M11 Dynamic Range Specification

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, adan said:

See your own chart in post #14

The M11 has now effective caught up with those Nikons that beat the M10 - 14-15 stops DR, depending whether you choose 60 or 36 or 16 Mpixel output.

Since manufacturers do not specify how they measure DR, the numbers need to be confirmed. Sony claimed 15 stops DR for a7rIV. I hope that M11's max DR is as high as Sonys/Nikons.
I am skeptical about Leica's statement that DR varies with the chosen resolution, at least in how DxO (resize to the same dimensions) or PhotonsToPhotos (same CoC) measure.

[MikeMyers]

6 minutes ago, adan said:

See your own chart in post #14

The M11 has now effective caught up with those Nikons that beat the M10 - 14-15 stops DR, depending whether you choose 60 or 36 or 16 Mpixel output.

Since dxomark hasn't finished their testing, I think it's too early to assume that.

A better comparison might be with the Nikon Z9, whenever that gets posted, so it's "the best" compared to "the best".

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

A few simple questions....

• First, would it be safe to assume that for the most part, people shooting these $13,000 or so cameras, and editing the images before posting, are using calibrated displays for the editing?
• Second, in the DxO software forum, we've been posting two files for others to evaluate - the original dng (or other raw) file, and the ".dot" file that is a record of all the changes that have been applied to the raw image.   Is there any way in the L-camera forum to upload/download the huge original images to share with others?  If I'd like to view the actual image that one of you recorded with the M11, how can I do that?  Or, conversely, if I want to upload an image from my M10, how can I do that such that any of you can view it?  (Viewing edited images is good for lots of reasons, but not for evaluating the capability of the camera and lens used.)
• Finally, the metering done by the M11 is metering off the sensor.  Is that essentially the same as what the M10 does in "Live View"?  When using spot metering, should the values measured from each camera be essentially the same?

 

Also, a friend of mine posted this link last night.  Some of you may find it interesting.  I did, until it got too far over my head, but eventually I'll hopefully understand it:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/how-to-use-the-full-dynamic-range-of-your-camera

(I currently feel like I'm drowning in all these details, but they are slowly beginning to make sense.  Good thing I'm retired, and have lots of time.  As to images, I will try to take my M10, an extra memory card, and one of my lenses to the Leica Store, Miami, and assuming they have an M11 available, ask if I can take a few images on the street out front from their store on my memory card, which I'll bring home for my own evaluation.  I'll then take the same shots with my M10.)

Edited January 17, 2022 by MikeMyers

[jonoslack]

56 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

A few simple questions....

• First, would it be safe to assume that for the most part, people shooting these $13,000 or so cameras, and editing the images before posting, are using calibrated displays for the editing?
• Second, in the DxO software forum, we've been posting two files for others to evaluate - the original dng (or other raw) file, and the ".dot" file that is a record of all the changes that have been applied to the raw image.   Is there any way in the L-camera forum to upload/download the huge original images to share with others?  If I'd like to view the actual image that one of you recorded with the M11, how can I do that?  Or, conversely, if I want to upload an image from my M10, how can I do that such that any of you can view it?  (Viewing edited images is good for lots of reasons, but not for evaluating the capability of the camera and lens used.)
• Finally, the metering done by the M11 is metering off the sensor.  Is that essentially the same as what the M10 does in "Live View"?  When using spot metering, should the values measured from each camera be essentially the same?

 

Also, a friend of mine posted this link last night.  Some of you may find it interesting.  I did, until it got too far over my head, but eventually I'll hopefully understand it:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/how-to-use-the-full-dynamic-range-of-your-camera

(I currently feel like I'm drowning in all these details, but they are slowly beginning to make sense.  Good thing I'm retired, and have lots of time.  As to images, I will try to take my M10, an extra memory card, and one of my lenses to the Leica Store, Miami, and assuming they have an M11 available, ask if I can take a few images on the street out front from their store on my memory card, which I'll bring home for my own evaluation.  I'll then take the same shots with my M10.)

