to tell for myself shortly. I have no issues with the M metering.

 

 

I'm sure that you'll be very VERY happy together.

And I'm sure you'll be able to hang on to those highlights!

 

all the best

[mdemeyer]

If you want to use multi-zone metering just turn on LV, set metering to multi-zone, and then shoot the camera as a rangefinder. No-one said you have to look at the LCD display.

 

I sold my M10 ASAP. Source of the problem - Center weighted metering only while using RF forced me to shoot in a mindset that I do not prefer. Quite limiting IMO. Anytime your subject in the center is darker then the sky or some light source in the background, the highlight is blown. The issue is gone when using live view or the attached EVF when you set the camera to multi-spot metering. I'm hoping they incorporate advance metering for the RF in the upcoming M10P.

 

Having said that, I recently picked up a 262 fully knowing it is RF only and center weighted only.....(smack head)

[pgh]

That is an M8  - not an M10 as you seem to think- in midday African sunlight, eleven years ago. One couldn't even look at the shirt without sunglasses, the shadows were invisible black. Even that first CCD with a limited Dynamic Range managed to span the contrast acceptably. With the M10 there would have been no problem at all.

I know it's an M8 - I said the M10 behaved similarly, though not as poorly. Quote from my previous post - (was it read?) "The M10 behaves like this - though not quite this poorly. But it is exactly the type of dynamic lighting situation than a modern sensor can handle without issue that the M10 will struggle in. IF this matters for your image making. "

 

I don't think this is an acceptable rendering, not 11 years ago, not today. The M10 would have done better here, yes, but whether or not it would be acceptable I can't say. I can say that modern sensors from other cameras would be able to deal with the range of light here, and that the file would hold information in the shirt and in the shadows, in essence it could be processed to retain just about as much information as a negative would have (even though it is not a negative). Anyone else who finds this rendering acceptable I can't believe ever had to do this work for a client.

 

I wonder what bit of information changed your mind for your recent post - here are people saying the M10 has issues with highlights but you seem to think it all nonsense until you don't - even if it's most apparent at ISO 100 - which is the case, but also using a camera at lowest ISO is one of, if not the most common settings. ISO 200 is better yes, but still not as good as other current cameras. 

[pgh]

I agree with jaapv... in that lighting I wouldn’t expect anything better, and honestly I wouldn’t need it either. I am interested in taking good pictures- not in obsessing over detail in shirts (a mindset brought on by digital pixel peeping imo).

Tomato Tomahto I guess. You should expect better, because the other cameras available today can certainly do much better.

To me, the blown highlights are a completely distracting element that is the most problematic aspect (there are others) with this picture. A picture that has a big white distracting blotch in a strange place like that isn't gonna be a good picture unless you're trent parke. This isn't pixel peeping, this is poor rendering literally ruining the image. That's an opinion, but I don't know any editor or curator would really disagree, as it's such a blatant technical issue. 

[pgh]

For someone who loves your Leica you seem to have nothing but problems with it - and with people whose experience is different from yours. I'll give you credit for understanding a bit about exposure. Please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you has no knowledge of exposure, is 'insane', using 'old ways of shooting', and acting as if we were 'making pictures 10 years ago'.

 

Your experience is valuable, so state it and I'll respect it. But you argue by assertion, not reason. I don't respect that.

The person I'm responding to does not own the camera, nor the cameras it is normally compared to, so yes, I speak as an owner of the tools who can compare the results of them daily, the other does not. I was implying that we all know about exposure here, I'm not trying to lecture anyone on it, only to tell the other poster that they didn't need to lecture us on it. 

 

My reason that the M10 highlight clipping is a problem is that I shoot it side by side with cameras that have no problem capturing detail across the entire exposure range where the M10 cannot. Maybe that's an assertion? I don't know. It's a pretty demonstrable reason for me. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I know it's an M8 - I said the M10 behaved similarly, though not as poorly. Quote from my previous post - (was it read?) "The M10 behaves like this - though not quite this poorly. But it is exactly the type of dynamic lighting situation than a modern sensor can handle without issue that the M10 will struggle in. IF this matters for your image making. "

 

I don't think this is an acceptable rendering, not 11 years ago, not today. The M10 would have done better here, yes, but whether or not it would be acceptable I can't say. I can say that modern sensors from other cameras would be able to deal with the range of light here, and that the file would hold information in the shirt and in the shadows, in essence it could be processed to retain just about as much information as a negative would have (even though it is not a negative). Anyone else who finds this rendering acceptable I can't believe ever had to do this work for a client.

 

I wonder what bit of information changed your mind for your recent post - here are people saying the M10 has issues with highlights but you seem to think it all nonsense until you don't - even if it's most apparent at ISO 100 - which is the case, but also using a camera at lowest ISO is one of, if not the most common settings. ISO 200 is better yes, but still not as good as other current cameras. 

The problem is said to be gone at ISO 320.

I'll just name you Horatio.

[Mr Fjeld]

........ I'm not trying to lecture anyone on it, only to tell the other poster that they didn't need to lecture us on it. 

 

My reason that the M10 highlight clipping is a problem is that I shoot it side by side with cameras that have no problem capturing detail across the entire exposure range where the M10 cannot. Maybe that's an assertion? I don't know. It's a pretty demonstrable reason for me. 

 

To be perfectly honest you do seem like someone who tries to lecture anyone and everyone about it. You see when throwing around terms like inferior, not fit for clients/professional use, not accepting center focus and exposing for the highlights you certainly are starting to sound more than just a little religious about your crusade.

And this is coming from someone who use an M246 where you really have to pay attention to the highlights...

 

The lesser dynamic range you go on and on about to no end are possibly not about an inferior sensor rather than the competitor's sensor being incrementally better. Reading this and other threads I'm starting to wonder if your problem with the M is more that you wish it was something it clearly isn't? Maybe, there are other tools for your needs?

 

I'm also very curious about your professional use? What kind of professional assignments to you take on? Reportage/documentary? Well then your M should be more then adequate. if you do carefully composed work where you really have to know what's in the picture frame or not then I suggest the ranger finder in itself isn't doing you any good despite whatever sensor. I'm not trying to disrespect you, but you really need to take a step back and realize that being so bombastic about the M's lack of capabilities suggest that the rest of us are intentionally or not - just being stupid for purchasing and using the M.