Any chance of adding the video back!?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly, Ron. Postprocessing is the key.  To emphasize my point that being fixated on exposure cannot replace the finishing of the image in the computer:  (click twice) 

 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Brancbūth]

8 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I can hear the same thing being said back at the dawn of time "I view the M system as a professionally viable analogue photography system, as it has always been". 
Tradition is a ball and chain attached to your ankle.

I don't quite agree with this angle. Bringing the "M" into the digital age was a natural progression. The so-called "tradition" of the system began with film only because that was the medium, but the ethos is not bound to film, and ultimately has nothing to do with film itself. I would argue, however, that it is bound to still photography. A digital "M" adheres to the "M ethos" because the process and experience remains largely the same-- you use your mechanical rangefinder in conjunction with manual focus to shoot a still photograph-- the ergonomics are familiar, if not nearly identical. Give a decades-long film "M" shooter a digital "M" and the familiarity is immediately apparent; furthermore, I would guess that the last question on that persons mind when holding an M10 in their hands would be "how do I switch to video mode?" It has nothing to do with "tradition--" the defining characteristics of the "M" system, which remain in place today, were literally made for still photography.

[MikeMyers]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Postprocessing is the key. 

A month ago, I was using only my M10, and people in the DxO Forum were showing me that the M10 didn't have enough dynamic range to do what I wanted.  Most of the time, the highlights were blown out, with sunrise and sunset photos.  Then they showed me a comparison on DxOmark.  I found this quick comparison, copied below.  Back then I didn't understand dynamic range, and I decided that I would switch to the D750 for a while.  I'm still learning, day by day.

I'll copy a small version of my original file that was slightly underexposed to correct the blown highlights, at least a little.  Other than automatic lens and body corrections, it is un-edited.  I wanted to fix the blown-out windows in the building, and lighten up the island.  That's not really relevant, but this is the image I should have posted earlier.

I see this every morning, and if tomorrow is a clear day, I'll take the same image with my M10.  Maybe I have learned enough that I'll get a better result - but the real question posed by people in the forum, since I already own the M10 and the D750, why am I not using the camera with the more appropriate sensor?

To @jaapv I completely agree with what you wrote, and yes, "processing is the key", but doesn't the processing depend on a good image to start with.  If I were more experienced, I could probably look at the scene, and select an exposure that I knew would work.   Since I'm not, my guide is to measure for the brightest part of a scene, over-expose by 1.7 stops, and trust the camera to give me a good, workable image.  

The Nikon shot below was not captured that way - I set it to spot metering with "highlight metering" activated, which supposedly would find the brightest part of the image and adjust accordingly.  That didn't work, even though the camera was in Aperture priority mode, just as I essentially do on my M10.

 

Will I do that on my Z9 if I buy one?  To me, my job is composition and timing, and fine tuning will be done in the image editor.  Unless I missed something, the M10 only pays attention to the areas you demonstrated in the image you posted for what gets metered.  Anything outside of that area apparently gets ignored.  That is where I think the Nikon has an advantage, in that it can evaluate the entire sensor, if that's what I tell it to do, or anything else.  

I'm not as good at this as I wish I was.  With the Nikon I'm getting closer.  With the M10 I thought the same.  I don't believe my decisions should be based on DxOMark, but it's a strong influence.  I won't in any way argue with you, but I have all sorts of limitations for whatever reason.  I think for a while now, my best choice is to do the best I can with what I've got.  

I will take another sunrise photo with the M10, with my new Voigtlander 50 which is the best lens I've got, being just as careful as before with the exposure.

 

To @jaapv- what percentage of the users in this forum really understand this, and know how to get the most out of their camera?  5% maybe?  I'm trying, is all I can say.

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!

[jaapv]

Sorry, the DXO score is complete bollocks IMO. It does not measure sensor output but processed camera output, and Nikon is far more invasive than Leica. The basic Leica shot you posted is the superior one.

[MikeMyers]

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Tradition is a ball and chain attached to your ankle.

While the M-series LEICA could continue this tradition for those to whom it matters, I bought my M10 despite that tradition, not because of it.

If Leica offered a new camera in a similar form factor, with a Fuji style viewfinder, and full-frame, and coupled lenses, I would keep my M3, sell my M10, and after enough time to see how good this new camera was, buy it.  I don't use the rangefinder because I prefer to - I use it because most of the time it's the only practical way.  All the modern electronics that are being developed depend on the sensor, and the Leica sensor is still part of the "ball and chain" system, and there is no way around this until Leica at least gets a modern sensor - at which time, the whole shutter system can be removed, leaving room for a GPS and lots more.  Focusing might be accomplished electronically, as the Visflex or Live View now allow.  Metering will be greatly improved, even if the lens coupling is not available.  

