Godfrey
Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation
With a digital camera, any digital camera, you should *always* be aiming to achieve the most captured data, which is in the upper half of the data values (presuming raw capture and the necessity of finishing the rendering in post processing software). Highlight saturation, aka white point, with any digital sensor is ultimately always a hard line, whereas the black point is always an assessment of how much noise you are willing to tolerate in the shadows.
This translates to "exposing for the highlights" in all cases, whether you're using an MM or not. The key is understanding a particular sensor's response and how a particular camera's metering system is calibrated. From the discussions I've read about the MM's "highlight clipping", it sounds like Leica didn't calibrate the meter to protect highlight values like most digital cameras do ... Most digital camera metering calibration is biased by -1 to -2 EV to protect highlight values (at the expense of noise in the shadows). So, to me, this highlight issue is a red herring. Understand your sensor and your metering calibration—it disappears.
I see the MM as a specialist tool for those who prefer to work exclusively in the B&W capture realm. Using it properly means also understanding and using filters when apropos, rather than having the capabilities of full spectrum capture to do spectral filtering in image processing. As such, it is a distinctly different camera from the new M or M9.
I haven't used an MM myself, personally, to see how much more or less it can produce compared to my M9. I have been impressed, however, by the raw files that Jono (and others) posted—detail acquisition and very very fine tonal gradients at the elevated ISO settings are quite remarkable and surpass what I see with the M9 by a stop or two.
Whether the new M can actually do better, with 50% more pixel resolution and higher sensitivity, can only be exposed by testing and direct comparison, once a production new M comes available.
All cameras are compromises in many ways. ;-)
Godfrey
Dave,...
I agree with almost everything you wrote. As you and others have expressed, with the MM, one can expose for the highlights and then recover the shadow detail. Luckily, in most cases, the MM files are clean enough at most ISO's, so that recoverable shadow detail is relatively clean. The problem would have been if one had to expose for the highlights in the MM and when recovering the shadow detail, lots of noise accompanied this recovery. Thats why I think exposing for highlights works with the MM. If it didn't have such clean files, I think there would be issues, with regards to it's metering. ...
...
Will the new M have any advantage to B&W conversion and file quality over the M9...maybe enough to have a few evaluate whether the MM is the camera of choice for them vs. going with the new M and compromise to a degree with B&W imagery and also have the abailty to shoot color? ...
With a digital camera, any digital camera, you should *always* be aiming to achieve the most captured data, which is in the upper half of the data values (presuming raw capture and the necessity of finishing the rendering in post processing software). Highlight saturation, aka white point, with any digital sensor is ultimately always a hard line, whereas the black point is always an assessment of how much noise you are willing to tolerate in the shadows.
This translates to "exposing for the highlights" in all cases, whether you're using an MM or not. The key is understanding a particular sensor's response and how a particular camera's metering system is calibrated. From the discussions I've read about the MM's "highlight clipping", it sounds like Leica didn't calibrate the meter to protect highlight values like most digital cameras do ... Most digital camera metering calibration is biased by -1 to -2 EV to protect highlight values (at the expense of noise in the shadows). So, to me, this highlight issue is a red herring. Understand your sensor and your metering calibration—it disappears.
I see the MM as a specialist tool for those who prefer to work exclusively in the B&W capture realm. Using it properly means also understanding and using filters when apropos, rather than having the capabilities of full spectrum capture to do spectral filtering in image processing. As such, it is a distinctly different camera from the new M or M9.
I haven't used an MM myself, personally, to see how much more or less it can produce compared to my M9. I have been impressed, however, by the raw files that Jono (and others) posted—detail acquisition and very very fine tonal gradients at the elevated ISO settings are quite remarkable and surpass what I see with the M9 by a stop or two.
Whether the new M can actually do better, with 50% more pixel resolution and higher sensitivity, can only be exposed by testing and direct comparison, once a production new M comes available.
All cameras are compromises in many ways. ;-)
Godfrey