Yes it is. The WB you set in the camera is only a “suggestion”, which primarily affects the JPEG preview and is recorded for the RAW image but can be changed at any time without loss of quality. Try it sometime - take a shot at 5600°K in artificial light and change it in PL - you’ll be surprised.
Hmmm. If you press the WB button on the back of the camera, doesn’t the control panel on the top of the camera show the setting? It does on the 810.
Enjoy your trip.
Mike, you need some fresh air 
a Leica Monochrome produces B&W only
Great, so I can leave my setting as-is, and adjust in PL4 as needed. I don’t know about the WB button displaying on top - never thought to look there.
I’m now at my brother’s, and by some miracle, they now give me 11 mbps download, and 0.5 upload. Before I could watch the meggies flying into my computer in slow motion. It’s nothing like what I get at home (50+mbps download), but I’m not complaining!!!
I agree about the fresh air - got lots of it here, out in the country.
I know about the Monochrom, but $7K just to get better B&W images? I’d rather put the $$$ towards a more recent Leica M10, which will also do color, but I’m not Joanna, and I think 24 megapixels is already more than I ever, in my wildest dreams, thought I might have.
I strongly believe it’s “the photographer”, not “the equipment”. If I was still working, I’d almost certainly update, but do I really want all my image files to be that huge?
On 11/11/2021 Leica will release the M11, likely with 55 megapixels. I think I would be better off putting any money towards lenses, not camera bodies, but I think I’ve already got more than what I “need”.
For what I think is a useful way to think about exposure, here is a link to an article by Thorsten Overgaard - I often struggle to understand what he is saying, but for the most part, I trust him to be giving good, useful information.
One quotation from him:
“For me a camera is essentially only about ligth control and capturing. Which is why I feel the Leica M9 is the camera that comes closest to not having anything in front of my eyes. And also the reason why I feel anger when I see cameras like a Nikon D800E with so many features that has nothing to do with light - because the camera then acts as a barrier in front of my eyes and take my attention away from creating the image my eyes saw. Others may not agree, but that is how I see things. I want simplification, not amplification or complication.”
By simplifying things down to the basics, I usually get the point, and then expand on it so I can apply it to my own life.
He’s written lots of articles and books - I always need to read them very slowly, to understand what he is telling me.
That’s a long and winding explanation of … a lightmeter is calibrated to 18% grey …
Reading the article, Leica’s metering system is based on integral measurement.
I suggest to make up your mind from things you experienced / observered yourself over the years instead following “… I feel anger when I see cameras like a Nikon D800E with so many features that has nothing to do with light - because the camera then acts as a barrier in front of my eyes and take my attention away from creating the image my eyes saw.”
That may be true, but it’s essential if you want to use a long lens on a Leica rangefinder camera.
I need to read the full article before I reply…
Can I just add…
This article, and the rest of his site, is the biggest load of Leica advertising out there.
The man obviously has more than enough money to buy what he wants, when he wants and is a massive Leica fanboy who, it would not surprise me, gets free Leicas for the promotion he does.
@Wolfgang the quote, that you quote, is the biggest load of bunkum I have read in a long time.
As I have said many times before, my D810 is the successor to the D800 and, if you ignore the “features” and concentrate on simply measuring the light and setting the essential controls, it no more acts as a barrier than any other camera, including a Leica.
What gets in the way, IMNSHO, is any camera that interposes a digital screen in the viewfinder so you don’t get to see what’s really there, or forces you to use the rear screen for taking pictures.
And then there is another of his articles in which he espouses buying a new MacBook Pro every 18 months, just to keep up with any speed improvements that might come along; along with hundreds of external disk drives on which to store the billions of photos you are meant to be taking.
Sheesh!!! His site is one big advert for his, obviously very profitable, business.
And there I will stop because I have way to much that I could rant about his guy and this is not the right place.
Joanna, there’s certainly way too many features and way too many menus and way too much automated processing in today’s DSLR.
Every camera is fundamentally a light box: aperture x exposure time x sensitivity = image
I still have an original Canon 5D. It’s unbelievable how simple the menus are and how great the pictures are. Why am I not still shooting the 5D? I shoot mostly sports where cropping (lots of pixels) and low light performance are very important. In retrospect, I could have carried on with the 5D as it’s ISO 3200 pushes to 6400 and then processed in Photolab is every bit the equivalent of what the 5D III or 6D or 5DSR deliver.