For those who don't like this concept, there will be the M11.  For the rest of the world, it would move Leica forward to where more people could buy it, and the cost should come down as mechanics are replaced by electronics.  My Fuji X100f sold for $1,300 as I recall, so perhaps the new Leica might be double that - or Leica could sell it again under the Panasonic Lumix nameplate, or for more money, with a Leica nameplate.  Once again, same camera, different names, different prices, same performance.  Actually, Panasonic Lumix could build the entire thing, for Leica or for themselves.  

Maybe "ball and chain attached to your ankle" is a nasty way to refer to it, but Leica builds more cameras than just the M anyway - they could call this one an MZ 1.

[MikeMyers]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The basic Leica shot you posted is the superior one.

I haven't posted a new Leica shot yet, unless you're looking at one from a month ago.  Where would you suggest I check to get a more accurate evaluation?   Or give me a day or two, and I will have a Leica image posted here of the same thing.  

If what you say is correct, please point me to some posted measurements from a good source.  (I thought DxOmark was a good source, but maybe I've been misled?)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don’t go by evaluations. Trust your eyes. 

[MikeMyers]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Don’t go by evaluations. Trust your eyes. 

Going by my own eyes, and the eyes of the other people in the forum, there seems to be 100% agreement that the high dynamic range images captured my Nikon D750 were superior to the similar images I was previously taking with my Leica M10, everything else being as close to the same as I could make it.  

To be honest, I liked the images from the Leica just as much as I liked the images from the Nikon, but the other people in the forum showed me that there were differences.  They felt I was better off with the Nikon D750, and I would be even further better off with a Nikon D850. 

Time to use the M10 again, and see if what I've learned will get me even better results than with the 750.

Thanks for all your advice!!

[jaapv]

The difference between the three is completely irrelevant in all but extreme photography. Maximally ½ an EV value in the highlights,  ½  to ⅓   in the shadows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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!

[MikeMyers]

40 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The difference between the three is completely irrelevant in all but extreme photography.

In the real world, I think I will accept what you wrote, and maybe none of this is worth my worrying about.  Thank you.

Edited November 9, 2021 by MikeMyers

[jaapv]

Yes!!!   😃

[Anbaric]

5 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Expectations can not reasonably be dictated by pricing; they are dictated by the stated and implicit design goals of the product in question.  If you pay a few million for a Bugatti Chiron, you don't expect to take your extended family on an off road tour up to your backwood's retreat.  That you could in any number of vehicles that cost 1/100th the price says nothing about whether or not the Chiron successfully accomplishes the purpose it was designed to fulfill.  To reach for the pinnacle of that brief, large swaths of common functionality found elsewhere are ignored as they interfere with achieving the specific performance targets. When those aims are of paramount importance to the buyer, if one's pockets are deep enough one accepts, tacitly or otherwise, the compromises made.  While the divisions might not be quite so extreme, the M's intent is not that of an A7C, just as the Chiron's isn't that of a RAV4. 

I think the design brief of a Bugatti is basically to show the world that the owner has a great deal of money, but since even the super-rich expect something worthwhile for their cash, it is at least a car at the forefront of technology, which hasn't really been true of the Leica M series since the 1950s  A digital M is more like a Morgan - a modern engine dressed up in a 1950s-style body, eschewing modern conveniences as a sort of inverted feature (better hope it doesn't rain), and mostly sold to comfortably off men of a certain age.

[Anbaric]

13 hours ago, pgk said:

I expect an M camera to fulfil its included functions very well indeed. Not have half-baked add ons 'because it can' have them included. Whilst some will no doubt go to great lengths to show that an M camera with video could be used well, it would remain a peripheral function and as such is unlikely ever  to be as well implemented as in many other cameras.

I'm not sure where the idea that video on an M would necessarily be bad is coming from. We've already seen the M240 make a decent stab at it, and Leica has the technology and the partners to make this work very well on the SL series, so it's not as if they'd be starting from scratch. It wouldn't have image stabilisatiom, autofocus, auto aperture or some of the other conveniences we'd expect in a conventional mirrorless camera, but that doesn't mean it couldn't produce high quality video. As for 'half baked add ons because it can', I can't help thinking again of the pretend wind-on lever (sorry, 'thumb rest') on the M10-D, a feature some customers clearly feel is more in keeping with the Leica ethos than video (or, for that matter, an LCD).

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

a Morgan - a modern engine dressed up in a 1950s-style body, eschewing modern conveniences as a sort of inverted feature

I have always wanted a Morgan.  I settled on a 2012 MX-5 Mazda, for the same amount of fun in a much more practical enclosure (but still no trunk space to speak of) at a small fraction of the cost, and no need for my own personal mechanic.

