p.4 #1 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 APO lenses are fantastic on the high resolution Leica M bodies. Have you tried any of the TTArtisan lenses like their 50/0.95?
I haven’t tried a TTArtisan. Having to calibrate them for the M rangefinder has given me pause, though I shouldn’t be so lazy I suppose.
Agree about CV APOs on the M10-R, so can’t imagine how they must look on the M10M given the insane central sharpness I saw on the Q2M. I still may flip at the last minute and get a 28 Summilix-M instead of the M10M. Leica Miami is doing 90% of retail value trade of Leica gear toward M10M (or the R) versus their regular 80% for other gear, so the M10M is a tough deal to pass up.
p.4 #2 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
airfrogusmc wrote:
I agree with almost everything except the words process was greater than the final product. For Adams the process was to get him to the final product. To consistently capture what he saw in his minds eye at the moment of exposure and getting the final print of what he saw at that moment he exposed the film.. That means controlling the entire process to get exactly what he envisioned the final print would be. That is the reason for the zone system.
Yes, he understood his pre-visualization and the interim steps to getting him where he wanted to be in the end.
In much regard, the process of the zone system, etc. is an algebra equation ... where you know the end, and have multiple variables on the other side of the equation to be figured out regarding their influence on the final product.
We have variation in available illumination, and in the subject's reflectance of that illumination (hue influenced also). That's the starting point. Combine that with the fact that not all areas of a given scene may be receiving the same levels of illumination and yes the "math" gets a bit trickier. So, knowing where / how much one might want to move things in post-capture, influences where one might want to start on the capture ... thus the "system" to aid with the math of working it backwards from the finish to the start.
All aspects of photographic luminance values are rooted in the physics and math of light. Folks don't want to do the actual math, so systems are developed f-stop, ISO, Zone, etc.
So, where lens A has different light transmission qualities from lens B (back to the OP) ... yes, the amount reaching the film plane may yield a different starting point. So, an adjustment in our capture exposure may need to be made for those variables, since there are limits (0-1) that can be reached, and the mathematic operations we have for achieving them as a final, may require more "finesse" than is typical.
The values we start with, and the manipulations to those values determine where we wind up. So, it's a math puzzle ... both conceptually, and literally. And within our realm of operations lies A + Bx + C^y = Z. Some manipulation aspects are linear (A), others are multiplication (Bx) and some are exponential (C^y). In certain regard, the processes we employ in our post-capture manipulations influence where we may want to start from, as well ... as well as how we approach / combine those operations.
For most folks, they find a combination that "works for them" and then pretty well stick to it. Sometimes, a given combination may turn out to not be ideal for everything. Since we don't all adhere to the same approach, we're gonna have variation in what works / doesn't work for different scenarios.
Long story, short ... more than one way to skin the cat.
p.4 #3 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
But still the end result for Adams the final print was the most important part of the process. The zone system is just a tool to get to the final print.
When talking math in photography most everything is based on the inverse square law of light. But again that knowledge is just a tool to get to the end result, the print.
p.4 #4 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
airfrogusmc wrote:
But still the end result for Adams the final print was the most important part of the process. The zone system is just a tool to get to the final print.
When talking math in photography most everything is based on the inverse square law of light. But again that knowledge is just a tool to get to the end result, the print.
+1 ISL, et al.
Yup, the end goal is the end goal. Everything else is part of the journey to the destination. Which tool(s) / path(s) one chooses to get there is up to them.
So, back to the OP, using the "in camera math" to pull with might not be the best solution for every scenario. And, if you are gonna use the "in camera math", you might need to make an adjustment to accommodate the exponential factor. If the pull is going to be exponential, and you're already up against the thresholds, the power of exponential math can push things over the edge. May be better to save the math for post, where you have linear, multiply and exponential tools that can be % applied. Whereas a 1 stop x^2 adjustment is rather crude by comparison ... particularly if you're playing on the edge of thresholds to begin with.
p.4 #5 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
highdesertmesa wrote:
I haven’t tried a TTArtisan. Having to calibrate them for the M rangefinder has given me pause, though I shouldn’t be so lazy I suppose.
That's the beauty of it though. You can calibrate the lens yourself (if needed) to be perfectly aligned with your body. I tried it and it was not a difficult process.
My current Voigtlander 40/1.2 is back focusing and I wish I could easily align it with the rangefinder.
p.4 #6 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
If it helps ... one might consider that different (chemical) developers worked at a different "rates", which would in turn render differently, but also would be adjusted / compensated by time & temp, etc.
So, where we have different mathematical operators applied to the base information, it essentially allows us to formulate our own "rates", much like using different developers / parameters in concert with our varying levels of capture information.
p.4 #7 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's the beauty of it though. You can calibrate the lens yourself (if needed) to be perfectly aligned with your body. I tried it and it was not a difficult process.
