Is the highlight clipping really that bad?

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was on the verge of buying an M10 coming from an M240 and SL, but I am now hearing about how easily the highlights are clipped on the M10.  It sounds like they go just as easily as those on the M246 do.  Has this proven to be an issue for most users?  I personally do not want to underexpose every image by 2-3 stops and bring the shadows up in post... it's tedious and not how I want to spend my time.

[Tailwagger]

IMO, the M10 handles highlights better than the M240, but taking care is still an issue.  Its best to recognize that the term ETTR wasn't coined for Leica's in particular. I haven't shot with everything on the market, but AFAICT everyone has this problem to some degree. With any camera, the photographer has to develop an understanding of how the metering is going to effect exposure, judge the scene and adjust to achieve the best result. Perhaps this is less true with cameras that have more sophisticated multi-spot metering, but the DR of the M10 is more than sufficient to capture rather complex scenes, once one knows how its likely to react.

 

As for being tedious, I'm not sure what qualifies, but with bit of care on the front end, click auto in LR or PS, adjust briefly to taste and you're pretty much there. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Tailwagger

[Advertisement]

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

[Rupert Greenwell]

Coming from a M246 when I first used a M10 I thought that the clipping was not working on the M10 , I had to really provoke it to get it to clip !  It is much harder in my view to clip the highlights with the M10 , do not worry about it.

[pgh]

The last digital Leica I owned was an M8, and I eventually got rid of it in part because the IQ didn't hold up well. I bought in to the M10 because film is not viable for me anymore, and because early reports were that this was a significantly improved sensor. I thought it would finally be a smooth transition from my M6's.

 

The digitals I used in recent years are from Pentax, Nikon and Sony. With the exception of my Pentax 645D which had a CCD sensor (same as in the Leica S) that did not retain highlights all that well I have been able to shoot digitally in the manner of negative film since the release of the D800. The D700, however, was pretty good. I am just going on memory now, but the highlight behavior in the M10 seems to predate the flexibility I was afforded by the D700...going back to D70 or D200 days. The shadows, it should be noted, are more robust, so the files can withstand more post than those early cameras. However, in situations where there is a strong light differential, the M10 can be a real pain. I have had to completely readjust my shooting habits - and what's more frustrating is that because of the sensor limitations I have to carry my Sony's with the Leica on some shoot and not only be using a different camera, but exposing differently to get what I want out of the sensor. I had hoped for simplicity with the M10, and when it's in it's realm of capability I really love the camera - you just have to know the limits for your purposes and understand how that affects the images in practice. For me, the sensor of the camera is the most important thing. I don't care about AF, video, etc etc. I use the Sony cams for the sensors and if the Leica were a better sensor I could get rid of them but I can't. 

 

In short - if you're used to modern sensors in other camera makes - your first shoots with the M10 may very well lead to ugly, clipped highlights where they would be well within the capacity (2-3 stops even) of your other cameras. My first shoots yielded unusable images that would have been totally fine with other cameras, and since then I've had to be more judicious about the shooting environments, because I am not about to shoot planning to lift shadows that much in post all the time. Even though the shadows hold up decently compared to older sensors you still can only push that so far. 

[bocaburger]

Wow, I've never had a problem with highlights on my M240s.  Previous to digital I was almost exclusively a transparency-film shooter, so I tend to expose to hold the highlights.  At least with these cameras there's shadow detail buried in there that can be brought up, regardless of if it's a pain.  With slide film the shadows blocked up and that was that for the most part.

[LocalHero1953]

I can't speak for the M10, but I've had no particular problems with highlights on the M9 or M240 - or with the OMD-EM5ii, or various Canon/Nikon before the M9. It's just shooting/metering technique and getting used to it. Basically, if the sky is in the shot and I'm using classic metering then I'll start by compensating by -2/3 stop, and take it from there. If the sky and light sources are not in the shot, then I start from the metered setting and adjust. It's a non-issue.

Edited February 9, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow, I've never had a problem with highlights on my M240s. Previous to digital I was almost exclusively a transparency-film shooter, so I tend to expose to hold the highlights. At least with these cameras there's shadow detail buried in there that can be brought up, regardless of if it's a pain. With slide film the shadows blocked up and that was that for the most part.

+1

 

This is a user issue, not a camera issue. We’re spoiled these days with all the flexibility and convenience of digital files.

 

And unlike the M246 the OP referenced, where blown highlights can’t be recovered, the camera with color arrays often retain data in one or more color channels.,

 

I’ve managed highlights with the M8.2, M240, M10 and MM without difficulty .... once determining an appropriate workflow, none of which are tedious.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

I was on the verge of buying an M10 coming from an M240 and SL, but I am now hearing about how easily the highlights are clipped on the M10.  It sounds like they go just as easily as those on the M246 do.  Has this proven to be an issue for most users?  I personally do not want to underexpose every image by 2-3 stops and bring the shadows up in post... it's tedious and not how I want to spend my time.

