Leice R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jeremy, Jul 18, 2006.

  1. On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:18:28 GMT, "jeremy" <> wrote:

    >I noticed a few changes on the Leica web site yesterday. They are now
    >touting their digital module for the R9 reflex camera.
    >
    >The thing looks like a monstrosity!
    >
    >The digital module is 10 MP--hardly anything to write home about. I can
    >certainly understand using Leica lenses on fine-grained film in order to
    >achieve superior resolution. But I am not convinced that Leica R lenses
    >used in conjunction with a 10 MP sensor supplied by Kodak is going to result
    >in a significant margin of image superiority over, say, Nikon or Canon
    >DSLRS. I like the full-frame design of the sensor, but I can only imagine
    >how much it will cost . . .
    >
    >The proof of the pudding is in the images the camera creates. I have the
    >suspicion that the results will not justify the presumed astronomical price
    >for this camera.
    >
    >http://www.leicacamera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_578.pdf
    >


    The images more than justify the price. For starters it's a full
    16bit sensor just like MF backs.

    Here good read and learn why it's so great.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995

    You don't know much about quality digital cameras do you?

    I look forward to getting the Digital-M Leica with this sensor.


    --
    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jul 20, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:21:01 GMT, "jeremy" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Chris Loffredo" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> jeremy wrote:
    >>> I noticed a few changes on the Leica web site yesterday. They are now
    >>> touting their digital module for the R9 reflex camera.
    >>>
    >>> The thing looks like a monstrosity!
    >>>
    >>> The digital module is 10 MP--hardly anything to write home about. I can
    >>> certainly understand using Leica lenses on fine-grained film in order to
    >>> achieve superior resolution. But I am not convinced that Leica R lenses
    >>> used in conjunction with a 10 MP sensor supplied by Kodak is going to
    >>> result in a significant margin of image superiority over, say, Nikon or
    >>> Canon DSLRS. I like the full-frame design of the sensor, but I can only
    >>> imagine how much it will cost . . .

    >>
    >> Full frame? More like 1.37.
    >>
    >> That said, price aside, I'd rather have it than some Canon or Nikon
    >> "technowonder"...

    >
    >I must have missed the frame size. I assumed, from the brochure, that the
    >existing Leica lenses could continue to be used without change.
    >
    >That adds even another reason not to buy it--your lenses have one focal
    >length when used with film, and other effective focal lengths when used with
    >the digital insert. It's like having two completely different camera
    >systems.
    >
    >Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would buy
    >such a camera system?
    >


    Only non-MF back system with true 16bit color for starters.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995


    --
    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jul 20, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. jeremy

    jeremy Guest

    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    >
    > You don't know much about quality digital cameras do you?
    >


    Please pardon my ignorance and lack of sophistication. I defer to your
    obviously-superior intellect.

    Forgive me!
     
    jeremy, Jul 20, 2006
    #43
  4. Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    "Volker Hetzer" <> wrote in message
    news:e9nte2$vos$-siemens.com...
    > acl schrieb:
    >> This problem that people seem to have with digital cameras being
    >> obsoleted very quickly seems to me to be a problem of perception (at
    >> least nowadays): they don't like it that something better is out.

    > I think that problem would have existed, if there had been room for
    > improvement in film cameras.
    > But, resolution was more or less film based, so no scramble for the
    > latest sensor and optical "revolutions" were limited to zooms.
    >
    > No one thought about putting a tape recorder in for taking notes for
    > instance, there was no slr with polaroid preview, no 8mm movie mode,
    > you couldn't stuff in a hundred yards of film into an extralarge
    > magazine and no prepackaged bags for the lab ever dropped out of
    > any film camera either.
    > Therefore, after auto exposure there was essentially no need for
    > new film cameras anymore, only for the occasional lens replacement.
    >
    > But digital cameras have acquired all those features over time and will
    > acquire many more, therefore people will switch more often.


