Dilemma with SL2-S and Noctilux 0.95

[Kostia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I received the lens this morning. I felt so happy and curious. I did a few tests at 0.95. Good tests. Good rendering on the screen. But, when I read the EXIF, all the pictures were 2 or 3 stops higher than 0.95.

I knew that sometimes the SL cameras settings play something different than your settings. So I asked the Leica Store that sold it to me. The answer was "since the aperture is fully mechanical, not even a 6-bit coded lens can transfer the aperture settings to the camera. So the camera only guesses, according to the light coming through the aperture and the info regarded the lens model, what settings were used. "

Oops ! I hadn't imagine such an issue. And I am an idiot because it is sooo logical !

I bought this lens after asking for experiences here (and on other French photo websites) : the replies were enthusiastic. Just this morning I asked - here - some more questions about which neutral filters to use...

I didn't receive any warning, and I didn't notice that all the reviews that I read all over the world and are so moved by this optic, have all put it on a....M!  So I paid for the lens (expensive as you know). 

I dont say that the pictures are bad, but they are not @ 0.95. I can't go back to a M because of my old eyes. And I sadly remember working so happily with my M and another noctilux (1.0) because I'm essentially a night photographer.

What to do ? Just cry or work with ? 🤨

Thank you for your attention.👏

[Advertisement]

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

[GFW2-SCUSA]

If I understand correctly you are concerned that the camera is not exposing at the f stop set on the lens because the EXIF is saying something different?   The f- stop you set the lens is the f stop that the image is being exposed by.  The camera is blind to the actual f stop so it can only guess and is often wrong. I think everything is okay with your lens and camera, just accept that the EXIF may or may not be correct. That is true with all M lenses on SL cameras as far as I know. 

If I'm wrong, there will be pleanty of corrections posted! 

[John McMaster]

The f0.95 draws very differently to the f1.0....

john

[Kostia]

20 minutes ago, GFW2-SCUSA said:

If I understand correctly you are concerned that the camera is not exposing at the f stop set on the lens because the EXIF is saying something different?   The f- stop you set the lens is the f stop that the image is being exposed by.  The camera is blind to the actual f stop so it can only guess and is often wrong. I think everything is okay with your lens and camera, just accept that the EXIF may or may not be correct. That is true with all M lenses on SL cameras as far as I know. 

If I'm wrong, there will be pleanty of corrections posted! 

I am now doing a few tests in an almost dark room in my house. I don't mind to get exactly 0.95, it was just a curiosity because I saw the rendering on some reviews. And because I love the Noctilux bokehs on portraits. What I need and love is the creamy background on the picture and I have it with the 0.95, on daylight or on very dark light (less in dark night). The problem is that auto iso goes very high and produces a lot of noise. Maybe I can work like that (removing the noise). I need more tests I will do tomorrow downtown at night with city lights. To be continued...

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, GFW2-SCUSA said:

If I understand correctly you are concerned that the camera is not exposing at the f stop set on the lens because the EXIF is saying something different?   The f- stop you set the lens is the f stop that the image is being exposed by.  The camera is blind to the actual f stop so it can only guess and is often wrong. I think everything is okay with your lens and camera, just accept that the EXIF may or may not be correct. That is true with all M lenses on SL cameras as far as I know. 

If I'm wrong, there will be pleanty of corrections posted! 

You are right. The aperture on the lens ring is the correct one. "Tests" are superfluous. The situation on an M camera is identical. 

[jpark114]

If your lens' physcial aperture ring is at 0.95, you are at 0.95.  Your file exif may show a different aperture value, and that's totally normal.  All M lenses, as far as I know, function that way.  Even on M, they are the same, and exif aperture values are only the estimate calculated from the difference between sensor and the sensor located on M camera (below #9).

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!

 

[Eoin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I understand correctly, you were surprised the EXIF data shows a smaller aperture then you actually had the lens set at. You also don't remember having the same issue on a F/1.0 Noctilux when shot on a M camera. You are also seeing the camera is choosing very high ISO resulting in noise.