Fortunately as you point out one can set the advanced functions once (usually best to turn most of them off) and set the custom buttons and organise one’s quick settings screens and my menu once. To know one’s camera well enough to set all that even once is a serious distraction. Overgaard could set up his cameras and then shoot Nikon. But Overgaard’s underlying ideas about simplicity and the essential are right on target.
There’s a push to adding serious computational photography to our ILC (HDR, panorama, etc). At that point, one will have to pay attention to the advanced functions.
I agree with that. I spent two hours for maybe the fourth of fifth time teaching my brother how to use his DSLR. He was way, way, way beyond lost. For Joanna, all those adjustments allow her to make the camera do what she wants. For me, it is overkill. I know very few people who know their DSLR, and many who just set it to Auto.
For this forum, I think we are part of a small group that can benefit from this complexity, and I’m not sure I really belong.
For what it is worth, my M10 seems simpler, and my M3 has three settings - focus, shutter, and aperture. Digital gets the credit or blame.
……and PL4 has the power to make things work best for almost any camera. That is my main priority to learn…
I guess I’m continuing the O/T, but… My camera is a Canon M50 APS/C Mirrorless. I have never owned a DSLR, just a Minolta film camera that died may years ago. Anyway for its price the M50 can take some very good photos. Although I like it’s small size & weight for carrying I really don’t like that I need to use the Touch Screen so much, especially when I can’t see it in the sun. There are very few buttons and of course not room for many. Some of the regular keys are programmable and I may look into that some. I do look with envy at all the buttons on some of the big DSLR’s!
But, as I have said before; I rarely use “all those adjustments”. On our cameras, Helen and I use shutter speed, aperture, ISO and exposure compensation - and that’s just about it. We don’t need anything fancy, just a straightforward, unaltered “negative”, which is what we get. But what we do need is a high resolution digital RAW image that we can work on in the “darkroom” - hence the need to spend inordinate amounts of money on overly complex cameras, just to turn off all the “bells and whistles”, to get the best possible “negative” from which we can make the best possible print.
well, use the camera (and lens) that is fully supported by DxO
I took this to the ultimate a few years ago, buying a D2, then a D3, and considered the newest one, but for the weight. They are all far too heavy for me. So I went to B&H Photo in NYC and tried the D800, the Df, and the D750. I went home and ordered the D750, even though my heart was on the Df.
Now I’ve got the D750 and the Df. I know the D810 will give me larger images, and the D850 even larger, and if I wait, I can get the D890 with even more.
Rather than discuss this aspect, I’ll ask instead “how large is large enough”? How many megapixels do I need? 16, 24, 36, 50, 100, 1000? At what point will I need a new computer, with more memory, and larger disk space?
…and for me, making large images but not printing, how much is big enough for my purposes?
Is it important that if I take a photo of a fellow sitting on a bench, reading a newspaper, that someone could read that newspaper while viewing my image?
I mis-read this earlier. Wolfgang, those weren’t my thoughts, I was quoting Overgaard.
One other thing - because of his writing style, we all seem to have negative thoughts towards Mr. Overgaard. Have any of you looked at his published photographs?
To me, I tried to ignore the writing style, and to understand what he was trying to say. Much of it made sense to me. Since I’m “on holiday” for another week, I’ll have time to do so, along with reviewing his photos.
Speaking of photos, you’ve all seen many of mine, and suggested improvements. Joanna, I’ve seen many of yours, and each one was “stunning” to pick just one of my suitable words. I wish more people were posting here. I find it a huge help that when Joanna posts a suggestion, she illustrates it with an image.
(We all think differently - I very much enjoy my “holy” photo of the sky and reflection, despite the hole. Joanna and Wolfgang seem to feel that the hole ruins it. I wonder if others reading this forum even noticed the hole??)
Time to start reading what Mr. Overgaard has to say…
Just don’t cite somebody talking rubbish.
I’m sorry Mike but, no matter how nice some of his images might be, a lot of that particular article is just blatant “nothing can touch a Leica” propaganda.
Which is why I feel the Leica M9 is the camera that comes closest to not having anything in front of my eyes. And also the reason why I feel anger when I see cameras like a Nikon D800E with so many features that has nothing to do with light - because the camera then acts as a barrier in front of my eyes and take my attention away from creating the image my eyes saw.
I’ve answered this before - only if you succumb to the whizz-bangs. Even looking through a Leica viewfinder is every bit as much of a barrier in front of the eyes a decent DSLR with an optical finder.
No changing of metering methode in the Leica M9 – It is always just measuring what is
Many of us come from cameras that try to think for us and help us by automatically adjusting things. It takes a while for any new Leica M photographer to adjusts to the fact that the camera does not make a sound or signal with a green ligth on when the image is in focus. Nor does the lightmeter pretend to know what you are aiming the camera at. It simply just mesures the reflection there is.