    Yes. And the problem is, none of these features represent quality of either
    materials, or manufacture. Only quantity of bells and whistles. Kind of like
    the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevrolet. They are both cheap
    tanks, but one has a lot more switches and electrically operated auxiliary
    junk and chrome plating, most of which just makes it less reliable, and none
    of which makes it better able to do its job of getting you from one place to
    another. In the same way, the latest digital camera is full of auxiliary
    junk, but not able to get you a better photograph. If you have adequate
    sensing plane density, and the best glass available, then that's all you
    need for great pictures....The rest is up to you.
     
    William Graham, Jul 20, 2006
    #44
  5. Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    acl schrieb:

    > Actually, I don't think we disagree at all! I never said nobody should
    > upgrade. My point was that it is hardly logical to complain that cameras
    > improve too quickly, since you can simply pretend they don't. But the
    > fact that they do improve is, if you ask me, a good thing.

    I fully agree. :)

    Lots of Greetings!
    Volker
    --
    For email replies, please substitute the obvious.
     
    Volker Hetzer, Jul 21, 2006
    #45
  6. In article <>,
    acl <> wrote:
    >Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
    >Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
    >bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
    >this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
    >(obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
    >explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
    >with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
    >wanted to take pictures, as he put it.


    When I put a maunal focus lens on my D1 (and I think that the D200 is not
    that different), metering to center-weighted and exposure to manual
    then it is basically the same as an F.

    Yes, the D1 has more features, and you either have to read the manual
    or get somebody else to set it up for you, but in the end it can be
    made to work like an old mechnical SLR.

    Now the thing that strikes me as odd is pointing the camera towards a
    bright area. There is no Nikon that works like that. An F will
    underexpose just as bad as a D200.

    The only way to make that work is to dial in 2.5 stops of exposure
    compensation. With the exposure compensation and a spotmetering, it a
    good technique.

    Maybe the Leica did the compensation as standard, but that would be a
    difference between Nikon and Leica and not between old and new.

    >More evidence of what happens when people who don't know what they are
    >doing get hold of a DSLR and try to use it may be found by reading some
    >of the questions in this group, as well as going to dpreview and
    >reading some of the questions in the forums (this only works for a
    >laugh, if you try to help anybody you'll quickly discover that you're
    >wasting your time). eg shooting sports matches with spotmetering and
    >shutter priority is a recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're
    >doing. Older cameras protect you from this by not offering spot
    >metering or shutter priority.


    The funny thing is that people and not going to buy a D200-lite without
    those features. I don't really care for matrix metering or shutter priority.
    But having a spot meter is quite an improvement.

    >Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
    >feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
    >equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.


    People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 21, 2006
    #46
  7. Philip Homburg wrote:

    >> Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
    >> feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
    >> equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

    >
    > People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.
    >
    >


    Oh, please!

    O.k., I won't bet that 100% of D200s will be unusable in 50 years, but I
    will bet that 99% of them will be.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jul 21, 2006
    #47
  8. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    news:6t4qq59vpgerbkr5qmo027sng2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    > In article <>,
    > acl <> wrote:
    >>Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
    >>Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
    >>bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
    >>this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
    >>(obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
    >>explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
    >>with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
    >>wanted to take pictures, as he put it.

    >
    > When I put a maunal focus lens on my D1 (and I think that the D200 is not
    > that different), metering to center-weighted and exposure to manual
    > then it is basically the same as an F.
    >
    > Yes, the D1 has more features, and you either have to read the manual
    > or get somebody else to set it up for you, but in the end it can be
    > made to work like an old mechnical SLR.
    >
    > Now the thing that strikes me as odd is pointing the camera towards a
    > bright area. There is no Nikon that works like that. An F will
    > underexpose just as bad as a D200.
    >
    > The only way to make that work is to dial in 2.5 stops of exposure
    > compensation. With the exposure compensation and a spotmetering, it a
    > good technique.
    >
    > Maybe the Leica did the compensation as standard, but that would be a
    > difference between Nikon and Leica and not between old and new.
    >
    >>More evidence of what happens when people who don't know what they are
    >>doing get hold of a DSLR and try to use it may be found by reading some
    >>of the questions in this group, as well as going to dpreview and
    >>reading some of the questions in the forums (this only works for a
    >>laugh, if you try to help anybody you'll quickly discover that you're
    >>wasting your time). eg shooting sports matches with spotmetering and
    >>shutter priority is a recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're
    >>doing. Older cameras protect you from this by not offering spot
    >>metering or shutter priority.

