meaningful and meaningless M upgrades

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This bickering over grown man toys is pretty ridiculous. At the end of the day, this is what can be said for any camera in the history of of photography: garbage in = garbage out. Leica makes no-one  buy anything, that's all on you. If you don't like the iterations, don't buy them. Not upgrading constantly won't make your photography any worse, and in many cases just might make it better. The M11 is a fine camera, I'm sure, and thankfully Leica already has a less expensive M line: the used market. Once the dealer holds have cleared, expect a glut of perfectly good. M10's of every variety to come onto the market. 

I just a bought a brand new M10 Monochrom yesterday from a local gentlemen who bought it new from a local dealer, never unboxed it when a trip he meant it for fell through, and stuck it in a closet. I was literally the first person to touch it, at the Starbucks we met, still factory sealed. Never registered. Crazy the money some people have for their toys. . . $7K to me, not too bad (wish it wasn't such a 'garbage' camera though, LOL). It went straight from this guys closet to skiing today, how an M should roll. 

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesphoto99]

7 minutes ago, SrMi said:

As you said: 25 years of experience. It will be included in M12 :).

Wireless electrodes? 

[charlesphoto99]

Looks like I got 93,765 shots out of my p.o.s. M10 before I traded it in for that scam M10-R Black Paint of mine. It was nothing but five years of pain and suffering, let me tell ya constantly losing that baselplate, the extra 100grams keeping me glued to the sofa, always wondering why I could only shoot at a given full quality level, and the camera not being solar powered...  

Cut to man crawling across the desert, dragging his useless M10 behind him, his sun parched eyes laser locked on the M11 oasis on the horizon (that turns out to be only a mirage, with the M11-P and M12 oasis's appearing faintly beyond.....)

[SrMi]

13 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Looks like I got 93,765 shots out of my p.o.s. M10 before I traded it in for that scam M10-R Black Paint of mine. It was nothing but five years of pain and suffering, let me tell ya constantly losing that baselplate, the extra 100grams keeping me glued to the sofa, always wondering why I could only shoot at a given full quality level, and the camera not being solar powered...  

Cut to man crawling across the desert, dragging his useless M10 behind him, his sun parched eyes laser locked on the M11 oasis on the horizon (that turns out to be only a mirage, with the M11-P and M12 oasis's appearing faintly beyond.....)

Since you are a masochist, it is time to switch to M11 with its two seconds shutter lag, batteries that last a blink of an eye, the sound that is louder than Big Ben, and the open bottom port that works as a vacuum cleaner, sucking in all dust in 2 miles radius.

[M9reno]

5 hours ago, Artin said:

You know what I am afraid off !  All this bitching and complaining will do exactly what we got after the M240.. a total insignificant next generation called the M10 

a useless knob no significant upgrade to the IQ  garbage battery life and took away features for a 4 lousy mm.  So stop bitching about crap the M11 is a fantastic camera 

How we ever survived the past five years is truly a miracle.

We were all so blind.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

So, what will the M11-P offer, apart from the traditional script and a black paint option?  I’m sure Leica is working on that right now, including resolving any problems that might have become apparent.  A non-live view model would be attractive (if a “crap” idea for some, @FlashGordonPhotography).

I don't think it's a crap idea. I wouldn't buy one, just like I haven't bought an M-D. But I like it when Leica does weird. Otherwise we wouldn't have the Monochrom. I use wide and longer lenses than the rangefinder will work with. so an EVF is really useful. But Leica can sell a camera with no EVF capability or no meter even. Some will love it.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, Artin said:

Guys think about it , I used the same metering for decades as well but let’s face it, you always had to work around something that was mediocre and inaccurate. 
now you have a much better system that works under some very difficult lighting conditions. What the heck is missing ?

I appreciate the new meter. I do.But at the same time the old centre weighted worked fine for me. I learned the meter and I have a pretty good idea bout how much to compensate looking at a scene. My base line was 2/3 under and I worked from there. The introduction of the exposure comenstaion dial on the M240 was a massive upgrade for me. My exposure were always pretty good. I shot weddings with M's for years without the need to chimp every shot.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

9 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Defensive, much?

I know you like your M11, Arthur.  And I'm very happy for you.  But, let's stick to reasonable assessment, shall we?  No, the old method is not "mediocre and inaccurate" - it's centre weighted average metering available on most cameras as an option.  Is multi-zone metering more accurate?  Sure, in some circumstances.  Is it the most accurate?  No.  Stick a grey card on the most important part of your image and spot meter it, and you'll get close to "accurate", whatever that means.

I do find this fixation on one particular method of metering curious.  A number of M iterations ago, we had a member proclaiming that the camera was "iso invariant", so metering had become irrelevant.  Any metering is a representation of what you see, which can be adjusted (to a point) in post.  To be honest, the biggest change I have found was with the TL2 and SL using exposure simulation - I didn't need to use the meter at all.

