M10 firmware 2.4.5.0 Auto ISO and blown highlights

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do agree that the shadows hold up relatively well in the M10 files, they are the saving grace of the sensor -  However this way of working is not ideal. In recent years digital cameras became quite good at capturing a wide spectrum when exposing properly (and not having to habitually over or under expose as a matter of course - I realize that some scenes are still of course exceptions), which minimizes the need to tinker when workin on batches of images. In the early digital days we always had to do this because the sensors were much more limited, so to have to go back to that place feels like a bit of a step back.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

What is exposing properly? I would say adapting exposure to the medium you are capturing the light on. If you THINK you are exposing properly and you are blowing the highlights, you are not.

 

Example - and i am staying away from sensors on purpose- Slide film and negative film at the same rated speed. On slide film you expose for the highlights, on negative film for the shadows. Same ISO, totally different exposures. Which one is properly exposed? Both - proving that exposure is not an absolute and proper exposure is completely dictated by the film/sensor you are using. So you cannot "habitually over or underexpose".

[Gobert]

Leicas can be used however, yes, but when considering the use of a tool for where it excels the M still generally is better in reportage.

 

Landscape photographs tend to ask for more precision in composition (rangefinder is not the most accurate way to frame), and rely on high levels of detail (the M sensor is just in the middle of the pack with resolution and with dynamic range, the point of this thread). Hiking 20 miles with a Sony and 2 lenses is really no weight difference and a better sensor. I do this a good bit. 

 

Fast Leica lenses of course do well on the M, but given the fact that focus shift becomes an issue and that you're limited to focusing in the center and then reframing (or using the EVF), I find it much more practical to shoot fast lenses on other technology. My Nikon or Sony lenses at 1.4/1.8 have been quite good, and easier to nail focus with, especially when trying to avoid centered composition.

 

I'm not saying the M can't be used these ways, it certainly can, but other tools arrive at these solutions more fluidly and easily, to me.

 

All of that said, my one question - why we can't access the actual base ISO of 160/167 (whatever it is) - persists. Is this impossible with firmware?

 

It looks like that the both of us are living in a different (opposite) universe.

[pgh]

What is exposing properly? 

 

I should clarify - exposing for the average of the scene, which these days, in my experience is generally the best way to get the most out of the file in most scenarios on most cameras, and it is generally the ideal. Obviously there are exceptions. To say one is not exposing properly if highlights are blown isn't true if you're forced to choose between highlights or shadows, and when you're dealing with more exposure latitude you're not forced to choose.

 

Anyways, we've gone through this to wits end in other forums and we'll just have to agree that different people use these sensors differently. My question remains about accessing the true base ISO of the current M10 sensor. 

 

The film and early digital days were different. I always shot portra 1 stop or two over, for example (when possible). But we're not in the film or early digital days anymore - at least not for the purposes of this thread. 

[jonoslack]

 

All of that said, my one question - why we can't access the actual base ISO of 160/167 (whatever it is) - persists. Is this impossible with firmware? 

 

I'm sure it could be done, but I don't think there are many circumstances when the difference between 160 and 200 would be relevant . . do you?

[M11 for me]

What is exposing properly? I would say adapting exposure to the medium you are capturing the light on. If you THINK you are exposing properly and you are blowing the highlights, you are not.

 

Example - and i am staying away from sensors on purpose- Slide film and negative film at the same rated speed. On slide film you expose for the highlights, on negative film for the shadows. Same ISO, totally different exposures. Which one is properly exposed? Both - proving that exposure is not an absolute and proper exposure is completely dictated by the film/sensor you are using. So you cannot "habitually over or underexpose".

I try to ETTR. For me that is then the best or the right exposure with no blown highlights but histogram toughing the right edge. The rest I can do in LR.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I should clarify - exposing for the average of the scene, which these days, in my experience is generally the best way to get the most out of the file in most scenarios on most cameras, and it is generally the ideal. Obviously there are exceptions. To say one is not exposing properly if highlights are blown isn't true if you're forced to choose between highlights or shadows, and when you're dealing with more exposure latitude you're not forced to choose.

 

Anyways, we've gone through this to wits end in other forums and we'll just have to agree that different people use these sensors differently. My question remains about accessing the true base ISO of the current M10 sensor. 

 

The film and early digital days were different. I always shot portra 1 stop or two over, for example (when possible). But we're not in the film or early digital days anymore - at least not for the purposes of this thread. 

I think this is a complete oversimplification. What would the use of a spot meter or incident light reading be if it were true?

It is certainly not the way I approach exposure

[pgh]

I'm sure it could be done, but I don't think there are many circumstances when the difference between 160 and 200 would be relevant . . do you?

I'd have to see it to know, but as someone who favors low contrast, detailed files and as someone who prints quite consistently, if it allowed even 1/4 to 1/2 stop more information captured then I would certainly use it. There are many situations where I would happily adjust my shutter speed or aperture to get that extra exposure rather than use ISO 200 over 160 if I had the choice. Perhaps that's just me. I know it's an area I'm finicky about, but, and I've said this before, coming from other current cameras the difference here was noticeable. 

