Would you like Leica to have a "DR" mode?

[BarberShop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using Leicas for almost a year now and love them, but one thing I have found is that they are quite limited in dynamic range compared to my Fuji's. At ISO 200, the dynamic range between the two brands are very similar, however once you set the Fuji to DR400, the highlight recovery becomes very, very good. 

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!

Left is the Fujifilm X-S10 set to DR100. Right is set to DR400.

The downside to DR400 is that it requires an ISO of 640, which is a bit noisier than 200 and will require higher shutter speeds (although this is fine since Fuji goes up to 1/32000). 

The practical advantage of this is that with Fuji's you don't need to do exposure bracketing to get an image with great dynamic range. 

Would you support such a feature being added to Leica M cameras?

[Ko.Fe.]

These days DR means disaster recovery.

[Advertisement]

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

[convexferret]

You do know what the DR mode does don't you @BarberShop ? It doesn't change the sensor behaviour in any way, it just forces underexposure by two stops to protect highlights and when creating the JPEG compensates by bringing the shadows up a bit. You can do the same on your Leica easily.

[Al Brown]

Every Leica has a "DR mode". You just underexpose the DNG file by 2-2.5 stops and open the shadows while compensating for the highlights in LR/CR/C1.
The M10, M10-R and M11 have this virtually perfected.
You can check how I use the "DR mode" on my M10-R here.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Al Brown

[BarberShop]

19 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Every Leica has a "DR mode". You just underexpose the DNG file by 2-2.5 stops and open the shadows while compensating for the highlights in LR/CR/C1.
The M10, M10-R and M11 have this virtually perfected.
You can check how I use the "DR mode" on my M10-R here.

Yes I'm very experienced with underexposing the raw and pushing in post. I do this plenty.

23 minutes ago, convexferret said:

You do know what the DR mode does don't you @BarberShop ? It doesn't change the sensor behaviour in any way, it just forces underexposure by two stops to protect highlights and when creating the JPEG compensates by bringing the shadows up a bit. You can do the same on your Leica easily.

I actually also assumed that this was just something that affected the JPG's, but no, it actually affects the RAWs too. Raw files from the fuji shot with the DR400 setting literally have more highlight retention than those shot at DR100 or shot with an M10.

Just to clarify; the images in the top post are RAW files, with their exposures decreased in lightroom and then dimensions cropped for the sake of space. 

Edited March 4, 2022 by BarberShop

[convexferret]

Yes, because it adds a tag to the EXIF data in the RAW file so that Lightroom or whatever will apply a compensating curve on import. There is no more data in the RAW file than in a normal capture and you'll have noisier shadows if you play with them enough.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMO the only advantage of DR mode is that the scene LCD/EVF is brighter even though the camera is "underexposing" to preserve highlights. I do not use DR mode in cameras that offer that feature. Following the idea that Leica cameras should be simple, I am against adding a DR mode.

[davidmknoble]

Not every sensor has the same dynamic range through the camera processing and not every camera has the same metering results for the same scene.  In the old days of black and white photography, assuming the shutter speeds were essentially the same between cameras, the difference would have been the in camera metering.  If you used a hand held meter, every camera would produce the same image leaving the ONLY variable as the lens used and how good it was compared to another vendor.

We now have sensor processing differences, metering method differences and baked in DNG differences. I'm ignoring software (like Lighroom or C1) because it is like using different developers and developing times in film.  So, how do we limit the differences to compare the most important aspects of how and what we shoot?

I am surely as guilty as anyone when it comes to GAS, but with very few exceptions, I still use an average meter mode.  On the digital M leicas, till the M11, the average metering was about the same.  If I remember correctly the M8 had less area on the shutter to reflect light but the subsequent full frames were about the same, including the M10-R.  Each one had sequentially different live metering modes, but the old closed shutter reflective meter concept that began with the M6 was about the same.  

I used the Fuji X1pro and XT for about 2 years and ultimately did not like the lens rendering compared to Leica lenses.  What I did love was the 'computer technology' that produced some really nice JPEGs in so many different ways.  Yet, I later realized it was taking away from using LR or C1 to fine tune what I wanted and inside the camera, Fuji was not as good as LR or C1.

A real test here would be to use a hand-held spot meter (or incident meter) and manually set the exposure the same on both the Fuji and the Leica and then bracket.  Then compare the same exposures between cameras.  I think you will find at the same ISO and the same exposure, similar results with the lens showing different aberrations.

Just my thoughts...