    >
    > The funny thing is that people and not going to buy a D200-lite without
    > those features. I don't really care for matrix metering or shutter
    > priority.
    > But having a spot meter is quite an improvement.
    >
    >>Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
    >>feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
    >>equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

    >
    > People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.
    >


    I fail to understand the above problem. If you have a digital camera, you
    can take an unlimited number of exposures at a variety of times and ISO
    settings, until you get the image you like in the LCD display...Why would
    you need any meter at all, much less an accurate one?
     
    William Graham, Jul 21, 2006
    #48
  9. In article <>,
    Chris Loffredo <> wrote:
    >Philip Homburg wrote:
    >>> Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
    >>> feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
    >>> equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

    >>
    >> People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.

    >
    >Oh, please!
    >
    >O.k., I won't bet that 100% of D200s will be unusable in 50 years, but I
    >will bet that 99% of them will be.


    That's why in 50 years a working D200 will be special.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 21, 2006
    #49
  10. In article <>,
    William Graham <> wrote:
    >I fail to understand the above problem. If you have a digital camera, you
    >can take an unlimited number of exposures at a variety of times and ISO
    >settings, until you get the image you like in the LCD display...Why would
    >you need any meter at all, much less an accurate one?


    Because an LCD display is not a very good way to judge exposure. To some
    extent this is just a software. A histogram is a very cude tool. Usually
    histrograms are not calibrated in stops, so you can't easily use the
    histogram to determine exposure corrections.

    Another thing is that people are usually in a hurry. You don't want to
    take an endless series of photos to get the exposure right, then take
    a series to get focus right. Then the light has changed or the subject has
    moved. And in the end you have nothing.

    Yet another thing is that reviewing photos on an LCD screen is distracting.
    With a good camera you can have one eye constantly on whatever is happening,
    and use the other the check whether all settings are still correct.
    Once you start using a screen to evalute a picture, it is almost impossible
    remain concentrated on what is happing around you (and ready to take the
    next picture).


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 21, 2006
    #50
  11. jeremy

    Guest

    Philip Homburg wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > acl <> wrote:
    > >Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
    > >Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
    > >bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
    > >this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
    > >(obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
    > >explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
    > >with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
    > >wanted to take pictures, as he put it.

    >
    > When I put a maunal focus lens on my D1 (and I think that the D200 is not
    > that different), metering to center-weighted and exposure to manual
    > then it is basically the same as an F.
    >
    > Yes, the D1 has more features, and you either have to read the manual
    > or get somebody else to set it up for you, but in the end it can be
    > made to work like an old mechnical SLR.
    >
    > Now the thing that strikes me as odd is pointing the camera towards a
    > bright area. There is no Nikon that works like that. An F will
    > underexpose just as bad as a D200.
    >


    I was being ironic when I described his technique like I did. Perhaps
    it was not as obvious as I thought.


    > The only way to make that work is to dial in 2.5 stops of exposure
    > compensation. With the exposure compensation and a spotmetering, it a
    > good technique.
    >
    > Maybe the Leica did the compensation as standard, but that would be a
    > difference between Nikon and Leica and not between old and new.
    >


    Well since you seem to enjoy this kind of thing, the amount of exposure
    compensation will depend on whether you use spot metering or
    centreweighted (and if centreweighted, its distribution), the
    reflectivity of the point you measured from, and the postprocessing
    workflow (with my usual, anything above around 2 stops from metered
    will end up burned).

    However, this was not at all my point, and please do realise that this
    last paragraph is a kind of joke (probably incrompehensible in this
    text-only medium).

    For completeness, he basically told me that his metering is just
    pointing the camera, framing, metering and shooting. The exception was
    if there was a light source in the frame whence he pointed the camera
    to some other direction (with similar lighting), locked exposure,
    recomposed and shot. What he refused to accept is that the most
    accurate technique is not to spotmeter off the thing you want
    well-exposed. Notions of reflectivity and placement within the dynamic
    range of the camera were irrelevant to him. Since his method had worked
    with his expensive Leicas for many years, he did not see why a cheap
    DSLR should not work.