 

One such example is an ambient light, indoor environmental portrait or reportage picture where windows are in the picture - a common enough situation for a photojournalist. The less those windows are blown out while still capturing the details of the face the more storytelling you can do with that image, at least much of the time, even if you're just pulling back textural details that are blurred. If you look at news publications these days you notice how much sensors have come along because in these images we can often see the details of what is outside much more than before, where it used to often be just a square of no detail white, or the indoors is lit artificially. When I make a picture like that with other cameras - (where I essentially expose for the indoor scene because that is what's most important), the information in the windows that I can pull from back other current cameras is quite useful. Even if it's only fragmentary, compared to the first 5D etc it has changed how you can make indoor, ambient light photographs. Every little bit helps. 

[jonoslack]

I'd have to see it to know, but as someone who favors low contrast, detailed files and as someone who prints quite consistently, if it allowed even 1/4 to 1/2 stop more information captured then I would certainly use it. There are many situations where I would happily adjust my shutter speed or aperture to get that extra exposure rather than use ISO 200 over 160 if I had the choice. Perhaps that's just me. I know it's an area I'm finicky about, but, and I've said this before, coming from other current cameras the difference here was noticeable. 

 

One such example is an ambient light, indoor environmental portrait or reportage picture where windows are in the picture - a common enough situation for a photojournalist. The less those windows are blown out while still capturing the details of the face the more storytelling you can do with that image, at least much of the time, even if you're just pulling back textural details that are blurred. If you look at news publications these days you notice how much sensors have come along because in these images we can often see the details of what is outside much more than before, where it used to often be just a square of no detail white, or the indoors is lit artificially. When I make a picture like that with other cameras - (where I essentially expose for the indoor scene because that is what's most important), the information in the windows that I can pull from back other current cameras is quite useful. Even if it's only fragmentary, compared to the first 5D etc it has changed how you can make indoor, ambient light photographs. Every little bit helps. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "1/4 to a 1/2 stop more information". But the dynamic range of the M10 is fine - there is simply a problem with highlights at 100 ISO as far as I can tell it isn't linear and it's completely gone at ISO 200. 

 

I quite agree about your example with windows, but the M10 performs extremely well in such situations . . . . you can pull back information from the windows with the M10 just like other current cameras (just not as well at 100 ISO). To be honest I would think it unusual to be able to use 100 ISO (or even 160 ISO) for such indoor environmental images, especially when you are "essentially exposing for the indoor scene". Certainly at 200 ISO and above the M10 is no worse than it's competitors. 

 

It would have been nice to be able to use 100 ISO (or 50) in very bright contrasty light outdoors to allow you to shoot the Leica fast lenses wide open (or to have a faster shutter speed). . but I'm not sure that the ability to manually select ISO 160 would really make much difference. 

 

All the best

[M11 for me]

Hi Jono, you speak again about lenses wide open. I must say I use my lenses rarely wide open unless needed in bad light situations. I would love to open a new thread with the title: "Show your photographs taken at f/1.4 or wider during day time" . I would like to see examples.

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, you speak again about lenses wide open. I must say I use my lenses rarely wide open unless needed in bad light situations. I would love to open a new thread with the title: "Show your photographs taken at f/1.4 or wider during day time" . I would like to see examples.

 

Hi Alex

Well, I mostly use the APO Summicrons these days (50 and 75) so f1.4 isn't the deal, but here is a link to pictures shot in the last month or so with the M10 and either of those lenses - mostly at f2

 

https://adobe.ly/2LAo0tA

 

One of the things about Leica lenses (especially modern ones) is that there isn't a penalty to shooting wide open. My feeling is that (generally speaking) if you want to shoot stopped down, then you lose the advantage of full frame and the ability to use limited focal plane to isolate subjects . . in which case you may as well shoot with a CL . . or even a µ43 camera.

[evikne]

Hi Jono, you speak again about lenses wide open. I must say I use my lenses rarely wide open unless needed in bad light situations. I would love to open a new thread with the title: "Show your photographs taken at f/1.4 or wider during day time" . I would like to see examples.

 

You can see lots of examples here. I shoot wide open most of the time: https://realmoments.myportfolio.com

Edited July 25, 2018 by evikne

[jonoslack]

You can see lots of examples here. I shoot wide open most of the time: https://realmoments.myportfolio.com

 

Lots of great pictures - excellent!

[evikne]

Lots of great pictures - excellent!

 

Thank you very much!

[mmradman]

Hi Alex

Well, I mostly use the APO Summicrons these days (50 and 75) so f1.4 isn't the deal, but here is a link to pictures shot in the last month or so with the M10 and either of those lenses - mostly at f2

 

https://adobe.ly/2LAo0tA

 

One of the things about Leica lenses (especially modern ones) is that there isn't a penalty to shooting wide open. My feeling is that (generally speaking) if you want to shoot stopped down, then you lose the advantage of full frame and the ability to use limited focal plane to isolate subjects . . in which case you may as well shoot with a CL . . or even a µ43 camera.

I think nobody disputes Leica lenses being able to produce quality image at maximum F stop. 

It just happens that, ignoring ND filters, M10 or M240 are handicaped when compared to SL601 due to 1/4000 vs 1/8000 shutter speed and 200 ISO vs 50/200 ISO. 

 

SL601 also have electronic shutter at 1/16,000 so taking picture with Noctilux or Summilux more so with Summicron at max aperture in bright daylight is viable proposition.