Clipped highlights are only a problem if they are areas that are supposed to show detail; in that case they are not real highlights at all. That means that you are not underexposing when you are protecting bright parts, it means that you are exposing correctly. Try using a proper spot-meter technique. It all comes from letting the  camera take control of something that should be in the hands of the photographer, by using general AE and EV correction without metering accurately. I would suggest reading Ansel Adams' books on the Zone System. Even if you don't apply it, it will give understanding of exposure.

[Flu]

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)

Edited February 9, 2018 by Flu

[thighslapper]

I have to agree with Jaap on this ........ I can't see the point of compromising shadow detail to protect 'blown' highlights, which are often so bright that they are always going to appear as an almost featureless white anyway. 

 

Dynamic range on most decent cameras is within a few EV's of each other and the range is well beyond what is reproducible in print or on screen. 

 

If you want perfection you will have to resort to bracketed blended images or HDR ...... otherwise you have to make an exposure choice that gets you the best compromise ...... and that is an experience issue and not a camera one ....

[pgh]

Clipped highlights are only a problem if they are areas that are supposed to show detail; in that case they are not real highlights at all. That means that you are not underexposing when you are protecting bright parts, it means that you are exposing correctly. Try using a proper spot-meter technique. It all comes from letting the  camera take control of something that should be in the hands of the photographer, by using general AE and EV correction without metering accurately. I would suggest reading Ansel Adams' books on the Zone System. Even if you don't apply it, it will give understanding of exposure.

Except if you expose "correctly" or you spot meter to protect the highlights then you lose the shadows in some lighting situations, which is no more correct than a blown highlight. Not everyone finds that an acceptable solution, and it is actually not something one needs to do with other current cameras! What a revelation. Something has to give and the with M10, it gives much sooner.  this is not a 'you're not doing it right' matter. It's just insane to me how every argument here about the actual, demonstrated shortcoming of the technology is brushed off constantly.

 

I understand that the current sensors might represent incremental, inconsequential advantages for many Leica shooters - but when you comment on this stuff please understand that the newer sensors offer new possibilities in image making, in the type of situations one can make a successful image in. Referring to old ways of shooting is shutting the door on new possibilities. We are not in 2007 any more. We are not shooting slide film any more. We should not judge things by this metric. I don't at least, because I'm alive in 2018 and using tools now. Not in 2007, and I have no interest in trying to do things that were done then. 

 

All of these comments on user error just show that people don't understand how the potential of digital has changed with newer sensors. If you are judging things by how you made pictures 10 years ago, fine, but things have come a long way since then...and if you're interested in making the medium progress, an embrace of technology is part of it. The shortcomings of the sensor are demonstrated. Whether or not that matters to you is another thing, but they exist, and stop telling people when or not it is a problem for them.

 

I think you could give the audience credit and assume that the average Leica user has a basic understanding of exposure as well. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by pgh

[@ndy_ellis]

HDR?  Blimey - I think a few members might be reaching for the smelling salts.

 

Thick question - what's the problem with metering for the highlights (or somewhere near them) and then holding the shutter at half way to lock that setting and re-framing.

 

Or just noting it and going to manual settings?  Cross-checking it on the rear screen (not perfect but not a complete heresy) can be useful.

 

Worth taking a bit of time over - if you have it.  In an opportunistic/street setting when I want to take a lot of shots spontaneously  I often set the exposure against a bit of neutral wall or pavement and then just keep it there until I notice conditions changing markedly.

[jaapv]

Except if you expose "correctly" or you spot meter to protect the highlights then you lose the shadows in some lighting situations, which is no more correct than a blown highlight. Not everyone finds that an acceptable solution, and it is actually not something one needs to do with other current cameras! What a revelation. Something has to give and the with M10, it gives much sooner.  this is not a 'you're not doing it right' matter. It's just insane to me how every argument here about the actual, demonstrated shortcoming of the technology is brushed off constantly.

 

I understand that the current sensors might represent incremental, inconsequential advantages for many Leica shooters - but when you comment on this stuff please understand that the newer sensors offer new possibilities in image making, in the type of situations one can make a successful image in. Referring to old ways of shooting is shutting the door on new possibilities. We are not in 2007 any more. We are not shooting slide film any more. We should not judge things by this metric. I don't at least, because I'm alive in 2018 and using tools now. Not in 2007, and I have no interest in trying to do things that were done then. 