HI There Mike

I thought I would chip in here because I think you're making your life very complicated! As Srdjan said, blown highlights is not directly related to dynamic range - it's to do with overexposure. Your idea of metering off the brightest part of the frame and then increasing the exposure by 1.7 stops would probably work with the M10-R, but I would have thought it was really fraught with the M10 - which is not so good at highlights - have you seen this article:

https://www.slack.co.uk/m10-highlights.html

But I think you can be much more pragmatic than this - you don't have to do maths to get a decent exposure! ETTR (expose to the right) has become a kind of mantra with digital photography, and it was valuable when dynamic range was very small, and noise a real problem. These days I would expose for the brightest part of the picture and Leave it Like That! You might be able to squeeze out another stop or so, but for most images you really don't need to be worrying about the shadows - there's usually lots of room.

The metering on the M11 is similar to what the M10 does in Live view, as you say.

And the technical answer to 'how much dynamic range has the M11 got?' is PLENTY! I think the M10 does as well, but with your camera the most common problem (and the most difficult thing to fix) is blown highlights - give it a go - simply meter off the brightest spot and see how you get on.

Sometimes it's good to blow out the histogram in both directions!

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!

All the best

Jono

 

 

[darylgo]

24 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Sometimes it's good to blow out the histogram in both directions!

Jono, I love your last sentence. 

Imperfections can lead to art.  

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

A few simple questions....

• First, would it be safe to assume that for the most part, people shooting these $13,000 or so cameras, and editing the images before posting, are using calibrated displays for the editing?
• Second, in the DxO software forum, we've been posting two files for others to evaluate - the original dng (or other raw) file, and the ".dot" file that is a record of all the changes that have been applied to the raw image.   Is there any way in the L-camera forum to upload/download the huge original images to share with others?  If I'd like to view the actual image that one of you recorded with the M11, how can I do that?  Or, conversely, if I want to upload an image from my M10, how can I do that such that any of you can view it?  (Viewing edited images is good for lots of reasons, but not for evaluating the capability of the camera and lens used.)
• Finally, the metering done by the M11 is metering off the sensor.  Is that essentially the same as what the M10 does in "Live View"?  When using spot metering, should the values measured from each camera be essentially the same?

 

Also, a friend of mine posted this link last night.  Some of you may find it interesting.  I did, until it got too far over my head, but eventually I'll hopefully understand it:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/how-to-use-the-full-dynamic-range-of-your-camera

(I currently feel like I'm drowning in all these details, but they are slowly beginning to make sense.  Good thing I'm retired, and have lots of time.  As to images, I will try to take my M10, an extra memory card, and one of my lenses to the Leica Store, Miami, and assuming they have an M11 available, ask if I can take a few images on the street out front from their store on my memory card, which I'll bring home for my own evaluation.  I'll then take the same shots with my M10.)

Some people profile their monitors and cameras, and some do not. You should try it if you have time and interest. I sometimes profile, but not because I feel it is really needed :). However, if my colors are wrong, I do not blame the camera but me. AFAIK, profiling a monitor is most important if you are printing.

One solution to sharing large files is to use one of the file hosting services like Dropbox and share the link.

The blog you linked to has a lot of helpful information, and I have learned a lot from the articles published there. Knowledge is intoxicating :). However, I would not follow every suggestion they make, though it is interesting to read why they suggest specific techniques. The new information mustn't block you while photographing. You can augment your process where you feel it is needed.

When exposing optimally, I would not use spot metering. Instead, use blinkies and histograms via live view or during image review. IMO, the most damaging issue is highlight clipping, not noise or lack of DR. If you apply negative EC so that the relevant highlights are not clipped, you are already applying ETTR and using the maximum available DR.

IMO, most images are taken one or two stops below full saturation. That means that they have used one or two stop less DR than technically possible. Nevertheless, they may still be great images.

Do not let the new information overwhelm you when photographing :).

- Srdjan

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by SrMi

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

44 minutes ago, darylgo said:

Jono, I love your last sentence. 

Imperfections can lead to art.  

It is OK to blow highlights intentionally, but sometimes even accidents lead to art.

[charlesphoto99]

15 minutes ago, SrMi said:

It is OK to blow highlights intentionally, but sometimes even accidents lead to art.

Truer words have never been uttered. To me the essence of the M, due primarily to the estimated rangefinder view, is finding perfection out of imperfection. 

Sometimes it's best to embrace what is, blown highlights or clipped shadows, and use them to one's best advantage. The choice of camera doesn't come into it. 

M10:

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!

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by charlesphoto99

[MikeMyers]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

You should try it if you have time and interest.