 

46 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

video on an M would necessarily be bad

If it didn't clutter up the camera, I guess it's better to have it than not to - I changed my mind.  But with my iPhone in my pocket, I doubt I would ever use the M for video.  If they really want to add something useful, how about a GPS ?

[Tailwagger]

4 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

...my guide is to measure for the brightest part of a scene, over-expose by 1.7 stops, and trust the camera to give me a good, workable image.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding... are you using spot metering?  Regardless with an M10 intentionally over-exposing is generally ill advised, but with a scene that has wide DR you are courting total disaster... unless the aim was to purposefully blow highlights.  The 10-R is better, not infallible, in this regard, but the M10 and 240 have to be used with more care.  Most folks, certainly I did, set the M10 EV to -.3 by default and worked down from there. Not that there aren't legit scenarios, but I honestly can't recall ever dialing in a positive EV value when I had the M10.  M raw files are traditionally pretty good when it comes to pulling shadows, but nowhere near as flexible with the highs.  In my experience, even with the 10-R, you are generally better off leaning left rather than right. 

As you seem to be having trouble, I'd point out that the M10 has a histogram function on playback.  I'm assuming you not using an EVF or LCD to frame (if so you can have the histo live), so I'd suggest if you're having difficulty assessing the proper exposure for a given scene, while you develop your feel for things do a little chimping with the histo on to check your results before moving on. The histo, being JPG, isn't 100% accurate... assuming you're shooting raw... but its close enough to given you an idea whether or not you've blown well past the camera's capabilities. 

[Herr Barnack]

I have never wanted or needed video on an M.  If I want to make videos, I'll get a dedicated video camera.

Maybe I'm weird.  🙁

[SrMi]

I used to work with high-end video cameras. Unfortunately, the time to post-process a video in Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, or similar is humongous compared to still photography. So I gave up and now record video like snapshots: with a smartphone. 
That is why I am not interested in video in still cameras. I wish that the cameras that offer video would also provide a video lock-out mode that hides all video functionality (including menus).

[Brancbūth]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

I'm not sure where the idea that video on an M would necessarily be bad is coming from. We've already seen the M240 make a decent stab at it, and Leica has the technology and the partners to make this work very well on the SL series, so it's not as if they'd be starting from scratch. It wouldn't have image stabilisatiom, autofocus, auto aperture or some of the other conveniences we'd expect in a conventional mirrorless camera, but that doesn't mean it couldn't produce high quality video. As for 'half baked add ons because it can', I can't help thinking again of the pretend wind-on lever (sorry, 'thumb rest') on the M10-D, a feature some customers clearly feel is more in keeping with the Leica ethos than video (or, for that matter, an LCD).

Absolutely. Leica et al. has implemented video very well with the SL series, so the question remains— Why add it to the M? Does it make sense to incorporate video into a camera whose primary method of focus is a mechanical rangefinder? Rangefinder focusing works (for those who prefer it) phenomenally well for still photography, but it would prohibit video on the M from becoming anything more than novelty, and that rangefinder isn’t going anywhere. Would someone interested in a well-rounded camera capable of offering excellent photo and video performance even consider a camera with a rangefinder, live view on a 3-inch LCD (fine for an autofocus point-and-shoot), or zone focusing being the only methods of focus? I would think not. I can’t personally see the addition of video drawing any more users to the M system. Adding video wouldn’t necessarily be bad, but— again— how does it make sense? I’m sounding like a broken record at this point, but answers seem to be limited to “because it’s expected” or “because it might be convenient…sometimes.” 

 

FWIW, I also think that the film advance lever on the M10-D is silly and off the mark. As for the absence of an LCD, I can definitely see how that aligns with the M ethos.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Brancbūth

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MikeMyers]

41 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding... are you using spot metering?  Regardless with an M10 intentionally over-exposing is generally ill advised, but with a scene that has wide DR you are courting total disaster... unless the aim was to purposefully blow highlights.  The 10-R is better, not infallible, in this regard, but the M10 and 240 have to be used with more care.  Most folks, certainly I did, set the M10 EV to -.3 by default and worked down from there. ............M raw files are traditionally pretty good when it comes to pulling shadows, but nowhere near as flexible with the highs.  

As you seem to be having trouble, I'd point out that the M10 has a histogram function on playback.  I'm assuming you not using an EVF or LCD to frame (if so you can have the histo live), so I'd suggest if you're having difficulty assessing the proper exposure for a given scene, while you develop your feel for things do a little chimping with the histo on to check your results before moving on. 

The above information is for what worked properly on my Nikon.  Use spot-metering.  Adjust exposure compensation to +1.7 stops, OVER exposing, but within the camera's dynamic range.  Set lens aperture to f/10, and with camera in (M)anual mode, with the spot metering on the brightest part of the scene, close to the sun, center the exposure controls to "0".  Re-compose, without changing anything, and take the photo.