Do I like multi-zone metering?  Sure, I use it all the time on my other cameras.  But, I'm not at all convinced that I need multi-zone metering on an M in preference to centre-weighting.  I want consistency.  What I don't particularly want is the shutter open all the time on an M camera - it serves no purpose, uses battery unnecessarily, and changes the way the shutter operates.  Does it matter?  I guess not, as a number of my cameras (past and present) have had to close the shutter, then expose - on the Hasselblad 500 series, you had to then wind the shutter open again.  

But I don't like it, I think it was an unnecessary change - and now that it is out of pandora's box, there's no going back.

You can still use centre weighted metering. There's no difference in shutter lag (just a slightly longer sound) according to Leca. The battery last three times as long as the M10.

I think Leica did this now because they couldn't before. LV was too slow. Now it isn't. It's easier for Leica to omit a secondary exposure meter if possible and now they can. With the 240 and M10 they had to sort two systems in one camera. Now the M11 operated consistantly no matter whether you use live view or not.

Is it better. Not really. I had no issues with off the curtain metering. Is it easier and more consistant. Yes, it is.

Gordon

[SrMi]

13 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Defensive, much?

I know you like your M11, Arthur.  And I'm very happy for you.  But, let's stick to reasonable assessment, shall we?  No, the old method is not "mediocre and inaccurate" - it's centre weighted average metering available on most cameras as an option.  Is multi-zone metering more accurate?  Sure, in some circumstances.  Is it the most accurate?  No.  Stick a grey card on the most important part of your image and spot meter it, and you'll get close to "accurate", whatever that means.

I do find this fixation on one particular method of metering curious.  A number of M iterations ago, we had a member proclaiming that the camera was "iso invariant", so metering had become irrelevant.  Any metering is a representation of what you see, which can be adjusted (to a point) in post.  To be honest, the biggest change I have found was with the TL2 and SL using exposure simulation - I didn't need to use the meter at all.

Do I like multi-zone metering?  Sure, I use it all the time on my other cameras.  But, I'm not at all convinced that I need multi-zone metering on an M in preference to centre-weighting.  I want consistency.  What I don't particularly want is the shutter open all the time on an M camera - it serves no purpose, uses battery unnecessarily, and changes the way the shutter operates.  Does it matter?  I guess not, as a number of my cameras (past and present) have had to close the shutter, then expose - on the Hasselblad 500 series, you had to then wind the shutter open again.  

But I don't like it, I think it was an unnecessary change - and now that it is out of pandora's box, there's no going back.

According to Leica: since the metering has changed, there is more room inside. There is not much where the light can reflect. Situations where M10 would show reflections and ghost effects may be eliminated with M11.

As mentioned, you can still use spot and center-weighted metering. New is that, in rangefinder mode, you can also use multi-field metering. 

[M9reno]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

According to Leica: since the metering has changed, there is more room inside. There is not much where the light can reflect. Situations where M10 would show reflections and ghost effects may be eliminated with M11.

As mentioned, you can still use spot and center-weighted metering. New is that, in rangefinder mode, you can also use multi-field metering. 

With center-weighted metering I’ve always known what the metering “center” is (basically a circular area in the centre of the viewfinder proportional to the focal length in use, so for a 50mm roughly the area covered by the 90mm frame lines). 
 

Can I ask a newb question: on a rangefinder camera using multi-field metering through the OVF, how does the photographer know what is being measured? Is it just like an autopilot, where that kind of control is given up and one just has to trust the meter, so to speak?

[SrMi]

34 minutes ago, M9reno said:

With center-weighted metering I’ve always known what the metering “center” is (basically a circular area in the centre of the viewfinder proportional to the focal length in use, so for a 50mm roughly the area covered by the 90mm frame lines). 
 

Can I ask a newb question: on a rangefinder camera using multi-field metering through the OVF, how does the photographer know what is being measured? Is it just like an autopilot, where that kind of control is given up and one just has to trust the meter, so to speak?

Yes, all multi-field metering is a bit like an autopilot, though with experience you may be able to understand it like you do center-weighted metering. It is good to have it as an option.

[setuporg]

I feel that when using the @Tailwagger method, point at the asphalt away from the sky not to underexpose the foreground, we know what's going on.  When using zone metering, we rely on the AI to figure out where the sky is and how much of it we really care about.  That will require powerful AI, learning on your style -- are you a kind of a photographer who likes silhouettes against sunsets? -- and you'll never align with what AI wants fully.  Sure you'll get more images right but not all.  You'll never be free from worry and doubt about computer metering.

[sinjun]

Agree with this. Sometimes I find the sky interesting and want to expose for it to retain detail, other times I don't mind it being blown. I like centre-weighted metering and exposure lock, or manual shutter speed when I can set and leave in flat lighting conditions, knowing exposure will be consistent regardless of how much sky fills the field of view.