    > >wasting your time). eg shooting sports matches with spotmetering and
    > >shutter priority is a recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're
    > >doing. Older cameras protect you from this by not offering spot
    > >metering or shutter priority.

    >
    > The funny thing is that people and not going to buy a D200-lite without
    > those features. I don't really care for matrix metering or shutter priority.
    > But having a spot meter is quite an improvement.


    Actually, a few days ago I tested my D200's matrix metering (by
    comparing it to my usual technique which is spotmetering from
    highlights and 2 stops of compensation). I was quite surprised, as in
    most cases it chose the same exposure I would have. I think that if I
    could overcome the psychological obstacle (insecurity because of lack
    of control) I'd just use aperture priority and matrix most of the time.

    >
    > >Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
    > >feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
    > >equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

    >
    > People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.
    >


    Yes, in this case I think I should have specified that the reason is
    that the XD7 was my first SLR, rather than any intrinsic ability of the
    XD7 to evoke feelings of love. My mistake.
     
    , Jul 21, 2006
    #51
  12. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    news:07ki4co3lp39s16cohrscmha20@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    > In article <>,
    > William Graham <> wrote:
    >>I fail to understand the above problem. If you have a digital camera, you
    >>can take an unlimited number of exposures at a variety of times and ISO
    >>settings, until you get the image you like in the LCD display...Why would
    >>you need any meter at all, much less an accurate one?

    >
    > Because an LCD display is not a very good way to judge exposure. To some
    > extent this is just a software. A histogram is a very cude tool. Usually
    > histrograms are not calibrated in stops, so you can't easily use the
    > histogram to determine exposure corrections.
    >
    > Another thing is that people are usually in a hurry. You don't want to
    > take an endless series of photos to get the exposure right, then take
    > a series to get focus right. Then the light has changed or the subject has
    > moved. And in the end you have nothing.
    >
    > Yet another thing is that reviewing photos on an LCD screen is
    > distracting.
    > With a good camera you can have one eye constantly on whatever is
    > happening,
    > and use the other the check whether all settings are still correct.
    > Once you start using a screen to evalute a picture, it is almost
    > impossible
    > remain concentrated on what is happing around you (and ready to take the
    > next picture).
    >

    While all of what you say is true, the fact remains that I shoot slide film,
    which is supposed to have a small dynamic range, and yet I find that the
    camera's meter generally gives me acceptable results. - (I scan the slides
    into Photoshop 7 and can make any minor adjustments there) If I had a
    digital camera, I could observe the results immediately, and be sure of
    getting (at least) in the ball park, and well within the range of
    Photoshop's compensation capabilities. Not that there is anything wrong with
    being "right on the money" with the first shot, by any means.....It's just
    that I wouldn't sweat it too much.......
     
    William Graham, Jul 21, 2006
    #52
  13. jeremy

    John Francis Guest

    In article <07ki4co3lp39s16cohrscmha20@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
    Philip Homburg <> wrote:
    >In article <>,
    >William Graham <> wrote:
    >>I fail to understand the above problem. If you have a digital camera, you
    >>can take an unlimited number of exposures at a variety of times and ISO
    >>settings, until you get the image you like in the LCD display...Why would
    >>you need any meter at all, much less an accurate one?

    >
    >Because an LCD display is not a very good way to judge exposure. To some
    >extent this is just a software. A histogram is a very cude tool. Usually
    >histrograms are not calibrated in stops, so you can't easily use the
    >histogram to determine exposure corrections.


    Most histograms I've seen have been linear in sensor values, not stops.
    So one stop down is half way across the histogram, while half a stop
    would be at 70% - close enough to three quarters for most purposes.
    It's easy enough to get the exposure correction to the tolerance and
    range of most exposure compensation adjustments, under all but the
    most unusual lighting situations. And in those cases I'll normally
    spot meter and adjust appropriately.
     
