Seriously considering "downgrading"

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, cozmopak said:

I may have offended some on this forum with my incendiary title.  There's zero doubt in my mind that the M11 is a beautiful camera.  But I do feel like the lack of IBIS for this high resolution sensor simply doesn't work for me.  Unless using the camera on a tripod or shooting at extremely high shutter speeds, maximizing the resolution is extremely difficult.  There are other advantages of the M11, namely the latitude of the files, but I somehow feel like the look of the M10 files are more Leica-esque.  It's difficult for me to put into words.  In any case, I've sold my M11 and will be sticking with my M10p for the time being.  I appreciate everyone's inputs!

It is a matter of training - I own no high-resolution camera, this megapixel flood makes no sense to me except for highly specialized use-  but on a film M or up to 24 MP I can easily manage ¼ sec exposures withn a 35 mm lens without photographically significant motion blur. Success rate about 75 %, so make a few exposures.

[Advertisement]

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

[hdmesa]

54 minutes ago, jaapv said:

If you use judge-and-reshoot the histogram is your friend - one of the real advantages of mirrorless is the histogram in the viewfinder.

For sure – just have to make sure there was not an important area of highlights hidden outside the right side of the histogram.

I've suggested an option for the rangefinder that would display a crude 2-dimensional histogram using very small lights – it wouldn't show height of the exposure, but it would show where it's clustering from dark to light. That would be the best of both worlds if they executed it in a way that wasn't too distracting. It could be nothing more than a vertical row of small lights on one side of the viewfinder.

[Kwesi]

1 hour ago, cozmopak said:

I may have offended some on this forum with my incendiary title.  There's zero doubt in my mind that the M11 is a beautiful camera.  But I do feel like the lack of IBIS for this high resolution sensor simply doesn't work for me.  Unless using the camera on a tripod or shooting at extremely high shutter speeds, maximizing the resolution is extremely difficult.  There are other advantages of the M11, namely the latitude of the files, but I somehow feel like the look of the M10 files are more Leica-esque.  It's difficult for me to put into words.  In any case, I've sold my M11 and will be sticking with my M10p for the time being.  I appreciate everyone's inputs!

 

I think you made the right decision but given that the M11 has been around for quite a while now I'm a bit surprised that you had to buy it to figure out the specs.

[SrMi]

19 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

For sure – just have to make sure there was not an important area of highlights hidden outside the right side of the histogram.

Highlight clipping warnings solve that issue, though they are often a bit too conservative.

[hdmesa]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Highlight clipping warnings solve that issue, though they are often a bit too conservative.

Is there a way to make highlight clipping not blink (just a red color for example) and toggle it off and on via a function button or rear LCD screen swipe? That would be super handy because yes, I can evaluate exposure with clipping warnings on, but on other cameras I have found them distracting to reviewing the rest of the image and difficult to manage.

[cozmopak]

9 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

 

I think you made the right decision but given that the M11 has been around for quite a while now I'm a bit surprised that you had to buy it to figure out the specs.

I needed to play with it to make sure.

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, cozmopak said:

I needed to play with it to make sure.

Got it! sometimes the heart wants what the heart wants. We've all been there...for me its usually lenses

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Is there a way to make highlight clipping not blink (just a red color for example) and toggle it off and on via a function button or rear LCD screen swipe? That would be super handy because yes, I can evaluate exposure with clipping warnings on, but on other cameras I have found them distracting to reviewing the rest of the image and difficult to manage.

You can enable highlights clipping in only one Info Profile. Switching between Info Profiles (button switch) enables or disables clipping warnings. Also, in LV, a shutter half-press can enable histogram and clipping warnings while holding the shutter half-pressed.

[hdmesa]

6 minutes ago, SrMi said:

You can enable highlights clipping in only one Info Profile. Switching between Info Profiles (button switch) enables or disables clipping warnings. Also, in LV, a shutter half-press can enable histogram and clipping warnings while holding the shutter half-pressed.

That makes total sense. I forgot about toggling through Info screens!

[Tailwagger]

6 hours ago, Leitz. said:

If I understand you correctly a “difficult scene” (from your samples) is where you point the camera at the sun and try to recover later in post from the shadow areas?

There are any number of scenarios that I personally would classify as difficult of which these were but a couple that randomly came to mind.  There's only so much DR, there are limits to the lengths one can go when hand holding in low light, etc...

6 hours ago, Leitz. said:

So choose the lowest ISO and a small aperture so you get enough shadow detail that you can recover later?

A failed shot from long ago.  When direct sun is involved often the point of stopping down, as was demonstrated with the first shot in the initial set of examples, was purely compositional. I suspect the estimate is wrong and this was actually shot at F16.  Something I would only do in this sort of case.  I recall the hope was for a well defined sun star that would compliment/comment on the similar shape of the weather vane.  Where the WATE succeeded above to frame the upper left corner, unfortunately the 1969 'lux 35mm didn't.  Shooting with base ISO is a habit born of an extreme distaste for digital noise and a preference for handling such things in post.  The 240 could get particularly ugly in this regard when trying to pull from shadow, when trying to preserve highlights... for instance cloud tops... which would regularly get blown with that camera if one wasn't paying attention.  Hence why some would point to the sky and half press prior to the composing or just dial in a healthy dose of negative EV to avoid the issue.

5 hours ago, Photoworks said:

Yes the with top is blown out, processing highlight recovery result in grey withs with no details or color.

