Compensating for M8 exposure

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

And your comments about the Digital ISO nonsense is misdirected - I'm not involved in that OT debate!

 

Regards...

 

 

Not that nonsensical and not that OT. Some of us use external lightmeters!

[mjh]

Actually, I think you are stating that is can be a matter of degree - based on sensor characteristics!

Well, show me a sensor with a different characteristics (and, if possible, explain how it achieves this feat)! Other than, perhaps, Fuji’s SuperCCD SR, but that sensor combines the signals from two sets of pixels with different sensitivities, each behaving just like the pixels of an ordinary sensor.

 

And your comments about the Digital ISO nonsense is misdirected

It wasn’t directed specifically at you; my intention was to prevent a possible (and, within the context of the thread, quite likely) misunderstanding of my statement about the benefits of a slight underexposure.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}Because of this characteristic of any CCD or CMOS sensor used, one can improve ones chances for an optimal exposure by slightly underexposing; shadows can still be restored later, but blown highlights cannot (unless they only appear to be blown in the JPEG version). {snipped}

 

Except, of course, at high ISOs near the noise floor in shadows--which can't be restored later without a lot of post. So there is no general benefit to underexposure in that situation IMO, and in general I find it's easy enough to preserve highlights when you need to at other ISOs too. At high ISOs it's just critical to nail the exposure and make your trade-offs while shooting.

 

And on the whole, I think it's shadow response // shadow noise that make most people think the M8 is no good at ISOs above about 320 (I don't think this, BTW )

 

But other camera systems--with their slightly different metering and better noise response--are becoming easier to use...I just shot a D3 at a convention and, even though it was really a quick peak, I was pretty impressed with what I saw at ISO 6400...which really means I could miss the exposure by a country mile at ISO 1250 and still restore shadows from the RAW file (and this is true of the 1d3 too--I've been amazed by its ability to pull stuff out of the shadows, even if I still have some reservations on the look of the file itself).

 

@ GDI, yes, you have to adjust the way you shoot with the M8 from the Nikons and Canons, especially if you matrix meter; I do find the M8 to be a lot like working positive film (with better shadow response at lower ISOs) so there you go!

[gdi]

Well, show me a sensor with a different characteristics (and, if possible, explain how it achieves this feat)! Other than, perhaps, Fuji’s SuperCCD SR, but that sensor combines the signals from two sets of pixels with different sensitivities, each behaving just like the pixels of an ordinary sensor.

 

 

It wasn’t directed specifically at you; my intention was to prevent a possible (and, within the context of the thread, quite likely) misunderstanding of my statement about the benefits of a slight underexposure.

 

Obviously, I was referring to the way these characteristics manifest themselves in different sensors - thus my comment "matter of degree". But perhaps you didn't read the context of the post prior to objecting...

[gdi]

Not that nonsensical and not that OT.

 

It was your assertion that 160 = 200 ISO in the Digital World that threw me!

 

Of course I did understand that, despite the literal meaning of your statement, you meant that the M8 160 ISO equates to around 200 ISO as accepted by great majority of the world(s). So I can reconcile that and agree with your assessment that is not that nonsensical.

 

Some of us use external lightmeters!

Doesn't everyone? I think I need to try an evening walk with just an incident meter - adjusted to accommodate the M8 version of ISO values of course!

 

Regards...