    John Francis, Jul 21, 2006
    #53
  14. In article <>,
    William Graham <> wrote:
    >While all of what you say is true, the fact remains that I shoot slide film,
    >which is supposed to have a small dynamic range, and yet I find that the
    >camera's meter generally gives me acceptable results. - (I scan the slides
    >into Photoshop 7 and can make any minor adjustments there) If I had a
    >digital camera, I could observe the results immediately, and be sure of
    >getting (at least) in the ball park, and well within the range of
    >Photoshop's compensation capabilities. Not that there is anything wrong with
    >being "right on the money" with the first shot, by any means.....It's just
    >that I wouldn't sweat it too much.......


    I don't how will be with people who grow up with digital cameras, but I
    only review pictures on my camera when there is nothing better to do
    or when I suppect that something might go wrong.

    Usually I treat my digital camera like a film SLR and rely on the lightmeter
    and experience to get it right.

    My experience with video (which in theory also has that review capability)
    suggest that getting it the first time is very important. Every extra
    shot simply increases the chances that something will go wrong and that
    you won't get the shot you want.

    In my experience, the tricky part about slides is that often the subject
    contrast is larger than what the slide can handle. When the contrast is
    low enough to fit, finding the right exposure is no big deal. When I expect
    to contrast to be too big, I just bring print film.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 21, 2006
    #54
  15. jeremy

    acl Guest

    John Francis wrote:
    > Most histograms I've seen have been linear in sensor values, not stops.
    > So one stop down is half way across the histogram, while half a stop
    > would be at 70% - close enough to three quarters for most purposes.
    > It's easy enough to get the exposure correction to the tolerance and
    > range of most exposure compensation adjustments, under all but the
    > most unusual lighting situations. And in those cases I'll normally
    > spot meter and adjust appropriately.


    Where did you see these histograms that are linear? In cameras? In all
    the cameras I've seen, the histograms are from jpegs made by the
    camera. This is true even if you are shooting raw. So it's not linear,
    and the exact scale of the x-axis depends on camera settings such as
    contrast, saturation etc (even if you are shooting raw, these do affect
    the histogram; try it if you don't believe me, it's most visible in
    cameras with separate channel histograms).
     
    acl, Jul 21, 2006
    #55
  16. In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >Well since you seem to enjoy this kind of thing, the amount of exposure
    >compensation will depend on whether you use spot metering or
    >centreweighted (and if centreweighted, its distribution), the
    >reflectivity of the point you measured from, and the postprocessing
    >workflow (with my usual, anything above around 2 stops from metered
    >will end up burned).


    Except for the reflectivity of the point you are measuring (which is
    more less irrelevant if you are exposing for the highlights), I agree.

    >For completeness, he basically told me that his metering is just
    >pointing the camera, framing, metering and shooting. The exception was
    >if there was a light source in the frame whence he pointed the camera
    >to some other direction (with similar lighting), locked exposure,
    >recomposed and shot.


    That sounds like something that might work. But it will work both with
    old and with modern cameras.

    >What he refused to accept is that the most
    >accurate technique is not to spotmeter off the thing you want
    >well-exposed. Notions of reflectivity and placement within the dynamic
    >range of the camera were irrelevant to him. Since his method had worked
    >with his expensive Leicas for many years, he did not see why a cheap
    >DSLR should not work.


    Are you sure that he is using a spotmeter? What you describe sounds like
    something that works well with center-weighted.

    >Actually, a few days ago I tested my D200's matrix metering (by
    >comparing it to my usual technique which is spotmetering from
    >highlights and 2 stops of compensation). I was quite surprised, as in
    >most cases it chose the same exposure I would have. I think that if I
    >could overcome the psychological obstacle (insecurity because of lack
    >of control) I'd just use aperture priority and matrix most of the time.


    The problem I have with that kind of automation (whether matrix metering
    or advanced AF systems) is that it takes a lot of experience to know when
    the system doesn't work. Usually it works, but when do you find out that
    the system got confused? When it is too late?

    >> People will, when the D200 is, say, 50 years old.

    >
    >Yes, in this case I think I should have specified that the reason is
    >that the XD7 was my first SLR, rather than any intrinsic ability of the
    >XD7 to evoke feelings of love. My mistake.


    That's why I wrote 'people will' and not 'you will'.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 21, 2006
    #56
  17. jeremy

    acl Guest

    Philip Homburg wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    > >For completeness, he basically told me that his metering is just
    > >pointing the camera, framing, metering and shooting. The exception was
    > >if there was a light source in the frame whence he pointed the camera
    > >to some other direction (with similar lighting), locked exposure,
    > >recomposed and shot.

    >
    > That sounds like something that might work. But it will work both with
    > old and with modern cameras.
    >


    Sure it will, unless you're using spotmetering, as he was. To be clear,
    I wasn't saying that modern cameras necessarily need more knowledge
    than old, just that they potentially need more.

    > >What he refused to accept is that the most
    > >accurate technique is not to spotmeter off the thing you want
    > >well-exposed. Notions of reflectivity and placement within the dynamic
    > >range of the camera were irrelevant to him. Since his method had worked
    > >with his expensive Leicas for many years, he did not see why a cheap
    > >DSLR should not work.

    >
    > Are you sure that he is using a spotmeter? What you describe sounds like
    > something that works well with center-weighted.
    >


    Yes, that is my point, it works reasonably well with centreweighted (if
    the dynamic range of the camera is enough and the scene not too low or
    high key) but not with spotmetering. Actually, I'll try to find the
    thread later so you can enjoy it for yourself if you have a spare ten
    minutes, as it must sound pretty incredible when I describe it.

    > >Actually, a few days ago I tested my D200's matrix metering (by
    > >comparing it to my usual technique which is spotmetering from
    > >highlights and 2 stops of compensation). I was quite surprised, as in
    > >most cases it chose the same exposure I would have. I think that if I
    > >could overcome the psychological obstacle (insecurity because of lack
    > >of control) I'd just use aperture priority and matrix most of the time.

    >
    > The problem I have with that kind of automation (whether matrix metering
    > or advanced AF systems) is that it takes a lot of experience to know when
    > the system doesn't work. Usually it works, but when do you find out that
    > the system got confused? When it is too late?
    >


    I guess that is really the reason I don't use matrix metering (I tried
    but compulsively checked the histograms after each shot). But how does
    this apply to AF? I've never had a problem with placing the AF point on
    the object I want in focus and locking focus there. This is because, in
    contrast to metering, once I decide which point in the frame I should
    focus on, there is precisely one correct focus setting (within the
    system's tolerances, to preempt correction), and all AF systems I've
    seen can find it (at least, better than my eyes can).

    Or are you only talking about systems which also select which focus
    point to use automatically?
     
    acl, Jul 21, 2006
    #57
  18. jeremy

    Bystander Guest

    In article <>,
    "acl" <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    > > the camera, and it showed in the design. New computers and new cameras
    > > have the same failing: they're built for mass-market use by people that
    > > neither understand them, nor really want to understand them, and thus
    > > there is no emotional (?) connection to them.
    > >

    >
    > While I do agree (mostly) with the spirit of your post, this sentence
    > is patently untrue. It takes more technical knowledge to use, for
    > example, a Nikon D200 than a Leica rangefinder. I once tried to help
    > someone who was getting underexposed pictures with his D200 and ended
    > up being called a computer geek (a term of derision for this person,
    > obviously). Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
    > Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
    > bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
    > this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
    > (obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
    > explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
    > with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
    > wanted to take pictures, as he put it. Now, I have nothing against him
    > or his attitude to photography, but this simply proves that there
    > exists at least one person for whom these old cameras are more user
    > friendly (obviously, they'd be a lot less user-friendly if that guy
    > tried to use slide film with his technique, but that's another story).
    >


    Hmm... actually, I think he'd probably get much better results using his
    particular exposure technique with slide film than he would with Tri-X,
    for example (isn't Tri-X in a Leica a classic photojournalist
    combination? But if you expose Tri-X for the highlights you'll get
    black, empty shadows no matter how long you stew your film in HC110.)

    I sympathise with your exasperation thought -- what somebody who knows
    so little about film and exposure is doing with as nice a camera as a
    Leica M7 is baffling. When I had a rangefinder camera (a Nikon S3, which
    burglars relieved me of in the 1970s) I bought a spot meter to go with
    it.
    --
    Bystander
     
    Bystander, Jul 23, 2006
    #58
  19. jeremy

    Bystander Guest

    Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > In article <>, acl
    > says...
    >
    > > It seems that people have a problem with the fact that digital cameras
    > > improve a lot faster than film cameras, because the technology is
    > > newer. But so what? Nobody was complaining that 35mm cameras were
    > > obsolete, even though one could just buy medium or large format gear
    > > and get much better results. And good DSLRs perform quite adequately in
    > > comparison to 35mm film, as I said.