Long, long time ago so I'd have to go back and check as to whether I could have recovered any detail in the ceiling or not. Doubtful, though I vaguely recall having to spend some time mucking about with the top of Dave's head to get enough contrast between it and the ceiling. Brief moment among dozens of others as the musicians came off stage for the dressing room. Shot on instinct which was rather limited when working with the M back in those days.

[Leitz.]

I’m standing outside right now. I’m at ISO100, F8 and 1/250. Meter tells me I’m exactly right. I take the photo. Nothing is clipping. The luminance histogram looks good to me. Nothing is blinking at me. I’m shooting raw. The roof is shining bright and the tree is making some deep shadows. I’ve never had an issue with the meter on my M10R. 

In difficult situations I have to “understand” the meter because I’m in this “center weighted” meter all the time and sometimes the difference between light and dark are really extreme. And so I have to make decisions usually to “expose” for the brightest part of the image. 

Sorry if I’m not using the correct terminology. I take photos but I don’t know much about all the technical terms. 

I understand the off sensor metering is more accurate and all that. I shot mirrorless before. That’s why I didn’t know anything about exposure before shooting the Leica. The camera did it for me all the time. It may not be 100% all the time correct but I’m having more fun shooting 

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 March 4, 2023 by Leitz.

[Photoworks]

11 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Long, long time ago so I'd have to go back and check as to whether I could have recovered any detail in the ceiling or not. Doubtful, though I vaguely recall having to spend some time mucking about with the top of Dave's head to get enough contrast between it and the ceiling. Brief moment among dozens of others as the musicians came off stage for the dressing room. Shot on instinct which was rather limited when working with the M back in those days.

I think only you and I see it, but most people are just going to like the image, looks good.
There have been improvments in software, it would be interesting to go back and see if modern software can recover more after do many years.

[Chaemono]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Tailwagger:

[…]Shooting with base ISO is a habit born of an extreme distaste for digital noise and a preference for handling such things in post.  The 240 could get particularly ugly in this regard when trying to pull from shadow, when trying to preserve highlights...[…]

+1. I looked at some high ISO M11 files (don’t own the camera) and the colors look amazing and they are quite malleable, don’t fall apart when pushed hard. M11 is in most ways a much better camera than M10/P (I have an M10-P) except perhaps that it produces more fringing with fast lenses wide open. 

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

I think only you and I see it...

Which is a good thing in general, though sometimes I do wonder if I'd prefer a million glances exclaiming, 'nice shot', or a dozen which spent more than a micro-second on it and concluded, 'nice try'. 

I went back and looked at the original, no hope at all... 

 

[Tailwagger]

There are folks here far more knowledgable, but hopefully I wont misstep too far on this subject.

10 hours ago, Leitz. said:

I have to “understand” the meter because I’m in this “center weighted” meter all the time and sometimes the difference between light and dark are really extreme. And so I have to make decisions usually to “expose” for the brightest part of the image. 

Correct.  By default, the earlier Ms when left to their own devices would often blow highlights, which is what folks were referring to.  High contrast, low angle sunlight where one has multiple elements of interest across the frame and some are in deep shadow, others in harsh light, are indeed a place where the photographer has to know the equipment, make a decision on how to process the final result and make an educated guess... or use the tools on offer in LV... to adjust the exposure accordingly.  As the 240/M10 had virtually zero latitude in post with highlights, dialing EV down was a typical response. If you search these pages, you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of posts mentioning that they shot these cameras at -1 or 2/3 EV by default.  My understanding is that with Canons, dunno I haven't shot one in 20 years, the issue is (or was) the opposite. They do well recovering highlights, but more easily crush detail in shadow.  The M10-R was far better then the earlier cameras and provided a modicum of ability to pull highlights when simply relying on the meter.  But personally I always dial the EV by default to -1/3 with it as a bit of a safety.  The M11 is better still, feels the most balanced solution and is more easily trusted.

There are situations you will encounter where the DR on offer exceeds the ability of the camera, hence 'difficult', assuming you care about retaining aspects of the scene's detail.  But these are not the only ones. If you venture out in the blue or yellow periods, you'll encounter all sorts of situations that add the problem of color/color noise into the mix, something your earlier pair of examples of the over head light hints at. 

The shot below hopefully suggests a little of the subtlety regarding this sort of decision making. This image was made with the SL2 when I woke up in the middle of the night and unable to sleep, noticed fog and decided to risk some shooting. The metering of any camera assumes by default that you have no interest in presenting the scene in anything other than something resembling daylight. Add to this that despite its excellent EVF, in these sorts of conditions what it presents to the eye can be very misleading.  If you examine the EXIF for this shot you'll note that I pulled EV down to -1 1/3 to ensure the sense of night time.  I also accepted a higher ISO value in this case, despite the availability of IBIS making BASE ISO a possibility, as with fog or mist the noisier nature of higher iso is a generally help, not a hinderance.  The primary subtlety/balancing act here, if any, is on the left of the frame. It would have been fairly easy under these circumstances to crush shadow or overdo the noise such that the suggestion of the church with its ghostly steep roofline was lost, something I wanted to preserve as a bookend to the buildings on the right which helps frame the central light from an oncoming car.  The other, rather lucky aspect, is that the lights did not fully blow the detail of ornamentation. While the shot clearly offers both 0 and 10, theres enough detail and gradient in between to make those values a compliment rather than a detriment. So in my view, at least from an exposure standpoint, a success, in what I would consider to be 'difficult' circumstance... especially as I was half asleep at the time. 

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!