Computer-Mediated Metering

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I'm thinking of M11, and what's bothering me so that I've stalled upgrading from M10-R, is that the Liveview always on means computer-mediated metering.

I am not sure folks fully processed what it really means.  Talking to @Overgaard I've learned that metering can lag behind the OVF.

Think about it: are you sure that the exposure you see in OVF is what the meter sees?  Before M11, for all the time a meter existed in an M, it was direct reading off the shutter.

Now we have a computer processing the image and deciding on the best metering.  That's happening in all mirrorless cameras already.  However their EVF is also showing what the processor sees.

With the M11, for the very first time, the light path for metering goes through a CPU while your view goes through the OVF.  You cannot be sure they are metering and seeing the same thing.  That deeply bothers me.

[Advertisement]

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

[Erato]

The way that I deal with M-Series is pretty simplified, almost manually like M4 -- disarmed all features and use it as a mechanical camera. And the embedded subset of metering is just for reference to me because I often use the Gossen Starlite II to investigate the light patterns around the scene. All the exposure decision is a bit hybrid(semi-auto because the Leica M firmware is still involved). Funny how I use the Leica M is merely primitive. 

And my workflow during the post-process is almost using the same philosophy -- one-touch customized style(developed by myself), minimal retouching(if the shadow is too dim) and simply choosing, rating, and exporting the images which matched my expectation.

In other words, all the advanced features are as better-have to me. I am not sure if I am using it on the right methodology or not but maybe it's just me.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Erato

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

Now we have a computer processing the image and deciding on the best metering.  That's happening in all mirrorless cameras already.  However their EVF is also showing what the processor sees.

With the M11, for the very first time, the light path for metering goes through a CPU while your view goes through the OVF.  You cannot be sure they are metering and seeing the same thing.  That deeply bothers me.

Wait are you saying that all other camera there wouldn't a CPU involved to get exposure just because there was a sensor reading the reflected light!

Shocked ! and I taught there was mechanical magic.

selecting mechanically AUTO ISO! guessing the F-stop and including in the metadata ( that is probably mechanic, it is close but incorrect most of the time). and there a was thinking at the second light meter on top.

 

Shocked! I tell you LOL

 

don't take me serious !  I would say vote with your wallet!

[adan]

Yes, especially in multi-area mode the M11 probably has to process more data than the old-style metering.

But I doubt it makes more than a couple of microseconds difference. And the M11 does have an upgraded (faster) CPU to do it with.

Remember that M metering from the M6 on (and especially M7) required at least some "processing" to drive the various LEDs in the finder into different patterns.

>o     o     o<    1500

It was not just a simple meter-to-finder wire, it was a couple of circuit boards with several ICs and a couple of pots (shutter speed, and for calibration) on them, plus a flex cable, plus a shutter-cocked detector wire.

See image here: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/m6-metering-problem.432453/

And from the M8 on that was already replaced by the CPU for processing (why use 5 ICs if you now have one juicy CPU to handle it?). The M11 just has a fancier CPU.

Edited March 21, 2022 by adan

[ianforber]

I’m far from an expert on this but I instinctively lean towards @adan opinions above. Even if there was an issue with the exposure being slightly different/optimal to that reported in the OVF, does the available dynamic range not make it irrelevant? Or is that blasphemy?

[setuporg]

From what Thorsten has seen, current M11 metering might lag a lot from OVF.  I don't have the camera and the question is whether that's something you can see by rapidly changing field of view and measuring whether metering catches up.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

25 minutes ago, setuporg said:

From what Thorsten has seen, current M11 metering might lag a lot from OVF.  I don't have the camera and the question is whether that's something you can see by rapidly changing field of view and measuring whether metering catches up.

The metering updates in OVF "lags" (slow refresh, saving battery). I assume the proper exposure/metering is acquired when the shutter is pressed.

[aristotle]

I'd also argue that if the lighting is changing so fast that whatever microsecond or millisecond...or even second...discrepancy that may or may not exist matters, then the shot is screwed anyway.  EVF lag from a capture perspective?  Sure, that can matter.  Metering lag?  I can't think of a practical setting where this would be of concern.  

