ISO in Digital Cameras

Doing some film photography here and there, my mind is often with the sunny 16 rule. This rule works for me big time.

However, I noted when using digital cameras, this is somewhat of a different beast. The Fuji X100S seems off by about 1 stop of light (see earlier tutorial), however, the basic principles are working here. With my Fuji X100T, this is a different story.
Today I tried some sunny 16 shots with the X100T @ ISO 200. Fully overcast by bright should have resulted in f/8 with 1s/250 (give or take). That was by far too dark. Auto-exposure brought it to 1s/30, or 3 stops darker. The ISO 200 of my X100T appears to behave like an ISO 25.

For comparison, I got my Leica X2 out at ISO 100. At f/8 with 1s/125 the image was slightly dark, but could be considered well exposed. Auto-exposure resulted in a shutter speed of 1s/80. Mind you, the next real stop shutter speed would have been 1s/60.

What do I learn from this?

• I will trust the ISO settings in the Leica and snap away with the sunny 16 rule, giving me full control.
• The Fuji sensor will need some calibration before trustworthy. The native ISO 200 might actually not be ISO 200 at all.

So why bother? It is all about speed and delays. I shoot with manual focus. The only shutter-lag can be created by some auto-exposure in aperture priority.
Operating in full manual control, one needs to be able to trust in some given parameters, e.g. film speed. I expect from digital cameras to actually reflect the correct film speed when I set the ISO sensitivity (aka amplification) of the light sensor.

With my Leica, it seems that I can trust the ISO settings.

Take the Photo When You Want

This must be a generation thing... I heard about "shutter lag" first only a few years ago. At that time, I had a hard time understanding what the actual problem was. Mind you, my photographic experience originates in a fully manual SLR-cameras, which always released the shutter when I pressed the release button.

Finally, it all was clear to me, the complaints about shutter lag was caused by fully automatic settings, in particular auto-focus, of "modern" generation automated photographic equipment.

Being used to manual focus, my habit was to set the cameras to all manual, in particular for focusing. I never trusted any camera to know what I wanted in focus.

Lately, some cameras had a real impact on me, cameras that could be told which distance to focus at and stay at that distance.

First to mention in that context is the Fujifilm X-Pro1 with adapted legacy glass. Some of my older M42 lenses are rather sticky in the focus department. Set the lenses' apertures to f/8 and adjust focus according to the distance scale. Done! The metering of the camera is fast enough to adjust the shutter speed in an instance. However, if one wants to be rally be assured of the fastest reaction of the camera: choose ISO and shutter speed (according to sunny 16) manually. Great to have a dial for shutter speed selection.
The camera should have lost all the shutter lag by now.

Second choice: Ricoh GR (version V) or GR-II. Ricoh understood that auto-focus causes the greatest delays in automated photography. So, Ricoh decided to add the "snap focus distance" feature to their GR camera. With the camera in AF mode, half-press the shutter release and AF will start. However, when focus is not yet achieved but the shutter release is fully pressed, the focus defaults to a predetermined distance. Brilliant! Again, depth of field by the aperture chosen helps to determine the preset zone.
The Ricoh GR is extremely compact and fits in pockets, however, operation is very much menu-based.

Next: Leica X2 (Leica X-E, same camera, different color scheme). The Leica allows for decent manual zone focusing. The focus distance can be locked in, so it can't accidentally knocked off. That is really great for zone focusing with a predetermined DoF. The Leica also offers manual aperture and shutter speed dials, which is great for fully manual exposure settings.

Only at my 4th place: Fujifilm's X100 series. I love those cameras, no doubt! The manual focus scale displayed in the OVF is magnificent. However, the focus ring is very loose, I knocked it off bu accident several times, which ruined the shots. I wished there was a feature to lock the manual focus.
The X100 series sports manual aperture and shutter speed dials, which is really great!

5th (1st) place, solely for the reason that the other cameras are doing so well when stabilisation is not required: Olympus MFT bodies. Those cameras employ in-body image stabilisation, which is great for low light situations. When in any low light environment, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 is my prime choice! With adapted legacy glass, the Olympus still stabilises the image by sensor motion.


The above ranking is certainly not carved in stone! The differences are pretty subtle.

The most important message I wanted to convey:

1. shutter lag exists when shooting in AF
2. shutter lag disappears almost completely when focusing manually
3. setting exposure parameters manually cannot harm

Conclusion: Remove as much automation as you are comfortable with, you'll be rewarded with a more timely photography.

Battle of the Street Cameras - Part 1

Leica, the world leader in photo journalism, documentary photography and street-photography?

True of false? Not sure!

Here are some thoughts...

What's the deal with the hype about Leica cameras? Of course, the company Leitz Wetzlar changed the way of photography forever, in particular what mobility was concerned. But, how much of the legacy is still alive?
Lately, on Dutch broadcast: Eddy van Wessel, winner of Zilveren Camera 2015. Eddy van Wessel uses a Leica with 135 film.

Back to the digital world: one of the local retailers put on of the cameras on sale for a price worth spending, I did just that... and bought a Leica X-E (re-branded Leica X2).
What convinced me?

1. small package
2. the price of €699.- rather than €1499.-
3. leaf shutter (quiet, 1s/2000 sync speed)
4. I own an Olympus VF-2 which works with the camera
5. all manual dials

Performance-wise, I will compare the Leica X-E to the Fujifilm X100S and the Ricoh GR. Said cameras were designed roughly around the same time. All sport a 16Mpix sensor (2 have a Bayer array, 1 an Xtrans array).
None of the camera's employs optical image stabilisation, while all are equipped with similar prime lenses and APS-C sized sensors. Also, the cameras employ leaf shutters.

With the lenses, we can observe the first difference. While the Fujifilm 23mm EBC got an f/2.0 aperture, the Leica Elmarit APSH 24mm opens to f/2.8 only and so does the Ricoh GR's 18.3mm lens.
To me, this difference in aperture is negligible, in particular since I usually use f/5.6 and slower for increased depth of field in street photography. Also, the X100S shot wide open tends to be a bit soft for my taste.

One of the criteria I mentioned above was sync speed. The X100S syncs with f/2 at 1s/1000, an aperture not available with the X-E. However, when using flash with 1s/2000 shutter speed, the X100S is usable with f/2.8 only, thereby being equal to the X-E. Despite having a leaf shutter, the Ricoh GR does not do fast sync.

Concerning manual focusing, the cameras have their pros and cons. While the X100S (even more so the X100T) provides great manual focusing aid, the X-E is relatively hard to focus manually.
However, when walking in the streets, the X100S is easily knocked out of focus, should one accidentally touch the focus ring. In contrast thereto, the manual focus of the X-E can be dialed and locked in, similar to the "snap focus" of the Ricoh GR.

In terms of flexibility, the X100S/T clearly wins. Fujifilm offers adapters, so that the field of view can be made either normal, or a wider.
I love the wide lens of the Ricoh GR. Despite the 28mm equivalent, Ricoh offers an attachment that gets the field of view up to 24mm in 135 film terms.
Leica does not offer any changes in the field of view for their X1, X2 or X-E cameras.

Viewfinders: obviously the field of Fujifilm, with their unique OVF/EVF combination. Leica's X2 and X-E offer the possibility to add an EVF to the hot-shoe (the Olympus VF-2 works just fine!), while Ricoh allows for an add-on OVF only. Then again, doing candid photography, how important is a view-finder anyway?

In a further part of the series, I will compare the image quality of the in-camera JPEGs of the X100S/T and the X-E (only), since those camera share the same field of view.