Two years ago, after avoiding it for ages, I bought an i1Display Studio.  Best investment I ever made.  My several year old ASUS display now shows what my images will look like for others using a calibrated display.  I also have an iMac 21" computer that is now used as a second display on my Mac Mini.  It gets much brighter in the daytime, as sunlight streams into my room, and it gets darker as the sun goes down.  Great for email, and miserable for image editing.  I could turn the feature off, but I try to do any serious editing on the Asus, in the evenings.  Anyway, if I review the photos in the M11 image thread, I do that in the evening, on the Asus.

 

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

I thought I would chip in here because I think you're making your life very complicated!

Certainly - learning new and different things always starts off as being complicated for me, but once it gets burned into my brain cells, the "complication" is gone.  What is most difficult is un-learning things that I find out were wrong.  

 

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

blown highlights is not directly related to dynamic range - it's to do with overexposure

An example of how I had to un-learn things that I now know are incorrect.  This discussion cured me of that mistake.

 

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

These days I would expose for the brightest part of the picture and Leave it Like That! You might be able to squeeze out another stop or so,

I've changed my mind about this as well.  When I used the trick of over-exposing by 1.7 stops, I thought that would eliminate blown highlights, but I'm no longer sure it's worth it to do so.  The image I posted earlier still had blown out highlights, as I saw in the raw tools I was trying.   I hope to take a similar photo again tonight, and do it with the M10.  I could never meter accurately before with the M10, but with the Visoflex, and Live View, I now think I can do it on the M10 just as well as I did with the D750.  It's fascinating to me to realize I can meter with the M10 just as well as with the M11, just by switching to Live View.  This is for photos on a tripod - for regular photography, I'll use the M10 just the way it came.

 

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

Sometimes it's good to blow out the histogram in both directions!

 I'll have to think on this for a while.  In the other forum, blown highlights are a "no-no".  Don't do it.  But your sample photo certainly looks beautiful.  

 

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

........with the M10 - which is not so good at highlights - have you seen this article:

https://www.slack.co.uk/m10-highlights.html

No, I hadn't seen it.  Very interesting read.  I've been mostly shooting with the M10 at ISO 100, but I intend to do the firmware update.  I set ISO 100 on the knob at the left - if nothing else, I'll change that to 200 for now.  I usually don't use auto-ISO because I want to control what the camera will do.

 

One other thing - I wanted to know what the M11 images would look like, so went through the image thread.  Some were nice, some looked "manipulated", some just looked "wrong" as in this isn't "natural".  Then I found your thread on the M11, with lots of images.  As I went through them, none looked "manipulated", and I guessed they were straight from the camera.  That alone made me feel very good about the M11.  Even the images with the sun looked "natural", despite my thinking this was impossible.  Not sure if you did this, or the camera is just so good that these "impossible" images still look natural.  None of them look "photoshopped".  I've got a LOT to learn.

[MikeMyers]

28 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Sometimes it's best to embrace what is, blown highlights or clipped shadows, and use them to one's best advantage.

Sometimes it's best to not take the photo at all, if you already know it's going to look like mistake(s).  Too many times I just give up, and walk away, if I can't find a way to do it properly.  Just my own opinion, not saying it should apply to anyone else.  For me, "do it right, or don't do it".

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

 I'll have to think on this for a while.  In the other forum, blown highlights are a "no-no".  Don't do it.  But your sample photo certainly looks beautiful.  

Blowing relevant highlights is a no-no. The photographer decides which highlights are relevant which are not. 

Not all RGB channels blow highlights at the same time. Post-processing tools reconstruct the missing data from one channel by using the data from the other channels. This can lead to changes in colors.

[MikeMyers]

56 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Some people profile their monitors and cameras, and some do not. You should try it if you have time and interest. I sometimes profile, but not because I feel it is really needed :). However, if my colors are wrong, I do not blame the camera but me. AFAIK, profiling a monitor is most important if you are printing.

What pushed me over the edge, is that I wasn't seeing other people's photos correctly, nor were they seeing my photos correctly.  I was using an iMac, with a bright screen.  What looked great to me looked ugly for everyone else, and vice versa.  For just viewing images, maybe it's no big deal, but for editing, why even bother if your screen is way off?  

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1506566-REG/x_rite_eodisstu_i1display_studio.html

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!

