A thread for discussing Black & White work

DxO PhotoLab
21

That’s a long and winding explanation of … a lightmeter is calibrated to 18% grey …

Reading the article, Leica’s metering system is based on integral measurement.

  • In case you want to mimic, set your Nikon D750 in the Custom settings menue → b5 → Center-Weighted Area → to choose from 8, 12, 15, 20 mm circle diameter or the average of the entire frame (check your manual pdf-file p.363 // printversion p.335).

I suggest to make up your mind from things you experienced / observered yourself over the years instead following “… I feel anger when I see cameras like a Nikon D800E with so many features that has nothing to do with light - because the camera then acts as a barrier in front of my eyes and take my attention away from creating the image my eyes saw.”

  • Sorry to say so, but that is simply BS. Or do you think the Visoflex (the electronic successor of the mechanical Visoflex II / III) is any different?
3 Likes
22

That may be true, but it’s essential if you want to use a long lens on a Leica rangefinder camera.

I need to read the full article before I reply…

23

Can I just add…

This article, and the rest of his site, is the biggest load of Leica advertising out there.

The man obviously has more than enough money to buy what he wants, when he wants and is a massive Leica fanboy who, it would not surprise me, gets free Leicas for the promotion he does.

@Wolfgang the quote, that you quote, is the biggest load of bunkum I have read in a long time.

As I have said many times before, my D810 is the successor to the D800 and, if you ignore the “features” and concentrate on simply measuring the light and setting the essential controls, it no more acts as a barrier than any other camera, including a Leica.

What gets in the way, IMNSHO, is any camera that interposes a digital screen in the viewfinder so you don’t get to see what’s really there, or forces you to use the rear screen for taking pictures.

And then there is another of his articles in which he espouses buying a new MacBook Pro every 18 months, just to keep up with any speed improvements that might come along; along with hundreds of external disk drives on which to store the billions of photos you are meant to be taking.

Sheesh!!! His site is one big advert for his, obviously very profitable, business.

And there I will stop because I have way to much that I could rant about his guy and this is not the right place.

24

Joanna, there’s certainly way too many features and way too many menus and way too much automated processing in today’s DSLR.

Every camera is fundamentally a light box: aperture x exposure time x sensitivity = image

I still have an original Canon 5D. It’s unbelievable how simple the menus are and how great the pictures are. Why am I not still shooting the 5D? I shoot mostly sports where cropping (lots of pixels) and low light performance are very important. In retrospect, I could have carried on with the 5D as it’s ISO 3200 pushes to 6400 and then processed in Photolab is every bit the equivalent of what the 5D III or 6D or 5DSR deliver.

Fortunately as you point out one can set the advanced functions once (usually best to turn most of them off) and set the custom buttons and organise one’s quick settings screens and my menu once. To know one’s camera well enough to set all that even once is a serious distraction. Overgaard could set up his cameras and then shoot Nikon. But Overgaard’s underlying ideas about simplicity and the essential are right on target.

There’s a push to adding serious computational photography to our ILC (HDR, panorama, etc). At that point, one will have to pay attention to the advanced functions.

25

I agree with that. I spent two hours for maybe the fourth of fifth time teaching my brother how to use his DSLR. He was way, way, way beyond lost. For Joanna, all those adjustments allow her to make the camera do what she wants. For me, it is overkill. I know very few people who know their DSLR, and many who just set it to Auto.

For this forum, I think we are part of a small group that can benefit from this complexity, and I’m not sure I really belong.

For what it is worth, my M10 seems simpler, and my M3 has three settings - focus, shutter, and aperture. Digital gets the credit or blame.

……and PL4 has the power to make things work best for almost any camera. That is my main priority to learn…

26

I guess I’m continuing the O/T, but… My camera is a Canon M50 APS/C Mirrorless. I have never owned a DSLR, just a Minolta film camera that died may years ago. Anyway for its price the M50 can take some very good photos. Although I like it’s small size & weight for carrying I really don’t like that I need to use the Touch Screen so much, especially when I can’t see it in the sun. There are very few buttons and of course not room for many. Some of the regular keys are programmable and I may look into that some. I do look with envy at all the buttons on some of the big DSLR’s!