A couple of things to unpick here,
1. using a M lens on either a SL or M body will expose the image at the physical aperture set on the lens, regardless of what the EXIF says.
2. the aperture reported in the EXIF is the camera's best guess at what it calculates the the aperture was given the other 2 elements (known shutter speed and ISO) were during the exposure.
3. I have found the M cameras seem to be more accurate in their guess, but I am not sure if this is as a result of the more simple metering mode compared to the many metering options available in the SL2-S. 
4. I am surprised you are seeing very high ISO and noise when shooting the Noctilux at f/0.95, please check that you do not have the shutter speed limit set too high (found in auto ISO settings).
 

[Kostia]

22 minutes ago, Eoin said:

If I understand correctly, you were surprised the EXIF data shows a smaller aperture then you actually had the lens set at. You also don't remember having the same issue on a F/1.0 Noctilux when shot on a M camera. You are also seeing the camera is choosing very high ISO resulting in noise.

A couple of things to unpick here,
1. using a M lens on either a SL or M body will expose the image at the physical aperture set on the lens, regardless of what the EXIF says.
2. the aperture reported in the EXIF is the camera's best guess at what it calculates the the aperture was given the other 2 elements (known shutter speed and ISO) were during the exposure.
3. I have found the M cameras seem to be more accurate in their guess, but I am not sure if this is as a result of the more simple metering mode compared to the many metering options available in the SL2-S. 
4. I am surprised you are seeing very high ISO and noise when shooting the Noctilux at f/0.95, please check that you do not have the shutter speed limit set too high (found in auto ISO settings).
 

Thank you all. I understand better now. I will check my old pictures shot with M and Noctilux 1.0 and watch the EXIF. I admit that at the time I didn't think much of it.

@Eoin : I had ISO noise because I did tests with a very hight ISO, just to check, seeking the best settings. Now it seems I have the right ones. Will see tomorrow.

@jpark144 - @jaapv  : Thank you for the explanation, I received the same from others members around the world. You are good and friendly !

I confess that I am not very good technically. I like photos that tell a story (if possible) and the rest don't really concern me.

Have fun with your cameras and lenses.

[Elliot Harper]

8 hours ago, Kostia said:

dont say that the pictures are bad, but they are not @ 0.95. I can't go back to a M because of my old eyes

What you are implying is that the lens on digital M will give you the correct aperture number in EXIF?

It amazes me that you didn’t know this for so long shooting with M cameras and even bought an exotic/expensive Noct 095😆

[Archiver]

The SL2-S is capable of excellent images up to at least ISO 6400, but your personal taste will determine what level of noise is acceptable to you. Fortunately, the SL2S files can be pushed at least 1.5 stops, so if you set the upper limit in Auto ISO to 3200 (for example) you can still shoot and underexpose, and bring the exposure up in post.

[Kostia]

8 hours ago, Elliot Harper said:

What you are implying is that the lens on digital M will give you the correct aperture number in EXIF?

It amazes me that you didn’t know this for so long shooting with M cameras and even bought an exotic/expensive Noct 095😆

What you're suggesting is that I'm not that smart? You're right 😋
I like to know but I don't like to learn.

[Kostia]

2 hours ago, Archiver said:

The SL2-S is capable of excellent images up to at least ISO 6400, but your personal taste will determine what level of noise is acceptable to you. Fortunately, the SL2S files can be pushed at least 1.5 stops, so if you set the upper limit in Auto ISO to 3200 (for example) you can still shoot and underexpose, and bring the exposure up in post.

Thanks, I heard about that.

[Hanno]

Bonjour Kostia

Congratulations on acquiring the 0.95, a beautiful and demanding lens. Heavy for most to carry long hours. A marvel for night lights though. 

I have M and SL bodies, personally I think the lens fits and can be used much better on a SL. Weight is more balanced and easier to hold for longer hours, focusing is a pleasure with the SL’s EVF. At minimal / close distance to a subject, you can focus by moving/titling forward or backward and nail focus thanks to the quality of the EVF. With the SL you also have the magnification tool for extra precision. You can get that on a M with the Visoflex 2. I am not fan of it on a M but it does the job. Lastly with the SL you also have its strongly performing Image Stabilisation, and you can easily shoot wide open at lower shutter speeds. 

In a nutshell, I wouldn’t necessarily think shooting the 0.95 on a M is a better experience than shooting it on a SL. I don’t think you are missing much, rest assured.