 

All of these comments on user error just show that people don't understand how the potential of digital has changed with newer sensors. If you are judging things by how you made pictures 10 years ago, fine, but things have come a long way since then...and if you're interested in making the medium progress, an embrace of technology is part of it. The shortcomings of the sensor are demonstrated. Whether or not that matters to you is another thing, but they exist, and stop telling people when or not it is a problem for them.

 

I think you could give the audience credit and assume that the average Leica user has a basic understanding of exposure as well. 

This is a misconception. The only thing that is happening is that a sensor reacts just opposite to negative film. In a sensor - and on slide film- you run up to a brick wall in the highlights, whereas the shadows taper off gradually. So you expose "for the highlights" On a negative film the shadows block abruptly and the highlights go on and on. So you expose "for the shadows". Basic technique.

In any case, you may have 11 or 12 stops of exposure range on your sensor or film, on the end you must chose which part of the tonal range you want to show up on your print, which will max out at 5 or 6 stops. Or compress severely and call it HDR. Again, nothing new. Hence my reference to the zone system as a base for understanding.

[pgh]

https://www.jaapvphotography.eu/fotogroot.php?id=55

 

Here - this image represents the issue perfectly. Is this an 'incorrect' exposure then? Do we want detail in the man's shirt in a scene like this? With today's cameras you can get detail in the shirt, and in the background, all without noticeable image degredation and a pleasing overall rendering of contrast and tone. Does this image show any of that? 

 

Personally I don't know whether this image is incorrectly exposed, or you wanted or the background to be shown, which makes sense - but results in a poor result due the distracting area of white nothing in the clipped bright area in the man's shirt. The M10 behave 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. 

 

The issue is in pulling detail that looks good for the print. You can't work with that if it's not there to begin with. You keep trying to reframe the conversation back to technique but in the end it is about usable results. Do you get paid to spin everything back to user ignorance or error? This is an honest question, because it truly reads like that. 

 

And this is not HDR or about achieving a garish HDR type rendering. This is making one picture with a usable range of information across the board. This is a thing that happens in digital now.

Edited February 9, 2018 by pgh

[jaapv]

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)

Never seen an exposure meter? Those are the things to use when refining TTL metering.

[LocalHero1953]

Except if you expose "correctly" or you spot meter to protect the highlights then you lose the shadows in some lighting situations, which is no more correct than a blown highlight. Not everyone finds that an acceptable solution, and it is actually not something one needs to do with other current cameras! What a revelation. Something has to give and the with M10, it gives much sooner.  this is not a 'you're not doing it right' matter. It's just insane to me how every argument here about the actual, demonstrated shortcoming of the technology is brushed off constantly.

 

I understand that the current sensors might represent incremental, inconsequential advantages for many Leica shooters - but when you comment on this stuff please understand that the newer sensors offer new possibilities in image making, in the type of situations one can make a successful image in. Referring to old ways of shooting is shutting the door on new possibilities. We are not in 2007 any more. We are not shooting slide film any more. We should not judge things by this metric. I don't at least, because I'm alive in 2018 and using tools now. Not in 2007, and I have no interest in trying to do things that were done then. 

 

All of these comments on user error just show that people don't understand how the potential of digital has changed with newer sensors. If you are judging things by how you made pictures 10 years ago, fine, but things have come a long way since then...and if you're interested in making the medium progress, an embrace of technology is part of it. The shortcomings of the sensor are demonstrated. Whether or not that matters to you is another thing, but they exist, and stop telling people when or not it is a problem for them.

 

I think you could give the audience credit and assume that the average Leica user has a basic understanding of exposure as well. 

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.

[jaapv]

https://www.jaapvphotography.eu/fotogroot.php?id=55

 

Here - this image represents the issue perfectly. Is this an 'incorrect' exposure then? Do we want detail in the man's shirt in a scene like this? With today's cameras you can get detail in the shirt, and in the background, all without noticeable image degredation and a pleasing overall rendering of contrast and tone. Does this image show any of that? 

 

Personally I don't know whether this image is incorrectly exposed, or you wanted or the background to be shown, which makes sense - but results in a poor result due the distracting area of white nothing in the clipped bright area in the man's shirt. The M10 behave 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. 

 

The issue is in pulling detail that looks good for the print. You can't work with that if it's not there to begin with. You keep trying to reframe the conversation back to technique but in the end it is about usable results. Do you get paid to spin everything back to user ignorance or error? This is an honest question, because it truly reads like that. 

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.

[tonyniev]

Never seen an exposure meter? Those are the things to use when refining TTL metering.

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 

Edited February 9, 2018 by tonyniev

[jaapv]

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 

Exactly what I was saying: refining.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Csacwp]

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).