27

But, as I have said before; I rarely use “all those adjustments”. On our cameras, Helen and I use shutter speed, aperture, ISO and exposure compensation - and that’s just about it. We don’t need anything fancy, just a straightforward, unaltered “negative”, which is what we get. But what we do need is a high resolution digital RAW image that we can work on in the “darkroom” - hence the need to spend inordinate amounts of money on overly complex cameras, just to turn off all the “bells and whistles”, to get the best possible “negative” from which we can make the best possible print.

28

well, use the camera (and lens) that is fully supported by DxO

1 Like
29

I took this to the ultimate a few years ago, buying a D2, then a D3, and considered the newest one, but for the weight. They are all far too heavy for me. So I went to B&H Photo in NYC and tried the D800, the Df, and the D750. I went home and ordered the D750, even though my heart was on the Df.

Now I’ve got the D750 and the Df. I know the D810 will give me larger images, and the D850 even larger, and if I wait, I can get the D890 with even more.

Rather than discuss this aspect, I’ll ask instead “how large is large enough”? How many megapixels do I need? 16, 24, 36, 50, 100, 1000? At what point will I need a new computer, with more memory, and larger disk space?

…and for me, making large images but not printing, how much is big enough for my purposes?

Is it important that if I take a photo of a fellow sitting on a bench, reading a newspaper, that someone could read that newspaper while viewing my image?

30

I mis-read this earlier. Wolfgang, those weren’t my thoughts, I was quoting Overgaard.

One other thing - because of his writing style, we all seem to have negative thoughts towards Mr. Overgaard. Have any of you looked at his published photographs?

To me, I tried to ignore the writing style, and to understand what he was trying to say. Much of it made sense to me. Since I’m “on holiday” for another week, I’ll have time to do so, along with reviewing his photos.

Speaking of photos, you’ve all seen many of mine, and suggested improvements. Joanna, I’ve seen many of yours, and each one was “stunning” to pick just one of my suitable words. I wish more people were posting here. I find it a huge help that when Joanna posts a suggestion, she illustrates it with an image.

(We all think differently - I very much enjoy my “holy” photo of the sky and reflection, despite the hole. Joanna and Wolfgang seem to feel that the hole ruins it. I wonder if others reading this forum even noticed the hole??)

Time to start reading what Mr. Overgaard has to say…

31

Just don’t cite somebody talking rubbish.

32

I’m sorry Mike but, no matter how nice some of his images might be, a lot of that particular article is just blatant “nothing can touch a Leica” propaganda.

Which is why I feel the Leica M9 is the camera that comes closest to not having anything in front of my eyes. And also the reason why I feel anger when I see cameras like a Nikon D800E with so many features that has nothing to do with light - because the camera then acts as a barrier in front of my eyes and take my attention away from creating the image my eyes saw.

I’ve answered this before - only if you succumb to the whizz-bangs. Even looking through a Leica viewfinder is every bit as much of a barrier in front of the eyes a decent DSLR with an optical finder.

No changing of metering methode in the Leica M9 – It is always just measuring what is

Many of us come from cameras that try to think for us and help us by automatically adjusting things. It takes a while for any new Leica M photographer to adjusts to the fact that the camera does not make a sound or signal with a green ligth on when the image is in focus. Nor does the lightmeter pretend to know what you are aiming the camera at. It simply just mesures the reflection there is.

This makes it difficult on one hand to get the right picture. On the other hand it makes it very easy to understand what the camera does and how to adjust it towards what it should be.

But what is “just what it should be”?

Maybe that is true for some of the low to mid-range cameras but, for something like your D750, you are totally free to turn off all the “intelligence” and think for yourself.