[mustafasoleiman]

Am I missing something?… the OVF does not show exposure… only the real world as it stands before us…

The little dots are just there to give an opinion on what the exposure should be plus or minus a couple of stops…

alex

Edited March 21, 2022 by mustafasoleiman

[aristotle]

2 minutes ago, mustafasoleiman said:

Am I missing something?… the OVF does not show exposure… only the real world as it stands before us…

 

alex

I don't think that you are missing anything.  The OP was concerned (I think) about the fact that there might be a discrepancy between what the user sees through the optical viewfinder at any given instant and the actual scene that was used to compute the exposure value at that same particular instant.    

[Kwesi]

22 hours ago, setuporg said:

When I'm thinking of M11, and what's bothering me so that I've stalled upgrading from M10-R, is that the Liveview always on means computer-mediated metering.

I am not sure folks fully processed what it really means.  Talking to @Overgaard I've learned that metering can lag behind the OVF.

Think about it: are you sure that the exposure you see in OVF is what the meter sees?  Before M11, for all the time a meter existed in an M, it was direct reading off the shutter.

Now we have a computer processing the image and deciding on the best metering.  That's happening in all mirrorless cameras already.  However their EVF is also showing what the processor sees.

With the M11, for the very first time, the light path for metering goes through a CPU while your view goes through the OVF.  You cannot be sure they are metering and seeing the same thing.  That deeply bothers me.

What I found watching Thorsten's last video where he claimed that the M11 was not destined to be a classic ( a very minor point in his video which got blown out of proportion) is that he has a very specific way of using an M. He then assumes that his audience also works the same way. Perhaps its because he is used to teaching.

Ive been working with the M11 since its debut and have made a point to only work in evaluative metering in rangefinder mode. I have no clue wether the readout is lagging behind the sensor or not but the results are pretty spot on.

[Stuart Richardson]

I don't think this is something that you really need to worry about, unless you are shooting in some extremely quickly moving scenario (strobes at a disco?).

Furthermore, the entire imaging chain in the camera is a series of computerized best guesses. From the initial measurement of the light energy on the sensor to the metering to the demosaicing and over into the profiles, curves assigned by whatever raw processor you are using...nothing is "real". Every ISO setting other than base ISO is a push (unless it is a dual gain sensor, but then you still have only two ISOs). If all this bothers you, then you could always dump it all for an M3. But then you are just trading silver salts and chemicals for electronics. All photography is a simulacrum. Not even our eyes are to be trusted...so just relax, pull out your camera and get on with it.

[Photoworks]

2 hours ago, setuporg said:

 I don't have the camera

that is how fake news start. oh boy!🤦‍♂️

[105012]

I think Leica should introduce a menu option for the M11:

Meter when Manual Exposure Set

...or better words. This would default to ON, and then everything is as is today (no change for any user unless they deliberately go in and change this setting).

When set to OFF by the user, and the shutter is set to a shutter speed (not A) and the ISO is set to a value (not A), then the camera does not do any metering and closes the shutter.

This would save battery, improve response time between clicking the shutter release and starting the exposure, reduce noise slightly, provide a nicer shutter sound, and also eliminate the annoying LED indications in the OVF.

When any A is set (shutter or ISO), then the mode does not apply, of course, since this is not a manual exposure.

 

[Kwesi]

2 hours ago, 105012 said:

I think Leica should introduce a menu option for the M11:

Meter when Manual Exposure Set

...or better words. This would default to ON, and then everything is as is today (no change for any user unless they deliberately go in and change this setting).

When set to OFF by the user, and the shutter is set to a shutter speed (not A) and the ISO is set to a value (not A), then the camera does not do any metering and closes the shutter.

This would save battery, improve response time between clicking the shutter release and starting the exposure, reduce noise slightly, provide a nicer shutter sound, and also eliminate the annoying LED indications in the OVF.

When any A is set (shutter or ISO), then the mode does not apply, of course, since this is not a manual exposure.

 

Interesting idea. I assume one would use an external meter. I haven’t tested the M11 meter against a handheld meter but the last M that was in sync with my Sekonic was the M9. Both the M240 and M 10 we’re off by about a stop. 

[105012]

24 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

Interesting idea. I assume one would use an external meter. I haven’t tested the M11 meter against a handheld meter but the last M that was in sync with my Sekonic was the M9. Both the M240 and M 10 we’re off by about a stop. 