    >
    > True, unless you sell your photos. If so, every couple of years or so
    > you might have to upgrade your equipment, otherwise stock photo sites
    > might not accept your photos anymore. Based on what I've heard, the
    > minimum resolution some stock sites will accept is now 10-12MP and
    > perhaps in a couple of years you'll have to use a 16MP camera.


    I can't see it myself. I'm using a Kodak DCS Pro 14n, a now-discontinued
    full-frame sensor DSLR that uses my old Nikon-mount lenses.

    The 14 megapixel images it produces contain appreciably more
    information, as expressed in detail, colour, brightness range and so on
    than the old Kodachrome 25 slides in my library that I produced with the
    same lenses. They will reproduce excellently on A4 glossy magazine stock
    with as fine a screen lpi as you want.

    My conclusion is that about 10 Mpixels are enough to equal best 35mm
    quality; a stock library that wouldn't accept less than 12 Mpixels would
    presumably not want to keep any of its 35mm back catalogue.

    Okay, there are stock libraries that only have medium format or larger
    images -- but for them 16 Mpixels wouldn't be enough.

    My main anxiety about the Pro 14n, incidentally, is whether or not the
    batteries for it will still be available for the life of the camera. Use
    it in the right circumstances and the results are great -- but issues
    like slow startup, horrid noise levels in low light and surprising moire
    effects -- you wouldn't get that with Kodachrome -- easily justify the
    camera's discontinuance.
    --
    Bystander
     
    Bystander, Jul 23, 2006
    #59
  20. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    news:i1fm0sf5a6alaqfg780tnsq1r3@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    > In article <>,
    > William Graham <> wrote:
    >>While all of what you say is true, the fact remains that I shoot slide
    >>film,
    >>which is supposed to have a small dynamic range, and yet I find that the
    >>camera's meter generally gives me acceptable results. - (I scan the slides
    >>into Photoshop 7 and can make any minor adjustments there) If I had a
    >>digital camera, I could observe the results immediately, and be sure of
    >>getting (at least) in the ball park, and well within the range of
    >>Photoshop's compensation capabilities. Not that there is anything wrong
    >>with
    >>being "right on the money" with the first shot, by any means.....It's just
    >>that I wouldn't sweat it too much.......

    >
    > I don't how will be with people who grow up with digital cameras, but I
    > only review pictures on my camera when there is nothing better to do
    > or when I suppect that something might go wrong.
    >
    > Usually I treat my digital camera like a film SLR and rely on the
    > lightmeter
    > and experience to get it right.
    >
    > My experience with video (which in theory also has that review capability)
    > suggest that getting it the first time is very important. Every extra
    > shot simply increases the chances that something will go wrong and that
    > you won't get the shot you want.
    >
    > In my experience, the tricky part about slides is that often the subject
    > contrast is larger than what the slide can handle. When the contrast is
    > low enough to fit, finding the right exposure is no big deal. When I
    > expect
    > to contrast to be too big, I just bring print film.
    >

    That's a good idea, and probably the best way to do that would be to bring
    two bodies. Each loaded with a different film. Any professional worth his
    salt would do just that.
     
    William Graham, Jul 27, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Rethorst

    Cathy (cartoon) goes digital

    John Rethorst, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    754
    Ms. Jaime
    Sep 9, 2003
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,030
    Mark Spatny
    Apr 18, 2005
  3. JohnR66

    Digital Rebel goes 5x life size Cheap!

    JohnR66, May 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    597
  4. Annika1980

    THE TOTALLY DIGITAL D60 GOES ARTSY-FARTSY!

    Annika1980, Apr 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    306
    Bob Williams
    Apr 1, 2007
  5. Mark Robinson

    Film production goes digital

    Mark Robinson, Aug 24, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    614
    Dave Taylor
    Sep 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page