Digital M

The histogram is an extremely valuable exposure tool and I don't know a single professional digital photographer who doesn't use it. I like Epson's solution to the LCD: present when you want it, hidden when you don't. I don't check the histogram after every exposure, of course, and sometimes I go hours without using it but I definitely want one on any digital camera I'd want to use seriously. It's particularly important given that digital capture is very unforgiving of over-exposure.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Don't disagree about the importance of the histogram. I was thinking in context of a removable/unpluggable LCD, not doing away with it altogether.

My Canon G1 point-and-shoot has a similar arrangemet as the RD-1, a clever dual hinge that allows it to be folded and hidden from view. That's the most likely route Leica would take. On the other hand, I can envision a (-n unrealistically costly) scheme in which image and histogram info could be projected into the viewfinder, doing away with the LCD altogether. But I still think an LCD is now expected on a modern camera and has become the preferred way to quickly review/share images.

On zooming finders, I've read that Nikon had developed a prototype SPX rangefinder camera with a zooming viewfinder around 1960 but dropped the project when SLR sales went through the roof.
 
looking through the viewfinder to go through the menus is not a good idea. awkward everything. what am i supposed to do? hold it up to my face and fudge around with the menu buttons?

pick up a 24/25mm lens if you want the same angle of coverage as a 35. problem solving through GAS!
 
aizan said:
looking through the viewfinder to go through the menus is not a good idea. awkward everything. what am i supposed to do? hold it up to my face and fudge around with the menu buttons?


I could see where you might find it awkward, and I suggest that it is a matter of personal preference. I actually prefer using menus and checking histograms through the viewfinder, although for viewing recorded images chimping is the preferred method. Good layout of the control buttons in relation to the viewfinder is important in order to make the viewfinder method feasible.
Click to expand...
 
OK, I'm new enough to digital photography not to know what you are talking about. What is "chimping"?

GAS I understand all too well!
 
Would rather have a histogram (and only a histogram) in the bottom of the viewfinder. Other then that I do not want any other digital indicators. Minimal everything.
 
Most of your digital cameras have some sort of readout in the viewfinder. The only problem is that these viewfinders are all electronic. I am suggesting something like the heads-up display. You can actually look through the histogram and see the image you are focusing on. Really though I would want something like that to be as unobtrusive as possible. That is why it should be in the lower portion of the viewfinder.
 
A pejorative term used to describe the act of looking at a recently recorded digital image on the LCD mounted on the back of the camera. It seems to be popular with anti-digital types; you know REAL photographers.
 
egpj said:
Most of your digital cameras have some sort of readout in the viewfinder. The only problem is that these viewfinders are all electronic. I am suggesting something like the heads-up display. You can actually look through the histogram and see the image you are focusing on.


Yeah, a head-up display with a rangefinder or SLR would be cool, rather than having the info displayed outside of the viewing area. WRT information in DSLR viewfinders and in EVF digital compacts, I prefer minimal displays. A lot of digitals give you options on how much you care to view, and you can always go into the menu system and display more info when you need it. The EVF viewfinders I have used function like a head-up display.


Aizan, I have a couple of Canons, one DSLR and one EVF compact. I tried have owned and used several different flavors of digital camera (Nikon, Canon and Olympus) and I think that all have had a similar high learning curve with regard to using the menus in the viewfinder. Kinda clumsy at first, but easy once you have praticed with it for a while. However, none of the cameras that I have used would be workable if one happens to be left-eye dominant, because the most often used control buttons would be directly under your cheek.
Click to expand...
 
or you could just have an overexposure warning light. shutter would have to be open like on p&s digicams, so it'd also need a dust shaker.
 
Ben Z said:
There are plenty of digital cameras smaller than a pack of playing cards. The Epson RD-1 is not the size of a "fat M5". I can't see any reason why the Digital M would need to be any larger than an M film camera,.... /QUOTE]

