Focusing with the Monochrom M

[jrovner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the latest Rangefinder Moment podcast, Victor and his guest speculate that the higher resolution of the Monochrom M means that it will be tougher to focus. In other words, an image that would have seemed sharp if captured with the M9 may appear less sharp on the M because the M is less forgiving of slight focus error. Do others agree with that view?

[duckrider]

So You would have had to focus more exatly with Technical pan than with a 3200 ASA BW film in earlier days?

Can't believe that.

I think working exactly is necessary in both kinds of photography: with an ordinary M and with the new MM.

 

missing the M3 long base in todays Ms

Thomas

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lars_bergquist]

The thinking is correct. The more sharply that perfect focus differs from even very slightly less focused, the more acutely will you perceive a very small focusing error. And these are inevitable. The phenomenon is not even new. My old 90mm Elmarit-M is so dang sharp wide open that I find it more difficult to focus than either a pre-aspherical Summicron or my Tele-Elmarit. And we are speaking of a R design from 1983!

 

So the new Apo-Summicron is not quite the quantum leap that some say, except at f/2. Stop down to f/4 or so and several recent M lenses produce comparable definition. I know I know, lots of people (relatively speaking) will leave the lens at f/2 in the belief that this will make their pictures more 'artistic'. And they will have many disappointments, but they won't tell you.

 

The old man from the Age of Content

[01af]

Do others agree with that view?

No. When focus is off, then it's off. As simple as that.

 

 

The phenomenon is not even new. My old Elmarit-M 90 mm is so dang sharp wide open that I find it more difficult to focus than either a pre-aspherical Summicron or my Tele-Elmarit.

You are replying to a question that wasn't asked. Sharper lenses need to be focused more accurately indeed—but the question was about higher sensor resolution.

 

 

Missing the old Elmar's long focus throw in today's M lenses ...

Edited June 6, 2012 by 01af

[jaapv]

Let's turn it around: lower edge definition encourages sloppy focussing. Anybody agree? I thought not.

[jonoslack]

Let's turn it around: lower edge definition encourages sloppy focussing. Anybody agree? I thought not.

 

Splendid

[DFV]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As with everything it is a mater of consensus and priorities.

 

More resolution has benefits like being able to crop closer without a considerable loss of quality. It is true that if you like to pixel peep at 100% magnification you will see that in order to get a perfectly sharp picture you will need to focus better and take picture perhaps one or two f./stops faster than usual. If you where capable of taking two identical pictures with 18mp or 36mp and print them at an A4 size they will look the same even if at 100% the 36mp is not or less perfect than the 18mp. Obviously this is theoretical and logical at the same time. The more you are able to zoom in the more imperfections one can find.

 

All this said I must admit that I am not that impressed with the "Mega-Pixel Race" that the other DSLR seem to be submerged in. Personally at 18mp I can print A3+ prints (which is rather large) at slightly over 300 pixels per inch, which is above the eyes resolution (or at least mine...). Anything over is quite futile. Look at it like formatting a back screen for you computer; if I format my pictures at 2600 pixels wide they look no different to me that if I see the picture that is 6000 vide and the computer downscales it at 2600.

 

The only advantage to be able to crop closer simply DOES NOT out weight all the negative aspects like; bigger and more expensive SD cards, bigger and more powerful computers to manipulate the files, larger storage disk space, huge files that cause slower transfer times when taking continuous shots, new and insanely more expensive lenses capable of the sensor resolution, the sense that one's focusing and steady hand diminish over time, more noise at higher or native ISO, less battery life, etc...

 

I really hope that Leica do not fall into that silly game and rather concentrate in making a better sensor with less noise at higher ISO and with better performance corner to corner to reduce vigneting and color shift so that coding non-Leica or vintage Leica glass becomes a non-isue. Extra megapixels are simply not on my priority list.

 

My point; MORE MEGAPIXELS WILL NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER.

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Where

the

hell

is

 

_________mjh_________

 

when

he

is

needed ?

 

 

 

Best

GEORG

[adan]

Yet another case where armchair theory loses out to empirical evidence.

 

I've looked at MM files - they really aren't any sharper than M9 files. The only place they show more detail is places where debayerizing the M9 images adds artifacts like maze patterns and such - at most about 1% of any image I've seen so far.