[Gobert]

I love the old style metering. If you control it, if you know what you are doing, you understand it, you hardly expose incorrectly.

[Tailwagger]

1 minute ago, setuporg said:

I feel that when using the @Tailwagger method, point at the asphalt away from the sky not to underexpose the foreground, we know what's going on.  

Ah... what...huh... who dares wake TW whilst in the middle of a pleasant dream about the M12?!? 😆

Well, actually, I do both up or down depending on which way I want to go with the exposure.  Even as an out of the closet advocate of the LVer lifestyle, I'm still primarily using center-weighted with M10-R/11, occasionally spot; almost never multi-field. After so many years shooting center-weighted I find it easier to predict the result, with or without wysiwyg. There's so much latitude in the files these days anyway, as long as you act to preserve highlights, you can pretty much get away with almost anything.

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

I feel that when using the @Tailwagger method, point at the asphalt away from the sky not to underexpose the foreground, we know what's going on.  When using zone metering, we rely on the AI to figure out where the sky is and how much of it we really care about.  That will require powerful AI, learning on your style -- are you a kind of a photographer who likes silhouettes against sunsets? -- and you'll never align with what AI wants fully.  Sure you'll get more images right but not all.  You'll never be free from worry and doubt about computer metering.

I wasn’t aware that any Leica camera does zone metering, or did you mean multi-field metering?  

I had a Gossen 1° spotmeter - once you got used to setting your zones, the meter automatically calculated zone based exposure.  It was the most reliable way of getting real blacks (zone 0), accurate greys (zones 1-9) and white (zone 10); other than incident metering, which remains top of my preferred methods - I just get too lazy to carry a meter.  

[Photoworks]

22 hours ago, setuporg said:

I feel that when using the @Tailwagger method, point at the asphalt away from the sky not to underexpose the foreground, we know what's going on.  When using zone metering, we rely on the AI to figure out where the sky is and how much of it we really care about.  That will require powerful AI, learning on your style -- are you a kind of a photographer who likes silhouettes against sunsets? -- and you'll never align with what AI wants fully.  Sure you'll get more images right but not all.  You'll never be free from worry and doubt about computer metering.

Multi metering is not even close to AI... it just more predictive metering using the full frame.

and for all the mistrusting people Multi Metering is an improvement and not a new Technology 

[setuporg]

Well SL2 chooses focus points using some kind of AI.  I don’t know what goes into multi field metering these days.  Eg would it try to detect faces to expose them properly as a priority?  Surely it’s now possible and is only a matter of time when a firmware update supports it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

29 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

Multi metering is not even close to AI... it just more predictive metering using the full frame.

and for all the mistrusting people Multi Metering is an improvement and not a new Technology 

Mistrust?  No, just preference.

Improvement?  I’d say alternative.  As you say, it’s not new.

Here’s the thing - since meters were added to cameras, we’ve had a progression.  I loved my Nikon FE/FE2/FM/FM2 cameras - they were rock solid, and I learned not to trust the meter.  I had to think about it.  When my last FM2 died a natural death from years of (ab)use, I decided I’d get an F3.  That model was long gone, and so I bought the latest version, an F5.  This was a long way from what I was expecting - built in motor-drive, shutter release on the top and bottom corner of the body, auto-focus, exposure bracketing, focus bracketing … but when it came to actually taking photos, the laws of physics still applied - light onto the emulsion.

I soon learned that just because something was technologically possible didn’t make it good, and a lot of the technology cameras had to offer got in the way.

If you use a meterless camera (a Hasselblad V series, any film M up to the M5) you need to think about exposure, and what you’re exposing for.

Like my long gone F5, some advancements are made, not because they improve the picture or the process, but because they can be made.  There are ways of getting very precise exposure readings for the image you want - they involve time, care and more than random automated multi-field assessment based on a reflective reading.

Is multi-field metering good?  Sure.  I frequently use it on my M10-D, TL2 and SL.  Careful spot metering or taking an incident reading are better.  Is multi-field metering better as a default for an M camera?  Not for me.  When looking through an optical viewfinder, I know with the old system what is being metered with reasonable accuracy.  I can’t say the same with multi-field, unless I’m using an EVF.

I’m coming to the conclusion that the M11 would be better with the EVF built in … perhaps that is the point?

Edited January 25, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[charlesphoto99]

Looking at the M11 images thread, it's become obvious that more members here would have done themselves a favor by buying monitors that can be calibrated vs a new camera body. Looks like the M11 is wearing a set of 'rose colored glasses.' I realize there aren't official Adobe etc profiles yet, but I would think one would want to at least adjust some of that tint out before posting. May as well have taken them with an iPhone, but there would go the pixel peeping and bragging rights...