 

[dkCambridgeshire]

When there is no transmission of the selected lens aperture to the camera, the camera 'interpolates', i.e., makes a 'best guess' of the aperture in use . The EXIF data's 'guessed' lens aperture is thus a 'guestimate' and should not be considered accurate. If you are frequently selecting and using f0.95 whilst using medium ISO settings in 'good' light – in order to create the desired 'creamy' / 'O.O.F.' backgrounds - there could often be situations where the camera will select far too high shutter speeds for the type of subject being photographed. You might consider using a suitable  neutral density (ND) filter – thus reducing (assuming camera is in aperture  priority mode) the camera's chosen shutter speed. However, you might also consider using the live view histogram to ascertain the optimum ISO / shutter speed / aperture ... latter will be fixed at f0.95 but the ISO settings and shutter speeds can be varied to optimise the live view histogram and thus optimise the exposure ... especially if a suitable neutral density (ND) filter is used. Anyone preferring to frequently utilise the lens' f0.95 max. aperture should consider acquiring a set of high quality 'thin' (to avoid vignetting) ND filters. Working with the live view histogram will, with experience and practise, enable you to select the optimum strength ND filter in bright light conditions .... and thus avoid 'blowing the highlights'. It's not a 100% foolproof method because the histogram is based on a jpeg as distinct from a DNG image – but it will, more often than not, 'get it right' in non-extreme lighting situations. In extreme lighting, the exposure suggested by the live view histogram can be bracketed. In 'low light' conditions, ND filters are likely not required and the ISO can be adjusted to optimise the live view histogram. You appear to be very keen to keep using f0.95 – but the desired 'creamy bokeh' can also be created using f1, f1.2 and f1.4.  

[Kostia]

2 hours ago, Hanno said:

Bonjour Kostia

Congratulations on acquiring the 0.95, a beautiful and demanding lens. Heavy for most to carry long hours. A marvel for night lights though. 

I have M and SL bodies, personally I think the lens fits and can be used much better on a SL. Weight is more balanced and easier to hold for longer hours, focusing is a pleasure with the SL’s EVF. At minimal / close distance to a subject, you can focus by moving/titling forward or backward and nail focus thanks to the quality of the EVF. With the SL you also have the magnification tool for extra precision. You can get that on a M with the Visoflex 2. I am not fan of it on a M but it does the job. Lastly with the SL you also have its strongly performing Image Stabilisation, and you can easily shoot wide open at lower shutter speeds. 

In a nutshell, I wouldn’t necessarily think shooting the 0.95 on a M is a better experience than shooting it on a SL. I don’t think you are missing much, rest assured.

 

Hi,

Curiously, I have never had to complain about carrying an SL2-S and its 24-90 lens or the (fairly heavy) 0.95 at arm's length. And yet I am old. I can walk a whole day without feeling tired. I am much more tired when the whole thing is in my rucksack. When the camera is at arm's length, I am constantly observing my surroundings to take a good (?) photo and, no doubt, this concentration makes me forget the weight of the camera. Previously, I used an M and a nocti 1.0 for portraits at home and I felt much less balanced.

On the subject of the 0.95, I did some tests under identical conditions with a Jupiter 8 - 50 mm F2, which really surprised me with its bokeh capabilities at full aperture. It can be very creamy when used against fairly plain backgrounds. Of course, on foliage and shiny spots it renders different characteristics. Contrast and colour rendition are also excellent, with a density and contrast close to all our old M lenses of the past. And it costs so little on the Internet if you avoid fakes and reconstructions.

Have a nice day.