This makes it difficult on one hand to get the right picture. On the other hand it makes it very easy to understand what the camera does and how to adjust it towards what it should be.
But what is “just what it should be”?
Maybe that is true for some of the low to mid-range cameras but, for something like your D750, you are totally free to turn off all the “intelligence” and think for yourself.
And then there’s the headline about “no changing of metering methods”. In other words, a Leica thinks it knows better than you and makes it difficult to use spot metering because Leica feel you cannot be trusted to do better than their centre-weighted metering.
The more you understand about a thing, the simpler it gets.
That’s a true enough statement but the same applies to using a Nikon D750 or D810 or D850 with all the “magic” turned off. It also applies to using a view camera with movements - as long as you understand the Scheimpflug principle 
Well, I agree to some point, that with more technologies offered, the camera becomes more complex, and to really control the output the camera, one needs to understand what every mode is exactly doing. If someone does not understand those modes, they become either useless or the output is pure luck. So if ones need not all the benefits of the extra modes offered, or feels that they are needlessly complicating the control, then yes, it makes sense to have a simpler camera and less can be more. The result will most likely be better, when one fully understands the limits of the camera and one can find ways around these limitations, because of this full understanding and full control.
However, there are also clearly benefits to the development of new features and additions of many extra modes and buttons etc. If you are hired as a photographer, in a fast paced environment, where you do not have full control of the light, e.g. on a fashion runway, and you are required to deliver good quality pictures of every model and cannot risk to miss anything, then you will be thankful for all the extra modes offered that support you, that let you switch quickly from one setting to another, etc.
Most of the professional cameras meet the needs of a very specific target audience. A big percentage of photographers does not need these features in all cases, and might have never in their life seen the benefits.
There are many choices on the market and the photographers can choose according to their needs, there is no general better or worse.
To add to my previous post, I must also say, that many of the newly added features in more complex cameras are not always intuitively to use and there is a lot of room for improvement. And what is intuitive to one person, might not be intuitive to the other. It depends also a lot of the background of the person, and also, with what system that person has started with, or how fast the person is willing to or able to adjust to different approaches.
For example, autofocus. I find with the current implementations, the sense of depth is lost. When I am manually changing the focus on my lens, I can see the focus plane passing slowly and get a very clear sense of depth, I can see which objects are aligned on the same depth planes. With current autofocus modes, also due to the speed of the focus, this information is lost. Also the user interface is different, instead of changing the depth, I am changing the position of the focus point on a 2D plane. So, yes, while there are obvious benefits to autofocus, like it’s speed and accuracy, there are also disadvantages, that can result in worse pictures.
Similar with different metering modes, etc. There are obvious advantages of newly added features, but they also have their caveats, and the development is luckily not stopping, and we will see more improvements, that hopefully will align the benefits of faster operation and intuitive usage.
For myself, and I think Joanna said the same thing, I prefer to buy the “BEST” camera I can, and leave 100 settings at their default value, while adjusting the ten or so settings I care about to my preference.
When I say “BEST” it’s important to note that I’m thinking what is “best” for me, not for other people. I don’t need a burst mode of 20 shots per second, as I’m more likely to take one shot in 20 seconds. I’m not a very strong person, and a camera that is too heavy for me becomes a burden. Finally, in “digital”, there are a huge number of settings that can be selected later on in my computer.
Also consider that I am now only shooting in RAW mode, so only the data from the sensor is being captured and sent to my computer. As I see it, very, very few of those hundreds of settings will have any effect at all on my raw image - if I get shutter speed, aperture, and ISO set properly, what else do I need? All those other fancy camera settings could be achieved in my computer, just as well (or maybe better) than being done by the camera’s computer.
If you accept the above reasoning, then what I probably want is the camera that will give me the very best raw file, meaning more megapixels, and anything that improves the image quality at the pixel level.
(Personally, my M10 Leica was at the top with 24 megapixels, and the newer models are going to be up to 55 megapixels - do I need more? …and while my Nikon Df “only” has 16 megapixels, my D750 has 24, while Joanna’s D810 has 36, and the upcoming D850 will probably have 50 or so - so strictly speaking, I would do “better” with the newer cameras… …BUT… if you’ve been reading the feedback I’ve been getting to improve my images, not once was anyone saying I need more megapixels - I need more of the basic understanding of how to get the most out of my images when Using PhotoLab as my editor.