SL3: viewfinder doesn’t match image

[LeoTheStrategist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In practice, you need to shoot with an underexposure of 2/3 - 1 stop (depending on the lens the error varies from 1/3 to 1 stop and more)  to get a correct exposure. Shooting following the indications of the exposure meter on 0, the highlights are burned and also the shadows are clearly moved in the histogram. 
Some lenses where the problem is particularly evident are the Summicrom SL 90mm and the Sigma 14mm f1.8 and even f1.4.

[jaapv]

This is simply incorrect. The exposure depends on the light distribution and dynamic range of the subject. I always shoot by the histogram and find that correct exposure varies between - 2 and +1 EV, sometimes even more. Most precise is spot metering. By using a blanket correction you handicap the dynamic range of your camera and mostly miss optimal exposure. 
The brightness of the EVF is irrelevant. As said before, it is not an exposure meter. 

[LeoTheStrategist]

…I think it is useless to continue talking about it, 'Leica is aware of the problem and is working to solve it, let's hope in the next firmware, let's hope.

[jaapv]

We’ll see. Resources are limited and likely diverted to developing an M12. A phenomenon that is a quirk rather than a bug in the SL department cannot be high on the priority list. 

[Mute-on]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

[ … ] The exposure depends on the light distribution and dynamic range of the subject. [ … ] By using a blanket correction you handicap the dynamic range of your camera and mostly miss optimal exposure. 
[ … ]

This is a fundamental. Most users do not understand the nature of simple metering (spot, centre weighted, average). I think this might be because they have historically only relied on advanced matrix metering for ‘proper’ exposure.

You need to understand the light distribution of your image area and then compensate for your intended subject or emphasis within that image area. It is up to the photographer not the camera to make this decision IMHO. That is why correct exposure varies between -2 and +1 EV in @jaapv’s experience, which is hardly surprising. 

Edited April 19 by Mute-on

[jaapv]

42 minutes ago, Mute-on said:

This is a fundamental. Most users do not understand the nature of simple metering (spot, centre weighted, average). I think this might be because they have historically only relied on advanced matrix metering for ‘proper’ exposure.

You need to understand the light distribution of your image area and then compensate for your intended subject or emphasis within that image area. It is up to the photographer not the camera to make this decision IMHO. That is why correct exposure varies between -2 and +1 EV in @jaapv’s experience, which is hardly surprising. 

I'm not saying that every snapshooter should have a grasp of the finer details of the zone system, but I do think that an understanding of the basics of exposure is essential for every serious photographer.

[Mute-on]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I'm not saying that every snapshooter should have a grasp of the finer details of the zone system, but I do think that an understanding of the basics of exposure is essential for every serious photographer.

Yes, precisely. 

[LocalHero1953]

11 hours ago, LeoTheStrategist said:

…I think it is useless to continue talking about it, 'Leica is aware of the problem and is working to solve it, let's hope in the next firmware, let's hope.

I thought you posted here because you wanted to talk about it.🤷‍♂️

[LeoTheStrategist]

@LocalHero1953 Yes, but I wanted to talk more about how Leica can leave a top-of-the-line product with a major flaw for so long without a fix solution.

As far as the problem is concerned, it doesn't seem to have been understood and it doesn't matter, the important thing is that Leica takes steps to solve it.

 

[jaapv]

Maybe because 98.7% of users do not recognise it as a major flaw?

[albireo_double]

I am experiencing the same issue with my SL3 and all my apo SL lenses. Need to underexpose almost all images. As explained before, the issue is that while the image looks correctly exposed in the EVF, it turns out a stop brighter. Normally not a huge issue as one can work around it (and the files have enough latitude to fine tune exposure in PP), but it is annoying, not least because the behaviour is inconsistent with that experienced with the zoom lenses and manual lenses used via adapters. And don't even start with the "you should use the histogram" nonsense. I didn't buy a mirrorless camera to use techniques from the age of DSLRs. I have had the SL601 and the SL2 and they did not display this annoying behaviour.