You're partly right, of course those credit-card camera's use mini-sensors and focal lenghts to match, but I should have added: for a development camera. I'm sure Leica will pare away some of the bulk for the final camera. But look at the Digilux2: it is a very fat and square camera, even with a sensor that is considerably smaller than they will be using on the M8D (another name I came up with :D) and a 7-22.5 mm lens. And turn it whatever way you want, you can't get away from "Schnittweite" (sorry, I don't know the English translation I mean the distance between rear element and film and with that the place of the lens flange), added to the thickness of the sensor itself and the thickness of the LCD (for the latter there may be some creative solution, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, but it would add to the cost again, I fear).The only thing we have to guide us is:
"It will instantly be recognizable as an M camera"
Click to expand...
Size is a relative thing, in my Leica R days I refused to trade my R7 for a R8 as I hated the sheer bulk of the thing, I got a Canon 10D over the 1D because of the size (and the price of course)
and now I saw a comparison photo of the DMR+R9 beside the Canon 1DsII on the Guy Manusco thread on FMforums and I caught myself thinking: "Hey, that's good, the kept the size about the same as the Canon!" So I'll reserve judgement for the official release (and buy it anyway, I suppose:))
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
aizan said:
or you could just have an overexposure warning light. shutter would have to be open like on p&s digicams, so it'd also need a dust shaker.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately,that wouldn't work. On a digital camera it is very important to know the proportion of overexposed pixels (=pure white) to the rest of the exposure, in fact the way f.i. Canon indicates the burnt out parts by flashing on the preview+displaying the histogram is very practical.
 
Last edited:
On heads-up displays, that ought to be fairly simple in an RF viewfinder, because you're already projecting some images (framelines and RF patch). Don't think I'd want it in realtime but as a review of the last shot taken. Otherwise, as mentioned, you have to keep the shutter open, which presents new problems.

On digital over-exposure: Nearly all my experience is with film. How does digital overexposure compare to slide-film over exposure? I know from my color slide work that you just have to take more care in composition and/or fill flash to avoid situations where you're blowing the highlights. Or, if you do blow them, you accept the pure white as part of the image. That's the reason color photographers are more likely to carry flashes.
 
Vince

Digital sensors behave a lot like Slide film. So overexposure is a killer, on the other hand if you shoot raw you stand a good chance of recovering even a badly underexposed image.
 
VinceC said:
How does digital overexposure compare to slide-film over exposure?
Click to expand...
Not very different. Histogram is a nice feature, but you can take perfectly good digital shots without it.

IMHO for a niche manufacturer catering for traditionalist market, histogram would be low on the list of must-haves. To me, a digital rangefinder would be adequate even if it has just the same controls as film ones. If the need is the latest whiz-bang feature and a body covered with controls like with pocks, it is hard to beat modern Canon or Nikon SLRs.
 
Okay. I officially don't get it. Isn't it okay to blow highlights sometimes? That's what determining exposure is all about. I guess a histogram is helpful to confirm they're blown out, and I have used it on my wife's Canon G2, which has software comparable to a Canon EOS.

Here's a picture of my grown daughter moving into her new place a few weeks ago. Nikon S3, 28mm Nikkor wide open at f/3.5, 15th of a second shutter (no exposure meter; my handheld one broke in the late 1990s). Film: Kodak B&W C41. Scanned by the one-hour photo folks and file size reduced by Microsoft photo editor (ie., the image hasn't been processed by PhotoShop and so it more or less raw). It's not clear to me what value a histogram would be in this situation.
 
I sure hope Leica does not listen too much to their current users developing the Digital M.
It makes no sense at all to ommit features that are available in the most basic digital cameras (i do not mean voice recording or a filmmode here!) But the histogram and highlight allert belong to these features.
I think the R-D1 did it right with a LCD that can be used or not. Pleasing both groups: the group of Analog die hards and digi shooters. It is not loaded with feautures like a digital SLR but the key feautures are there.

About the histogram .. there are no rules interpreting it ....... a lot depends on the scene. And yes ..... there are situations where it is useless ... but there are 1000's of shooting situations where it is verrrry usable.
Do we need it if we proper expose the old ways.... ? Probably not ... but that's no reason to ommit the feauture and design a camera for a group of people who prabably will keep on shooting film anyway!

No offenses to anybody .... but the Digital M has to be targeted to a much larger group than current Leica M users. Especially if they also want to sell some extra lenses to survive as a brand.


Han
 
Last edited:
Well said, Han. To answer Vince , It is like slidefilm, like other posters mentioned. Having said that, it is fine to blow out pixels where you want to have featureless white anyway, like the windows in your example. In the digital world you could have controlled these blown/out highlights to a point where you would have seen the windowframes, and controlled the contrast to have shadow detail and highlight detail.This is exactly a shot that would have benefited a lot from being taken digitally. If you shoot RAW i.e. use the unchanged data the sensor provides, you can pull a number of different exposures from one shot, controlling contrast per area or indeed per detail in your final print. To do that you must expose very exactly for the highlights and that is where your histogram comes in. The main advantage of digital photography is that you get very extensive darkroom control.To prevent flames, Im not trying to make a case against film here, actually I prefer the look of film, but Im simply trying to point out some of the differences. I think digital and film are best used side by side, each in its own strength.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom