The new M8 - 2.0 Firmware is online

[Guest DuquesneG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Every mid-range and pro-spec DSLR has auto ISO. For a good reason.

 

Yes...because you can get very similar noise-free results throughout their entire range of ISOs, which in addition is at least one stop more extensive than the M8.

 

Auto-ISO on the M8 is sort of like having a seven-speed automatic transmission in a riding mower.

[Advertisement]

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

[chris_tribble]

Yes...because you can get very similar noise-free results throughout their entire range of ISOs, which in addition is at least one stop more extensive than the M8.

 

Auto-ISO on the M8 is sort of like having a seven-speed automatic transmission in a riding mower.

 

I disagree quite a lot on this - one of the things that is interesting is by limiting the range to 640 (and I'm going to experiment with 1240) I'm taking better shots (on the evidence of playing this afternoon) in marginal light than I did by having to change ISO on the fly. In mixed lighting this is going to be really useful - and again interestingly for me some of the shots at high ISO (when I wouldn't normally have gone in this direction) are really much better than they would have been if I'd stayed on eg 320...

 

And I get paid for taking photographs - so I guess I'm using the M8 professionally!

[ndjambrose]

Yes...because you can get very similar noise-free results throughout their entire range of ISOs, which in addition is at least one stop more extensive than the M8.

 

Auto-ISO on the M8 is sort of like having a seven-speed automatic transmission in a riding mower.

 

I don't follow your logic.

 

Unless you shoot only at a single ISO all the time, there are by definition multiple ISOs that you would find acceptable according to shooting circumstances. Myself, I'm quite happy up to 640 ISO in daylight, and maybe 1250 ISO in very low light.

 

So - I set 640 as my upper limit (or 1250 if I know I'm going to be somewhere dark) and have the comfort of knowing that the camera will respond to sudden changes in ambient light in order to preserve my shot. That doesn't stop me overriding it if I want to, or turning the feature off if I don't need it. What it does give me is one less thing to worry about when I'm shooting in rapid action situations where I don't have time to adjust ISO myself. And don't forget auto ISO algorithms are naturally conservative; they will always use the lowest ISO possible for a given EV.

 

Now if you don't think that's useful then either you've got bionic dexterity in your thumbs to cope with the menu, or you don't shoot in those kind of situations so you don't need it. In which case why do you even care? Here's a suggestion: just don't turn it on!

 

But otherwise, please don't include people who need and value the feature in your "we don't want auto" generalisations. Plenty of people will find it useful.

[robsteve]

I went to lunch today with my youngest son and snapped off a few pictures at 1250iso and 2500iso. This was just available light and I was shooting at f2 and the 35mm Summicron ASPH. I just did a straight Lightroom conversion and resized in Photoshop, with a little sharpen.

 

 

I think the 1250 would make a very decent 8x10 or 11x14 print. The 2500iso could be processed to make a decent print too.

 

Here is the 1250iso:

 

The 2500iso:

[gearoido]

Popup flash still doesn't work.

 

Mine does, but I can't find anyone who sells the miniature bulbs that fit it.

 

GaryO

[chris_tribble]

... an interesting demonstration that if you use the higher ISO's in half way decent light you can get BETTER results than holding on to the lower ISO value and dropping the shutter speed too low to hold sharpness.... I'm with Neil Ambrose on this - if you're shooting for a client and are not going to get a second chance, you need all the help you can get!

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went to lunch today with my youngest son and snapped off a few pictures at 1250iso and 2500iso. This was just available light and I was shooting at f2 and the 35mm Summicron ASPH. I just did a straight Lightroom conversion and resized in Photoshop, with a little sharpen.

 

 

I think the 1250 would make a very decent 8x10 or 11x14 print. The 2500iso could be processed to make a decent print too. [/img]

 

That is pretty decent light, certainly not what I would call "low-light" I just did a couple of tests too at ISO 1250 and when I gave the image robust if not excessive exposure in good light, it looked about this good. But as soon as I got into light that truly reflected why I would want to use this setting, it looked the same.

 

So I don't think there is an inprovement really, but I would now use 1250 in a do or die situation.

 

Auto ISO is great, especially considering the input limitations of the M8.

[Olsen]

Have I missed out on something? How can the high ISO performance - at 1250 - 2500 be better with the new update? New noise reduction..?

[KM-25]

There's a very small set of people who are willing to actually learn how to take photographs. We used to call those professionals, but even the profession--perhaps all professions--have been moving away from skill skill and towards production. As much as I detest that general trend, I understand it--pros need to make money, and to do so they feel they need blindingly fast AF, 21 MP, 30 frames per second, and 14TB cards. And many consumers, particularly those with money, want to look like pros. Or --as is more often the case-- consumers with money. I think we all know that the market is really not about the photography anymore.

 

If you spend too much time on internet forums, this is what you are bound to think. But if you actually talk to some of the best pros in the business, you will see you could not be more wrong.

 

Try not to make vastly blindfolded and uniformed opinions. Not everyone is the software developer by day / weekend wedding hack.

[robsteve]

That is pretty decent light, certainly not what I would call "low-light"

 

The exposure was 1/45th at f2 and 1250. What ev would that be?

 

Any dimmer and I could go to the Noctilux.

 

Robert

[Guest DuquesneG]

I'm taking better shots (on the evidence of playing this afternoon) in marginal light than I did by having to change ISO on the fly.

 

Again and again, changing ISO manually on the M8 requires taking your eye from the finder and accessing a menu, slow and clumsy. Likewise exposure compensation, but that has now been fixed...on the M8.2, but the marketing people aren't letting M8 owners have it.