You could do, but I am used to metering by eye. I am usually in exact agreement with an incident meter, but in low light can be 0.5 or 1 stop out, but not really a worry.

So this is maybe an option for photographers who really pay attention to light, but for everyone else leave it set to ON and there is no change.

It was implied above, but to be explicit, this also eliminates the clunk on turning on the M11. 

[Photoworks]

8 hours ago, 105012 said:

I think Leica should introduce a menu option for the M11:

Meter when Manual Exposure Set

...or better words. This would default to ON, and then everything is as is today (no change for any user unless they deliberately go in and change this setting).

When set to OFF by the user, and the shutter is set to a shutter speed (not A) and the ISO is set to a value (not A), then the camera does not do any metering and closes the shutter.

This would save battery, improve response time between clicking the shutter release and starting the exposure, reduce noise slightly, provide a nicer shutter sound, and also eliminate the annoying LED indications in the OVF.

When any A is set (shutter or ISO), then the mode does not apply, of course, since this is not a manual exposure.

 

you must be a film shooter!, I didn't use a lightmeeter on the M3. But most people would probably some indication like in the M6..

Leica is actually trying to move forward to a better experience and modern time.

You see, when the camera is on and you want to activate LV you can so in an instant. The new shutter is actually very responsive and there is no real delay to previews cameras. The LV experience is actually usable now in compare to M10. The in between frames blackout time is drastically reduced.

[setuporg]

So I utterly do not care about liveview on an M.  This improving that sad experience, available in any soapbox point and shoot, does nothing for me.

The fact is that for the first time we have a film (sensor) that is also a meter.  Any previous M could be considered having a different kind of film: MP with 🎞film, M9 with a Kodak CCD sensor, 240, 10, and 10-R with all different CMOS ones.  The light meter was separate.

Now, for the first time, this setup is changed by making the sensor be the meter.  It is no longer like film.  Your experience of shooting with all other Ms for metering does not apply.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

The whole process of photography itself is measuring or metering light. That's the whole idea - as it has been ever since 1826 or so.

This square micron of film, or glass plate, or metal daguerrotype plate, captures X amount of light, and returns an analog brightness reading as a silver density of Y - rinse and repeat across the 864 million square microns on a 24 x 36mm piece of film (or silicon) and that's your photograph. An analog measurement in silver of the amount of light that hits each part of the photo-sensitive material.

Ever made a darkroom print, and pre-checked the exposure for the print by making a "test strip?" Exposing a small (cheap) piece of photo paper in 5-second steps (5s, 10s, 15s, 20s) and developing it and deciding which exposure time will be best? Then make the final print at the best exposure?

https://lowesphoto.wordpress.com/helpfull-information-review/darkroom-equipment/test-stripprint/

Ever worked in a studio, where the first roll of film is processed (or a separate Polaroid Instant picture is made) to verify the lighting, before expending another 100 exposures, and hours with an expensive model, to get "the real picture?"

There is no "magic" to having to using two different light-sensing materials/devices, both taking up space in the camera, to do the same job. In fact it is wasteful of space and materials.

It has always just been a half-arsed kludge the industry used, due to the facts 1) that film can only be exposed once, and then it is fogged forever, and 2) there may be a long processing lag time to find out which correct exposure the film will reveal. So they substituted an additional device to "pretend it was the film" and come up with a suggested exposure.

A digital sensor removes that need, because it can be exposed over and over, and the exposure can be read right now.

If humans thought the argument "we've never done it this way before!" was valid - we'd be living in trees and eating food that was still wriggling.

Edited March 23, 2022 by adan

[SrMi]

5 hours ago, setuporg said:

So I utterly do not care about liveview on an M.  This improving that sad experience, available in any soapbox point and shoot, does nothing for me.

The fact is that for the first time we have a film (sensor) that is also a meter.  Any previous M could be considered having a different kind of film: MP with 🎞film, M9 with a Kodak CCD sensor, 240, 10, and 10-R with all different CMOS ones.  The light meter was separate.

Now, for the first time, this setup is changed by making the sensor be the meter.  It is no longer like film.  Your experience of shooting with all other Ms for metering does not apply.

If you select center-weighted metering in M11, you should have the same results as when shooting previous M cameras in RF mode. It should be the same as with film, and you should be able to apply the same experience.