[jonoslack]

9 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

 

 

One other thing - I wanted to know what the M11 images would look like, so went through the image thread.  Some were nice, some looked "manipulated", some just looked "wrong" as in this isn't "natural".  Then I found your thread on the M11, with lots of images.  As I went through them, none looked "manipulated", and I guessed they were straight from the camera.  That alone made me feel very good about the M11.  Even the images with the sun looked "natural", despite my thinking this was impossible.  Not sure if you did this, or the camera is just so good that these "impossible" images still look natural.  None of them look "photoshopped".  I've got a LOT to learn.

HI There Mike

Perhaps you have a lot to 'unlearn'! All of the images were 'processed' in Lightroom, which generally meant tweaking the exposure / contrast / clarity and some work with a mask on local areas  . . . none went to photoshop as far as I can remember. . . . and I don't suppose I spent more than 2 minutes on any but a couple of them.

I find that generic 'recipes' for dealing with images never work for everything, but there are a lot of people invested in telling people how to do things (and making it very complicated). I start afresh with each image (the process begins when I take the picture). 

Worth mentioning at this point:

1. that I no longer calibrate my monitors (every time I did it they were slightly different! and it was a pain in the neck)

2. I don't use colour checkers or custom white balance (if it's wrong I sort it in Lightroom)

2. I always use sunny white balance outside (and very rarely fiddle with colours in post processing) (I do use AWB indoors in artificial light)

3. I shoot aperture priority almost exclusively

4. I always use auto ISO - normally set up with the 1/2fl shutter speed limit and a top ISO of 10000

To my mind the camera can sort out the exposure (I do actually use exposure compensation quite a bit when I know better!). The things the camera can't do very well outside is get the white balance right (especially in mixed light and shade) and choose the Aperture (and thus the depth of field). 

I hope this is helpful

best

Jono

 

 

[MikeMyers]

23 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

I hope this is helpful

 

Yes, very helpful.  That leaves me still wanting to see some images captured by the M11, with no editing.  You are showing us how the images could be created in the hands of someone as skilled as you are.   ......color balance - I've been setting my cameras to 5600K, and leaving them at that setting.    .......calibration - I suspect you're not using an iMac with a screen that changes brightness based on room lighting.    .......Auto ISO - having read your article, I want to try that.     Aperture priority - that's what I did for a long time, before I switched to Manual.

They're closed today, but I have been trying to set up an appointment to visit the Leica Store Miami, and take some photos on my own memory card with their M11.  

Thank you once agan for all your help.  You have done a wonderful job of showing us what the M11 is capable of in your VERY talented hands.  🙂

[charlesphoto99]

56 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Sometimes it's best to not take the photo at all, if you already know it's going to look like mistake(s).  Too many times I just give up, and walk away, if I can't find a way to do it properly.  Just my own opinion, not saying it should apply to anyone else.  For me, "do it right, or don't do it".

Well that flies in the face of my entire philosophy - imo, with 'free' digital files vs the cost of film, one should ALWAYS take the picture no matter what, and esp. if it's a 'moment' that can't be repeated one should push the shutter release before any other considerations (i.e. focus, exposure) as one never knows how a 'mistake' can play out in making an interesting photograph. I would also say that for a good 50% of my images I don't even look through the viewfinder - amazingly enough the camera still takes the picture! (and I know my lens angles well from years of using the same ones). It's just a dumb mechanical device and it's up to the photographer to make it 'smart.' 

[MikeMyers]

3 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

ALWAYS take the picture no matter what, and esp. if it's a 'moment' that can't be repeated one should push the shutter release before any other considerations (i.e. focus, exposure) as one never knows how a 'mistake' can play out in making an interesting photograph. I would also say that for a good 50% of my images I don't even look through the viewfinder - amazingly enough the camera still takes the picture! (and I know my lens angles well from years of using the same ones). It's just a dumb mechanical device and it's up to the photographer to make it 'smart.' 

You are much better at this than I am.  I agree about pushing the button, then thinking afterwards, but most of my photography is quite slow, trying to capture in my camera what I already have in my mind, and if I can't get it to work, I usually move on.   A lifetime ago I could do what you suggest, just aim and shoot.  I'm no longer that talented.  

I especially like the last thing you wrote.  It's up to the photographer to control the camera to get a good result.  

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I especially like the last thing you wrote.  It's up to the photographer to control the camera to get a good result.  