[jaapv]

Well, you know what I think about guesstimating exposure from the EVF which varies intensity by the ambient light, as does the pupil of your eye. 

[FMB]

I spot my decision to buy Sl3 till these problems were solved. I still trust in my beloved SL2 that in any case will rest in my home for years.

 

Francisco

[LeoTheStrategist]

6 hours ago, albireo_double said:

I am experiencing the same issue with my SL3 and all my apo SL lenses. Need to underexpose almost all images. As explained before, the issue is that while the image looks correctly exposed in the EVF, it turns out a stop brighter. Normally not a huge issue as one can work around it (and the files have enough latitude to fine tune exposure in PP), but it is annoying, not least because the behaviour is inconsistent with that experienced with the zoom lenses and manual lenses used via adapters. And don't even start with the "you should use the histogram" nonsense. I didn't buy a mirrorless camera to use techniques from the age of DSLRs. I have had the SL601 and the SL2 and they did not display this annoying behaviour.

Exactly, that’s precisely what I was trying to explain to those who consider it unimportant and who might even try to tell you how to expose a photograph correctly.

The previous SL series were absolutely unaffected by this issue, because this is a bug. It’s not a nice feature or a minor viewfinder inaccuracy that should be compensated by referencing this or that.

And I’ll add: it’s a serious bug, especially considering the price range of the product and the fact that more than a year has passed without a fix (and knowing Leica, who knows if or when it will be addressed).

[LocalHero1953]

34 minutes ago, LeoTheStrategist said:

And I’ll add: it’s a serious bug, especially considering the price range of the product and the fact that more than a year has passed without a fix (and knowing Leica, who knows if or when it will be addressed).

Fine. As long as you'll allow others to disagree. And you may now realise that Leica may not see it is as quite such a serious bug as you do. 

[LeoTheStrategist]

11 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Fine. As long as you'll allow others to disagree. And you may now realise that Leica may not see it is as quite such a serious bug as you do. 

Sure, everyone can think what they want, but if it were another brand, are you sure you would downplay the things that aren't going so well?

[LocalHero1953]

3 minutes ago, LeoTheStrategist said:

Sure, everyone can think what they want, but if it were another brand, are you sure you would downplay the things that aren't going so well?

There are always things that don't go well, whatever the brand, whatever the cost. It's just a question whether they stop you taking the photos you want. I don't expect perfection, even at Leica prices.

YMMV

[LeoTheStrategist]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

There are always things that don't go well, whatever the brand, whatever the cost. It's just a question whether they stop you taking the photos you want. I don't expect perfection, even at Leica prices.

YMMV

Ah, so it's okay that the problem isn't solved, it's a minor problem anyway. Interesting way of thinking...

[LocalHero1953]

35 minutes ago, LeoTheStrategist said:

Ah, so it's okay that the problem isn't solved, it's a minor problem anyway. Interesting way of thinking...

Neither okay, nor not okay - it's not my problem. But to flip back a bit: you posted a rant, took issue with those who questioned how you were encountering the problem and tried to help, then said you didn't want to talk about it.

🤷‍♂️

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Ken Abrahams]

The OP can say and do what he likes and doesn't deserve negative treatment. The issue he talks about is important and worth supporting. I had similar issues as per my post #15 and #19. This was a real issue for me and I thought I was going crazy. I wasn't prepared to post about it because it would sound as though I was crazy especially to a largely left brain members this forum. I still get the issue from time to time where the 35 Apo SL seems to expose so far to the right I put the lens away and dare not discuss it for probable user error exposed on these pages. It's quite daunting to get an obtuse difficult to diagnose camera or lens error and takes time to replicate and prove that it exists let alone face a barrage of doubters. I am at least happy that I wasn't going mad back then and the OP has at least helped my thoughts on the issue because I exhausted the possible human error factors multiple times. For me the Apo Summicron SL is a fantastic lens and perhaps I need to send it away for a check? It's too late to return the lens to the shop that sold me the second hand lens, which they told me was in top condition.