If done properly, the brightest part of the scene, often the clouds near the sun, come out no more than 1.7 stops over-exposed, and with enough dynamic range, I can bring out all the details in the darker parts of the image Using PhotoLab 5, without having blown out highlights.   

I decided this was useless on the M10, because of the lack of a good, accurate, meter reading.  If you look at the coverage of the M10 spot meter reading, it's not really a "spot", and it can't be, because the light is being reflected off the shutter back to the sensor that reads the light.  With my Nikon D750 in regular spot metering mode, the camera is accurately reading the light right at that spot - and the images come out as expected most of the time.

I don't have an M10R, but it's one more camera I'd like to buy - but none of the Leica cameras have a meter that is comparable to a good camera reading the spot metering accurately for the selected area to meter the reading.  (Nikon now has a new way to do this, spot metering with highlight corrections.)

Thanks for the advice - I had my best luck at this using the Visoflex, which is like using "Live View".

Once I switched to the D750, everything just worked!  No hassles, no issues, as long as the sun was close to vanishing behind a cloud or the skyline.  

 

The camera should be on a tripod, and all the setting procedure should be worked out ahead of time.  Yes, I did use "chimping" to check if things looked reasonable, and yes, it's only 'jpg', but after a few tries I got close enough for me - but not for the people in the forum who (correctly) pointed out that I had parts of the image blown out by the bright light.  ....about the M10R, I can't afford to buy one, and if I was about to spend that much money, I would put it towards a Z9.

I guess I was "having trouble", but every evening I posted the results in the DxO PhotoLab forum, and within hours people suggested changes.  After two or three days, the photos were coming out fine despite my using my M10, so I take full responsibility for all my "issues".  After a little more practice, I had no more "issues".  Then I came home, and switched to my D750 for the past four weeks or so.

Thanks for the advice - brings back memories of how I was working my way through this with the M10, taking new photos of sunrise and/or sunset almost daily.

(If you're interested, and if you have a LOT of time and patience, you can start reading the more recent discussions here.  It's a continuation of a previous thread about Using PhotoLab 4, back when I was using my Leica M10, and after reading it, you'll probably want to use an image processor that allows you to use "control lines".

https://feedback.dxo.com/t/editing-high-dynamic-range-images-in-photolab-5/21748   .....very long!)

[Tailwagger]

17 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

The above information is for what worked properly on my Nikon.  Use spot-metering.  Adjust exposure compensation to +1.7 stops, OVER exposing, but within the camera's dynamic range.

This wont work with a M in my experience, you're going in the wrong direction. Every manufacturer processes differently. I'm sure it worked on the Nikon for you, but I'm equally sure that wont be the case with the way the M processes scenes. Again, generically to be successful with the M you want to guard on the right and push on the left. 

19 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

If you look at the coverage of the M10 spot meter reading, it's not really a "spot", and it can't be, because the light is being reflected off the shutter back to the sensor that reads the light.

Actually, thats not correct. The M has two completely separate ways of metering.  The traditional one which essentially is center weighted, is what you are referring to and is the only mode available when shooting outside of live view. When you select spot or multi metering in the menu, that ONLY applies when you are in LV. When in LV, all metering is done off the sensor like any other conventional mirrorless camera. It must be, as in order to generate an image to the EVF or display, the shutter has to be open light to reach the sensor.  As the shutters open, there's nothing available to reflect the light to the conventional meter.  So your description of convention meeting is correct and indeed there is no spot metering only center weighed. However in live view there is true spot metering. The menu also affords you the option of using center weighted metering in LV as well. 

While the camera is long gone, I still have the manual.   From the M10 manual:

Exposure Metering Methods

Depending on whether the Live View mode is being used or not, various metering methods are available to you.
– If you are using the exposure meter:

Strongly center-weighted metering. This method takes account of the entire image field, although the parts of the subject situat- ed in the center have more influence on the exposure value calculation than the areas at the margins. The light reflected by bright shutter curtain blades is captured by a photo diode and measured.

– In Live View mode:
Either spot, center-weighted and multi-field metering. In these cases, metering is done by the picture sensor.

Selecting the Live View metering methods

Setting the function

1. 2.

Select the menu item Exp. Metering, and
in the sub-menu the desired metering method:
– Spot Only a small area, indicated by a circle in the middle of the monitor image, is captured and evaluated.
– Center-weighted This method takes account of the entire image field, although the parts of the subject situated in the center have more influence on the exposure value calculation than the areas at the margins.

– Multi-field This metering method is based on detection of multiple metered values. The values are used in an algorithm to calculate an exposure value appropriate to the situation, resulting in correct reproduction of the assumed main subject.

Hope this helps.