And then there’s the headline about “no changing of metering methods”. In other words, a Leica thinks it knows better than you and makes it difficult to use spot metering because Leica feel you cannot be trusted to do better than their centre-weighted metering.

The more you understand about a thing, the simpler it gets.

That’s a true enough statement but the same applies to using a Nikon D750 or D810 or D850 with all the “magic” turned off. It also applies to using a view camera with movements - as long as you understand the Scheimpflug principle :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

33

Well, I agree to some point, that with more technologies offered, the camera becomes more complex, and to really control the output the camera, one needs to understand what every mode is exactly doing. If someone does not understand those modes, they become either useless or the output is pure luck. So if ones need not all the benefits of the extra modes offered, or feels that they are needlessly complicating the control, then yes, it makes sense to have a simpler camera and less can be more. The result will most likely be better, when one fully understands the limits of the camera and one can find ways around these limitations, because of this full understanding and full control.

However, there are also clearly benefits to the development of new features and additions of many extra modes and buttons etc. If you are hired as a photographer, in a fast paced environment, where you do not have full control of the light, e.g. on a fashion runway, and you are required to deliver good quality pictures of every model and cannot risk to miss anything, then you will be thankful for all the extra modes offered that support you, that let you switch quickly from one setting to another, etc.

Most of the professional cameras meet the needs of a very specific target audience. A big percentage of photographers does not need these features in all cases, and might have never in their life seen the benefits.

There are many choices on the market and the photographers can choose according to their needs, there is no general better or worse.

1 Like
34

To add to my previous post, I must also say, that many of the newly added features in more complex cameras are not always intuitively to use and there is a lot of room for improvement. And what is intuitive to one person, might not be intuitive to the other. It depends also a lot of the background of the person, and also, with what system that person has started with, or how fast the person is willing to or able to adjust to different approaches.

For example, autofocus. I find with the current implementations, the sense of depth is lost. When I am manually changing the focus on my lens, I can see the focus plane passing slowly and get a very clear sense of depth, I can see which objects are aligned on the same depth planes. With current autofocus modes, also due to the speed of the focus, this information is lost. Also the user interface is different, instead of changing the depth, I am changing the position of the focus point on a 2D plane. So, yes, while there are obvious benefits to autofocus, like it’s speed and accuracy, there are also disadvantages, that can result in worse pictures.

Similar with different metering modes, etc. There are obvious advantages of newly added features, but they also have their caveats, and the development is luckily not stopping, and we will see more improvements, that hopefully will align the benefits of faster operation and intuitive usage.

2 Likes
35

For myself, and I think Joanna said the same thing, I prefer to buy the “BEST” camera I can, and leave 100 settings at their default value, while adjusting the ten or so settings I care about to my preference.

When I say “BEST” it’s important to note that I’m thinking what is “best” for me, not for other people. I don’t need a burst mode of 20 shots per second, as I’m more likely to take one shot in 20 seconds. I’m not a very strong person, and a camera that is too heavy for me becomes a burden. Finally, in “digital”, there are a huge number of settings that can be selected later on in my computer.

Also consider that I am now only shooting in RAW mode, so only the data from the sensor is being captured and sent to my computer. As I see it, very, very few of those hundreds of settings will have any effect at all on my raw image - if I get shutter speed, aperture, and ISO set properly, what else do I need? All those other fancy camera settings could be achieved in my computer, just as well (or maybe better) than being done by the camera’s computer.

If you accept the above reasoning, then what I probably want is the camera that will give me the very best raw file, meaning more megapixels, and anything that improves the image quality at the pixel level.

(Personally, my M10 Leica was at the top with 24 megapixels, and the newer models are going to be up to 55 megapixels - do I need more? …and while my Nikon Df “only” has 16 megapixels, my D750 has 24, while Joanna’s D810 has 36, and the upcoming D850 will probably have 50 or so - so strictly speaking, I would do “better” with the newer cameras… …BUT… if you’ve been reading the feedback I’ve been getting to improve my images, not once was anyone saying I need more megapixels - I need more of the basic understanding of how to get the most out of my images when Using PhotoLab as my editor.