 

 

[Kostia]

1 hour ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

When there is no transmission of the selected lens aperture to the camera, the camera 'interpolates', i.e., makes a 'best guess' of the aperture in use . The EXIF data's 'guessed' lens aperture is thus a 'guestimate' and should not be considered accurate. If you are frequently selecting and using f0.95 whilst using medium ISO settings in 'good' light – in order to create the desired 'creamy' / 'O.O.F.' backgrounds - there could often be situations where the camera will select far too high shutter speeds for the type of subject being photographed. You might consider using a suitable  neutral density (ND) filter – thus reducing (assuming camera is in aperture  priority mode) the camera's chosen shutter speed. However, you might also consider using the live view histogram to ascertain the optimum ISO / shutter speed / aperture ... latter will be fixed at f0.95 but the ISO settings and shutter speeds can be varied to optimise the live view histogram and thus optimise the exposure ... especially if a suitable neutral density (ND) filter is used. Anyone preferring to frequently utilise the lens' f0.95 max. aperture should consider acquiring a set of high quality 'thin' (to avoid vignetting) ND filters. Working with the live view histogram will, with experience and practise, enable you to select the optimum strength ND filter in bright light conditions .... and thus avoid 'blowing the highlights'. It's not a 100% foolproof method because the histogram is based on a jpeg as distinct from a DNG image – but it will, more often than not, 'get it right' in non-extreme lighting situations. In extreme lighting, the exposure suggested by the live view histogram can be bracketed. In 'low light' conditions, ND filters are likely not required and the ISO can be adjusted to optimise the live view histogram. You appear to be very keen to keep using f0.95 – but the desired 'creamy bokeh' can also be created using f1, f1.2 and f1.4.  

Hi, 

Thank you for all these explanations which answer a lot of what I don't know about the subject.

During my tests, I used the ‘A’ function, then the ‘M’ function. The latter is the most logical, as the camera only works with auto ISO (which I had limited to 6400).
I also use a B+W XS PRO Vario 1-5 ND rotary filter. I need to experiment with it a bit more in bright sunlight or in bright light to get a better idea of how to use it.

I have to admit that I need to learn to read the histogram better. I have not had any professional training on the subject.

Thank you for your help.

 

[dkCambridgeshire]

38 minutes ago, Kostia said:

Hi, 

Thank you for all these explanations which answer a lot of what I don't know about the subject.

During my tests, I used the ‘A’ function, then the ‘M’ function. The latter is the most logical, as the camera only works with auto ISO (which I had limited to 6400).
I also use a B+W XS PRO Vario 1-5 ND rotary filter. I need to experiment with it a bit more in bright sunlight or in bright light to get a better idea of how to use it.

I have to admit that I need to learn to read the histogram better. I have not had any professional training on the subject.

Thank you for your help.

 

You could also check out ETTR techniques to optimise the live view histogram but they need using sensibly as they're not necessarily the answer to all exposure situations. And you could also consider use of 'graduated filters' to optimise the histogram and avoid blown highlights. There is no 'one answer'  and each difficult exposure situation needs a thorough assessment and use of whatever tools are necessary / available to create the desired live view histogram .... which may or may not look 'right' .... depending on the subject. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LacsIpstyfc

There are many other tutorials available to explain the ETTR technique. 

 

[Kostia]

8 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

You could also check out ETTR techniques to optimise the live view histogram but they need using sensibly as they're not necessarily the answer to all exposure situations. And you could also consider use of 'graduated filters' to optimise the histogram and avoid blown highlights. There is no 'one answer'  and each difficult exposure situation needs a thorough assessment and use of whatever tools are necessary / available to create the desired live view histogram .... which may or may not look 'right' .... depending on the subject. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LacsIpstyfc

There are many other tutorials available to explain the ETTR technique. 

 

8 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

You could also check out ETTR techniques to optimise the live view histogram but they need using sensibly as they're not necessarily the answer to all exposure situations. And you could also consider use of 'graduated filters' to optimise the histogram and avoid blown highlights. There is no 'one answer'  and each difficult exposure situation needs a thorough assessment and use of whatever tools are necessary / available to create the desired live view histogram .... which may or may not look 'right' .... depending on the subject. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LacsIpstyfc

There are many other tutorials available to explain the ETTR technique. 

 

Thank you very much. (Are you a member or someone else of Dpreview ?)

Edited January 29 by Kostia
finishing my question

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dkCambridgeshire]

8 hours ago, Kostia said:

 

Thank you very much. (Are you a member or someone else of Dpreview ?)

No ... I look at DP Review occasionally.   BW, dunk 

[Kostia]

In my previous answer I confused M and A mode. Or maybe I don't understand the apparently erratic operation of the camera: it doesn't respond in the same way to settings depending on whether I'm testing at home or out.

Edited January 29 by Kostia