[Leica] Leica MDigital

[abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)]

Hi Ted,

I hear what you're saying about how you shot well using the
auto-exposure on your M7 - but remember that you were shooting black
and white FILM - you had a lot more exposure latitude going for you
than you do when you fire up the D20 which, we are so often told,
behaves much more like transparency film that black and white. So
making sure you're pushing the whites all the way so you don't lose
detail in the blacks is a really good reason to take a shot in your
typical lighting and see if maybe you need to dial in a bit of
exposure adjustment - maybe a half-stop or so? It could make a real
difference in what you capture.

And I understand that it's what you see and how you react to what you
see. So you don't do that often but it's worth just a peep at the
start to make sure  you're not  going to be unhappy(er) later.

This is a lesson being learned out in the video world. I see the new
Sony high definition video cameras will let you superimpose the
histogram over the viewfinder image because video has the same problem
(same sensors basically) as any other digital camera.

I mentioned desiring this in a Leica product and B.D. was contemptuous
of the idea, but I still think it makes a lot of sense. But then I'd
like a monochrome digital M too - or ANY camera that went all-out for
monochrome image quality - trading off that chip space for bigger
buckets to get better dynamic range and lower noise. I know this
doesn't make sense in the digital world at this point - the technology
is growing too fast. But at some point it'll become a way to
differentiate the market space and someone will do it, as Kodak tried
years ago. I'd love to try one of those just to see what it could do.

Anyway - my brain fart ends here. Time to go pick up my XM radio at
the store and go to Woodland to shoot a baseball game played to 1880
rules. Can't wait.

Adam

On 9/3/05, Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> wrote:
> B. D. Colen offered:
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica MDigital
> 
> 
> > Frankly, it may be argued, if we want to be traditional photography
> > 'purists,' that rather than add such a feature, we should be removing the
> > LCD entirely.<<<<<
> 
> Hi B. D.,
> Considering the number of years we shot with nothing more than looking
> through the viewfinder and "click" while successfully making excellent
> photographs without seeing the end results, sometimes months after the
> exposure was made, I don't see the screen as an "absolute necessity" to
> being successful. I still don't bother with the LCD 99% of the time until
> later when we have a break.
> 
> I consider the "click-then-look" a waste of shooting time in many of the
> situations we're working in. Yep if one is doing a critical shot for
> advertising or similar kind then I'm all for the screen being a handy
> gadget. But hardly critical to the general photography by most list 
> members.
> Or others in the world who constantly "shoot & look!"
> 
> It's a given when one first acquires a digital camera part of the
> "metamorphism" to digital is, "shoot & look" from curiosity if nothing 
> else.
> Listen to people who do this for the first few exposures and I bet everyone
> on the list has done something like this....   Make the first exposure or
> two and looked with this as a general comment... "WOW! Look at that! Well
> I'll be damned isn't that the neatest thing!" :-) And we all break out in
> smiles to see the first images on that screen. :-) Yeah and it is neat! :-)
> 
> Then it becomes the time waster because some fall into the trap of "make
> exposure - look!" :-( If one has been a photographer without digital &
> screen as the first camera, we had the experience of shooting hundreds, 
> nay,
> thousands of frames and never seeing the results until the film was
> processed. And we succeeded 100% of the time. Well Ok 99.9999999% of the
> time. ;-)
> 
> But when digital is the first camera, then looking at the screen becomes 
> the
> norm of shooting and the way to use the camera doing photography. But I
> don't see the screen as an absolute essential of picture taking.
> 
> > If anything is changing the way people photograph with digital
> > cameras, it is not the digital capture, but rather it is the presence of
> > the
> > LCD.<<<<
> 
> Absolutely as it's become the controlling factor in how people shoot and 
> how
> much they shoot.
> 
> > I am unquestionably shooting fewer frames on jobs I shoot digitally,
> > than I did on jobs I shot with film, and I have come to the conclusion
> > that
> > that is so because I can see my images on the spot and, 1., am wasting
> > shooting time looking at the LCD, and 2., am shooting less because I know
> > instantly that I 'got it.' I can't help wondering what I'm missing by
> > shooting fewer frames.<<<<
> 
> I don't know about shooting less frames, I think I'm the opposite doing far
> more or working the scene more so than with film, but I don't have any
> logical reason why this seems to happen. However, I don't look at the 
> screen
> and shoot with nothing more than the motivating moment before me.
> 
> And I'm not saying you don't shoot in similar fashion regarding the
> motivating scene to press the button. Maybe it's just me and a left over
> from the days of shooting AV programmes at the National Film Board.
> 
> > Yes, it's nice to have instant feedback, but I can't help but chuckling
> > when
> > people who have previously been shooting with IIIfs and M3s, using
> > handheld
> > meters and getting great exposures, complain that this camera or that
> > camera
> > doesn't automatically bring up a histogram when they review an image. Two
> > years ago they would have said, 'what the hell is this histogram
> > thing?!'<<<
> 
> I still haven't got a clue, nor do I look at it, the "Historectomy screen"
> ;-) because that's just another diversion from shooting the action of the
> moment. I suppose for the rock & ferner, peeling paint shooters it's a 
> great
> exposure asset. But when I made the thousands of frames for "Women in
> Medicine" book using M7's set for AE lock I never checked exposures other
> than the shutter speed flashed in the view finder as I made the shot. And
> quite frankly the exposures roll after roll were on the mark, quite amazing
> really in the consistency.
> 
> So the histogram is just another thing in the camera for folks who like to
> fiddle. ;-) Yeah I know someone's going to regale me with the added 
> benefits
> to using it for critical exposures... OK fire away. :-)
> 
> > Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy with a digital M with NO LCD whatsoever,
> > much less a 'real time' LCD. Sure, I'd also be happy at this point to 
> > have
> > a
> > digital rangefinder with an LCD to review what I shot, but...
> 
> Same here. Oh yeah and we can afford! ;-)
> 
>  > Anyway, I'll be pleasantly surprised if Leica actually comes out with a
> > digital M, priced for the working photographer, rather than the Armani
> > collector, that is vaguely up-to-date in terms of its digital features.
> > The
> > last thing I want them to be wasting time over is figuring out how to 
> > turn
> > that digital M into another digital P&S. ;-)<<<
> 
> Well considering the time they may have wasted to date figuring out how to
> do this, while  others reached the finish line and at the victory party.
> I'll be surprised if we see a camera in the near future, let alone if ever.
> Which I feel would be a shame considering the number of people with Leica M
> lenses who'd purchase a camera as soon as they were available. Me included,
> provided it were priced as a regular M7 or affordable for the majority of
> the LUG crew.  We shall see.
> 
> ted
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>