And the processing.  Don’t underestimate the “couple of minutes” Jono or others might spend ‘tweaking’ a result in PP.  I can assure you that it only takes seconds to dramatically change the look and feel of any pic… for better or worse…given modern camera and software tech.  Photography has never been plug and play, even using the same gear (or even the film stock). The user has always been key, not just shooting, but processing and display.
 

That said, I think you’re spending far too much time thinking about the tech side of things… camera settings, monitor calibration, etc… and not enough on determining your rendering style and recognizing it when you see it.  The workflow to get there is just mechanics, and can be easily learned with practice. Judgment and decision making.. your shooting and editing choices… are always the hardest part, and that’s either innate or improves with practice and/or feedback through coaching, workshops and the like.  

And unless one prints, phone pics can be made to look fine on a screen if one has a good eye and some basic technical skills.  But that’s another discussion.

Jeff

 

[Al Brown]

@MikeMyers If you press and hold OPTION/ALT key in Camera Raw, put your mouse over the shadows, highlights, whites or blacks slider and move it, you can see when it goes to 0 or 255 (pitch black or blown) plus some colorized values just before this happens.

Jono ended his post #44 exactly in the manner I described in my post #24.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Al Brown

[jonoslack]

Hi there

@charlesphoto99 @Jeff S

Such good comments - I'll just add something which was the result of a great deal of consideration, because I don't think that conscious intent is a very good way to do photography . . . or post processing come to that.

@MikeMyers I suspect that you are overthinking (and making yourself unhappy about it!)

 

Serendipity - Photography and Luck
 

This is something I’ve thought long and hard about. Craig Semetko does a great talk called ‘Serendipity’  Some thoughts:

 

When my father taught me photography he always used to say “Take a grab shot (just in case there is no time) and then think about the composition and exposure and take your real photo”

I took this on at the time, but over the years I’ve realised that the ‘grab shot’ is nearly always the good one, and that thinking about the lighting and composition rarely improves things. I’ve talked to lots of other photographers who feel the same way. 

The real killer is the (much too frequent) number of times when you find a component of an image which makes it really good . . . And which you don’t remember seeing at the time (that man waving in the top left hand corner or the special relationship between two diagonals etc.). 

Then I read about some work done at Imperial College about First Stage Thinking: It was done with chess masters (and they got a lot of people involved). Basically, after the opponent moved, the player wrote down their ‘instinctive’ next move within a few seconds. Then, at the end of the match, they had to evaluate which was better when they had chosen a different move after thinking about it.

The result was really startling in that in almost every case the player’s ‘instinctive’ move was the best one. So they did brain scans on the players whilst they were playing, and found that the amount of brain activity in the first 4 seconds was something like 10,000 times as much as it was subsequently. 

We are ‘fight and flight’ animals, required to respond incredibly quickly and intelligently to stimuli: If you’re being chased by a sabre-toothed tiger there really isn’t much scope for considering a good response. But the instant response is only as good as our accumulated knowledge, so that for me, playing immediately after my opponent isn’t (sadly) going to make me a better chess player. Or indeed, better at escaping from sabre-toothed tigers!

The implication with the chess research is that we have two modes of thinking ‘First Stage’ thinking, which subconsciously processes huge amounts of data (in our case all the pictures we’ve seen and taken, all the books we’ve read and all the information that our eyes are gathering about the scene in front of us). Our brain processes that information and our finger presses the shutter – it doesn’t bother with our clumsy conscious brain very much. Then (if you choose) you can allow your conscious brain slowly and clumsily to screw it all up with “second stage” thinking  before you take another picture! 

 

Of course you must have the information to process, and your brain has to have the experience to process it, so it’s not terribly useful in teaching others how to take good pictures except to tell them to practice!

All the best

Jono

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[charlesphoto99]

Great post @jonoslack It definitely lines up with my results. I would say if I come upon a scene, a good 60-75% of my keepers are from the first shot taken, 10-25% from the last, and the balance from in between while 'working it.' Most often or not, it's when I begin overthinking that the uniqueness (not to mention moment) is gone and why the first seems to work out so often. This can be anything from street to stage to landscape. 

When I was shooting band portraits, I would often tell them, okay we're done here, and then keep on shooting as they relaxed and split apart and those were often some of the better photos. Many confuse control for perfection, but it can actually sometimes be complete surrender that ends up corralling the chaos into something entirely new and unique.