 

If the M9 had an AA filter, that might be different - but it doesn't. So both cameras deliver 147 pixels per mm of resolution - the MM with slightly less in the way of artifacts and moire (and possibly other benefits having nothing to do with resolution - DR and ISO.)

[Jeff S]

 

I've looked at MM files - they really aren't any sharper than M9 files.

 

I'm not disputing your findings, but you should say something to Leica about their false advertising, as this is what it says on the Leica site....

 

"With a full native resolution of 18 megapixels, the Leica M Monochrom delivers 100% sharper images than with color sensors..."

Jeff

[andybarton]

Jono Slack has examples where the MM image is clearly superior to then M9 one, converted to b&w.

 

YMMV

Edited June 6, 2012 by andybarton

[DFV]

Yet another case where armchair theory loses out to empirical evidence.

 

I've looked at MM files - they really aren't any sharper than M9 files. The only place they show more detail is places where debayerizing the M9 images adds artifacts like maze patterns and such - at most about 1% of any image I've seen so far.

 

If the M9 had an AA filter, that might be different - but it doesn't. So both cameras deliver 147 pixels per mm of resolution - the MM with slightly less in the way of artifacts and moire (and possibly other benefits having nothing to do with resolution - DR and ISO.)

 

Yes, 18mp are 18mp. In the case of the MM it is a mater of having better 18mp than on the M9. By better I mean cleaner... Focusing issues or shaking issues at 100% magnification are obviously more evident at 36mp. However, if you keep on printing/using the size you have always printed this is a non-isue. Much worse is all that comes with extra and smaller pixels.

 

My rant was mostly directed at the new super-pixel displays that focus people more on "I got the biggest/most" rather than taking proper pictures. Sorry.

[cocker]

Jonno Slack has examples where the MM image is clearly superior to then M9 one, converted to b&w.

 

YMMV

 

In what sense "superior"?

[jaapv]

Better acuity due to lack of optical artefacts by the Bayer filter and lack of electronic artefacts due to demosaicing.

[Guest]

In what sense "superior"?

 

In the opposite sense of "inferior" .

[adan]

Jono's files are the ones I've worked with. As I said, in perhaps 1% of the image area, where there are textures that are troublesome for debayerizing algorithms, the MM wins.

 

This isn't really something you can jawbone with words - either you can post visual evidence, or you can't.

[andybarton]

In what sense "superior"?

 

Judge for yourself.

 

The MM example looked far superior to me.

 

Given that one of the reasons why people shoot digital rather than film is the clarity and lack of grain, the MM was streets ahead on Jono's test shots.

 

You may not agree and you may not want such clean, sharp files, but that's what I want from my digital shots.

 

(BTW - I am not refering to the focusing of the shots - Jono is clearly capable of focusing either camera properly)

Edited June 6, 2012 by andybarton

[kanzlr]

how important focusing errors are depends on the magnification.

 

printed at the same size, I cannot imagine a difference up to a certain magnification.

[DFV]

Jonno Slack has examples where the MM image is clearly superior to then M9 one, converted to b&w.

 

YMMV

 

No argument from me here. It is true that the quality of the pixels/sensor on the MM just taking care of B&W is indeed better. I will not argue that, especially after seeing the results... However 18mps are 18mps and the resolution is the same. I repeat, they are just better 18mps. Just like if I where to compare my iPhone 4s sensor/quality with a 8 year old 5mp Olympus E1... Numbers and statistics is a game that big manufacturers play, and play VERY well. Once you are over the brochures and back in the real world things change.

 

In any case, I seriously doubt that there are issues of focusing more severe than on the M9. Another mater is if you told me that the MM has 36mps with a file 8000 pixels wide. Resolutions like that could prove a whole (or more f. stop) less forgiving at full magnification. This in turn would make the advantage a 36mp sensor and cropping back down to zero leaving you with all the disadvantages... ranting again. Sorry. I guess I am petrified that Leica fall in the game of numbers and not quality only to dish out an M10 (video) camera with a 36mp CMOS sensor giving the same results that any DSLR at half the price can give.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

It is not that. The resolution is a true ( well, nearly...) 18 Mp. Bayer filtered cameras suffer considerable resolution loss, AA filtered ones even more. It is just that there were very few cameras to compare until the MM came .