 

What it does give me is one less thing to worry about when I'm shooting in rapid action situations where I don't have time to adjust ISO myself....

Now if you don't think that's useful then either you've got bionic dexterity in your thumbs to cope with the menu

 

And yet again! But thanks for illustrating my point exactly: the auto-ISO gains usefulness on account of the M8's need to look at the screen and access a menu for manual ISO change, unlike other mid and top-range cameras.

[KM-25]

The exposure was 1/45th at f2 and 1250. What ev would that be?

 

Any dimmer and I could go to the Noctilux.

 

Robert

 

It's not bright light, but it is good enough to get a decent shot in. As soon as I go to really low light, 1/20th at 1.4 or so, it looks like the same old 1250.

[Guest DuquesneG]

 

I think the 1250 would make a very decent 8x10 or 11x14 print. The 2500iso could be processed to make a decent print too.

 

 

Maybe so, but you have to cook the file like a 20-lb turkey to get it level with what comes straight out of, say, a Rebel XSi. Some people would say that belongs in the minus column for Leica.

[robsteve]

It's not bright light, but it is good enough to get a decent shot in. As soon as I go to really low light, 1/20th at 1.4 or so, it looks like the same old 1250.

 

I made some ful rez crops to get an idea of what the full file looks like. I chose an area of shadow under the table and it looks pretty good.

 

 

 

 

I will try some shots in very low light, but I don't know if I can get my son to sit still enough BTW, I found Capture One is better at the 2500iso files. It filters out some of the yellow blobs you can get in the shadows on skin tones. The images here were done in Lightroom.

 

Robert

[KM-25]

I was just surprised by some comments about AUTO ISO. On film days, you loaded your 35mm camera with a film 64, 100, 125, 200, 400... ISO depending the kind of photo you were going to take and the lighting conditions.

 

With my old Hasselblad, I have 4 backs for different films. Sometimes, I change the back for ISO reasons (which takes more time than changing ISO on a M8) or to change from B&W to color or film type.

 

This has never been a problem for me. Actually, I like to work in that way.

 

In fact, it has surprised me the fact M8 users, who are usually purist and reluctant to "auto" fonctions, are happy with this new AUTO ISO thing.

 

That's all falks

 

This is narrow minded thinking, and believe me, you are preaching to the choir here in terms of loading film in and getting to know it well and developing great technique based on positive limitations. I am almost positive I shoot more film than you, read my signature at the bottom to see why.

 

But this is not film we are talking about here, it is digital. So there are things we can do to take adavantage of that medium. In 1995, I asked Kodak / AP for auto ISO while working at a large news paper. I figured if we are no longer limited by film speed, why not employ it?

 

If the M8 had the layout of the D700, I would not use auto ISO since I don't use it on my D3 or D700 either. But we are talking about a camera that has the ISO setting buried in the menu somewhat. So auto ISO in this case not only makes a heck of a lot of sense, but also makes the camera a lot more usable in reportage and other situations.

 

For the record, I use a lot of film, I shoot a ton of Kodachrome which is very limiting but in a good way. It still smokes the M8 easily in terms of final image quality as well as far as I am concerned.

 

But to call auto ISO a gimmick on a very limited camera or imply that the shooters who use it are not creatively motivated is well, ignorant.

[robsteve]

Maybe so, but you have to cook the file like a 20-lb turkey to get it level with what comes straight out of, say, a Rebel XSi. Some people would say that belongs in the minus column for Leica.

 

That is if the rebel could produce an image sharp and in focus in low light without using the flash or focus assist light.

[ndjambrose]

And yet again! But thanks for illustrating my point exactly: the auto-ISO gains usefulness on account of the M8's need to look at the screen and access a menu for manual ISO change, unlike other mid and top-range cameras.

 

Still not getting your point. (What is your point?)

 

We all know how the M8 works. More importantly we know that short of a hardware fix (new body with external ISO button) there's no alternative to the menu. Except for the one single useful thing that could be done in firmware - which is to code and include an auto-ISO algorithm that gives people who need it the chance to use it, and the people who don't the chance to ignore it.

 

For which reason I don't understand the moaning that this feature has provoked.

[jrc]

Auto ISO is particularly useful in photo-journalistic-type work, in confusing, moving scenes where you don't have much time to set up, and the light is changing -- say, a walking or running group of people in a city, or people walking beneath trees or between buildings where there are intervals of shade and open sunlight. You can then set both the shutter speed (high enough to stop motion) and f-stop (small enough to get some depth of field) and let the ISO vary as you concentrate on focusing and shooting...I haven't loaded 2.0 yet so don't know how it works, but can you limit the ISO range to, say, 1250 or 640 or whatever, so it doesn't go straying off the top and into never-never land?

 

JC

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fotografr]

Mine does, but I can't find anyone who sells the miniature bulbs that fit it.

 

GaryO

 

I have a box of 1 dozen that I'll sell you, but they are $300/bulb and have the red dot. By the way, for those of you who still can't locate the pop-up flash, it is now a pop-down flash and is accessible by removing the base plate.

[Guest DuquesneG]

That is if the rebel could produce an image sharp and in focus in low light without using the flash or focus assist light.

 

Adjust the eyepiece correctly and put a fast prime lens on it and more people can manual-focus an XSi than can't. My eyes aren't what they were at 30, and I can easily focus a 35/2 or 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 EF lens on the Rebel in the same light level as your shot. Is it as bright and snappy as the 5D? No. But hardly impossible. And plenty of people have had issues with front or back focusing with the M8 and various lenses. This is not to belittle the advantage of a rangefinder in low light and with short focal length lenses. I own 2 M8s after all.