My current Voigtlander 40/1.2 is back focusing and I wish I could easily align it with the rangefinder.
+1
I found the 7Artisans 28/1.4 very easy to calibrate while two copies of the TTArtisan 50/1.4 (I foolishly sold the first one) didn't require calibration at all.
p.4 #8 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
highdesertmesa wrote:
I haven’t tried a TTArtisan. Having to calibrate them for the M rangefinder has given me pause, though I shouldn’t be so lazy I suppose.
Agree about CV APOs on the M10-R, so can’t imagine how they must look on the M10M given the insane central sharpness I saw on the Q2M. I still may flip at the last minute and get a 28 Summilix-M instead of the M10M. Leica Miami is doing 90% of retail value trade of Leica gear toward M10M (or the R) versus their regular 80% for other gear, so the M10M is a tough deal to pass up....Show more →
Okay. I didn't know about calibrating the TTArtisan lens, if needed. Had to look it up. I do like the option to be able to calibrate if needed. Interesting.
p.4 #9 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
I should be getting an M10-P soon and plan to test ISO 160 versus ISO 200 to see if there's any difference in DR, especially when it comes to highlight recovery. We already know that ISO 200 gives noticeably better highlight recovery than ISO 100.
p.4 #11 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
tommmi wrote:
How does M11 compare to M10, M10R and M10P on these regards?
When the M11 first came out, I immediately compared it to the M10-R for highlight recovery and found no real difference between them. (You can find the tests if you search.) I posted examples where files were overexposed by 2–3 stops and then recovered...and there was no visible difference at all. So in terms of highlight recovery, I consider the M10-R and M11 to be essentially the same at ISO 100.
The M10 and M10-P, on the other hand, offer about 1-stop less highlight recovery at ISO 100, and even when tested at ISO 200, they still don’t quite match what the M10-R and M11 can do. With the M240 series, you get even less highlight recovery capability.
p.4 #12 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
Yeah, I didn't have M240 and M11 at the same time so I couldn't have done any systematic and objective comparisons between them, but based on my feeling when reviewing old (M240) and new (M11) photos, there's clear difference between them. M240 was very easy to clip highlights and I had to expose with highlights in prior. M11 is different.
I've been using ISO 64 with fast prime lenses on bright sunny days, but I might have to reconsider my habits. I haven't actually paid peculiar attention to highlight recovery ISO 64 vs - for example - ISO 400 images, but I might in the future.
p.4 #13 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
tommmi wrote:
Yeah, I didn't have M240 and M11 at the same time so I couldn't have done any systematic and objective comparisons between them, but based on my feeling when reviewing old (M240) and new (M11) photos, there's clear difference between them. M240 was very easy to clip highlights and I had to expose with highlights in prior. M11 is different.
I've been using ISO 64 with fast prime lenses on bright sunny days, but I might have to reconsider my habits. I haven't actually paid peculiar attention to highlight recovery ISO 64 vs - for example - ISO 400 images, but I might in the future....Show more →
While highlight recovery is related to DR, it is a slightly different concept. DR refers to the full range of tones a sensor can capture from deep shadows to bright highlights at a given ISO. As ISO increases due to higher amplification, dynamic range generally decreases..
In the case of the M10 series (excluding the M10-R which has a unique sensor), the weaker highlight recovery is not just about the sensor's DR. It has more to do with the fact that their true base ISO is closer to 200. ISO 100 on those models is actually a "software pull", which reduces headroom in the highlights.
Highlight recovery is real but limited. It pulls back detail from one or two color channels, usually green, if the others are clipped. That is why the Leica Monochrom has no highlight recovery since there are no color channels to work with.
The M11, by contrast, seems to have a true base ISO of 64. That gives it more highlight headroom at its lowest ISO compared to the M10-R, which has a true base ISO of 100.
p.4 #14 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
Fred Miranda wrote:
I should be getting an M10-P soon and plan to test ISO 160 versus ISO 200 to see if there's any difference in DR, especially when it comes to highlight recovery. We already know that ISO 200 gives noticeably better highlight recovery than ISO 100.
I tried this today with my M10-P but then remembered it's not possible to set ISO 160 or anything between 100 and 200 on this camera. If I'm wrong and there's a way to do it that I haven't thought of, please let me know.
p.4 #16 · Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
Yes, I got confused because the M10-R allows intermediate ISO values between 100 and 200, while the M10 and M10-P do not.
That alone was a clue that it's a software-based pull rather than a true intermediate ISO setting.
That said, I'm getting great highlight recovery at ISO 200 based on today's tests. I usually don’t worry about blown highlights unless I'm shooting at ISO 100, since that's actually a pull from 200.