1 Like
36

We all interpret things differently. I think I understand what he was trying to say (but he didn’t explain what he meant in a way that is obvious to readers). In this case, I suspect that since there is no way to change metering methods, the Leica is very consistent in how it measures light, while with other cameras there are variables (spot/center/averaging) that greatly influence the reading.

Me? I’m not going to say anything about which is “better”, but I’ll certainly say the Leica is “simpler”, and at least on my M10, very consistent - but having been used to my Nikon cameras for so long, the Leica readings were very inconsistent to me until I read about how the metering really works.

I ignore anything he writes saying the Leica is better than other cameras, but I do believe the Leica is better for him, as that’s how he wants to do things.

…my opinion - it’s difficult for me to understand how the Leica meter works while using the viewfinder, as I don’t really find out until I get the images into my computer, but I used the Visoflex this morning with my new 50mm lens, and it fit with what user “jaapv” in the Leica forum said along with his image showing the meter coverage.

…and I hate to say this, but this “digital viewfinder” which I already said I dislike compared to an “optical viewfinder” did things which I found very useful, such as instantly showing under/over exposure along with the histogram superimposed on the image. Then too, I had the function turned on that highlights the edges of anything “in focus” with red edges, and I suspect this was far more accurate than my rangefinder, since it also enlarges that area as I’m adjusting focus. All of this is optional, but I turned all these things on.

As to Mr. Overgaard, I have to concentrate on what I think he meant, and not on the words he used.

So, cut through all of this, which do I prefer, my Nikon or my Leica? My answer - “it depends”. (Where have I read that before???) For the photos I took this morning, I would say the Leica, as it felt like the loupe you showed and the ground glass with the image on it. …and my Nikon “cheats”, as it does the focusing for me. I used to struggle more with Nikon manual focus lenses. I’m going to stick with “it depends” for now.

37

see →

grafik
grafik828×680 180 KB

This 1/3 of the sensor is M-Leica’s integral metering → calibrated at 18% grey.

What you can choose from your D750 (don’t know with the DF) is the very same → 18% grey.
But instead of being stuck to the given elliptical area, you can adjust the size of the measuring field
to get a more precise reading → less guessing …

1 Like
38

Exactly!

1 - From this point of view, I can simply adjust the size of the metering field.

2 - With the Nikon, I can add even more complexity,

With the Leica, there is usually the single way to do it, (although with the Visoflex there are more, and spot metering with the Leica adds more complexity.)

For me, none of this really matters though, as everything depends on which camera I am using.

One of the experts in the Leica Forum, ‘Jaapv’, posted a very detailed image of the coverage of the meter on my M10.

This is the thread:
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/287113-leica-m10-light-meter-underexposing/

This is the image showing how the meter works:
https://cdn.l-camera-forum.com/uploads/monthly_07_2018/post-2976-0-27897900-1533049485_thumb.jpg

…and this is the image I downloaded, that I want to print out and use it as needed to understand what is being metered:

post-2976-0-27897900-1533049485
post-2976-0-27897900-1533049485834×678 38.8 KB

Most people I know just leave their Nikon or Canon on automatic and let the camera do the thinking - which is NOT the way I want to do it.

39

see → A thread for discussing Black & White work - #21 by Wolfgang

40

I’m confused, I’m not sure of what you wrote that I should look at now.

On the Leica, there is hardly any adjustment for the size of the metering field. Supposedly if I use the Visoflex and “Live View”, the camera uses a smaller part of the field. Without the Visoflex, I read it makes no difference which setting I select, center weighted or spot, the camera still does the same thing, center weighted.

I will search for a more detailed explanation on how the Leica M10 meter works. I have a rough idea, but I’d like to know more.