Great article on the new Monochrom

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi There

grEGORy Simpson has posted part two of his Monochrom article

I think it's a great read. 

 

http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/05/sentences-and-sensibility/

Edited May 15, 2015 by jonoslack

[ThePioneer]

Thanks. I enjoy grEGORy's alternate view.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Thanks, Jono….I had already read and enjoyed Part One, but was unaware of the new section.  Given recent forum discussion, I thought this excerpt was interesting...

 

"Many potential M246 customers are currently engaged in the whole CCD vs. CMOS sensor debate. M8’s, M9’s and the original Monochrom cameras all used CCD sensors. M240 series cameras (including the new Monochrom M246) use CMOS. There’s no doubt that they provide a different rendering, though I find the differences to be more apparent in color images. Like many, I have a slight preference for the appearance of a color file from a CCD that’s been exposed at base ISO. But I’m not shooting color. And I’m not shooting at base ISO. So any minuscule (and totally subjective) advantage of a CCD is ultimately lost on me, where the new M246’s high ISO capabilities (and thus, its shadow detail and dynamic range) tilt the balance totally in favour of its new CMOS sensor.

 

Another image quality debate that’s currently raging on the internet concerns the fact M246 files are 12-bit, and not 14-bit. I’ll admit, before I started testing the camera, this “issue” worried me a little. Although Leica explained its necessity, and mentioned they could see no real-world disadvantages to the 12-bit files, I had my doubts. So, during the test phase, I set out with every intention to prove Leica wrong. Instead, I proved that I was wrong. I could find no issues with 12-bit files. I could not “break” the images in post-production, like I thought I could. There was not one single shred of evidence in my testing that would make me think that the 12-bit nature of the M246 files constituted a “downgrade.” Perhaps a 14-bit version of this camera (were it possible) would have even greater fidelity — but the 12-bit version that currently exists definitely bests the performance of the previous 14-bit cameras."

 

Jeff

 

[Lenshacker]

From what I have read of the reviews so far- High ISO is the main advantage of the M246 compared with the M Monochrom and the M240. Had the M246 had used 14-bits, it would have the advantage for High ISO and resolution compared with the M Monochrom and M246. It's that simple. The camera delivers a great image at High ISO, and that is an advantage. The 24MPixels is enough for the M240, it works with the M246 as well. I don't think people are going to buy the M246 to outresolve an M240, so nothing is lost.

 

It will be interesting to see part II from Erwin when the resolution of the M246 is discussed.  I would still like to see a test done with a fast lens between the cameras with lens detection turned off. Just personal curiosity.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Lenshacker

[Jeff S]

From what I have read of the reviews so far- High ISO is the main advantage of the M246 compared with the M Monochrom and the M240. Had the M246 had used 14-bits, it would have the advantage for High ISO and resolution compared with the M Monochrom and M246. It's that simple. The camera delivers a great image at High ISO, and that is an advantage. The 24MPixels is enough for the M240, it works with the M246 as well. I don't think people are going to buy the M246 to outresolve an M240, so nothing is lost.

 

It will be interesting to see part II from Erwin when the resolution of the M246 is discussed.  I would still like to see a test done with a fast lens between the cameras with lens detection turned off. Just personal curiosity.

Erwin offers interesting comments on the earlier MM resolution...

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-11/

 

Also, note the excerpt I quoted above from Jono's link…not the first reviewer to dismiss the 12 bit concerns…in practical photography.

 

Jeff

[Mike Rawcs]

Maybe Leica are saving the 14 bit version for the M246-P? 

 

Just joking!

 

Mike.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After a weeks use I have to agree with most of his points ..... and as he says ...... if only the battery was smaller and lighter ....... and the camera a bit lighter and more compact as a result .....

 

........ With B&W I can see no technical reason why more than 4096 shades of grey are necessary ...... simple logic and some maths on the back of a cigarette packet gives you the reason why ....  

 

I posted this elsewhere .......

 

I'm afraid I can't get my head around the 12 bit/14 bit moans and groans.

 

The most reliable source I can find states that the human eye in perfect conditions can distinguish a tonal difference of 2% ..... equating to approx 50 grey shades ...... or 6-7 bit . The most optimistic and unverifiable figures quote a max of 500. So for a start you can't see even the difference in 12 bits, let alone 14. 

 

12 bit is over 4000 shades ....... and with a sensor of 6000x4000 pixels even if the image varied by one discrete tone per pixel it would cover almost the whole sensor......... most images would have much bigger increments between adjacent pixels, so any increased depth in bit level would be effectively lost in the actual image. 

 

Whilst I can see purists claiming that having a 14 bit image may allow more PP before discernible problems are visible it strikes me as pointless overkill...... and for that matter it is not clear to me that this resolution is reflected in the printing capabilities of my printer (3880)

 

I remain entirely unconvinced that this has any practical implications for normal photography. 

Edited May 16, 2015 by thighslapper

[MarkP]

After a weeks use I have to agree with most of his points ..... and as he says ...... if only the battery was smaller and lighter ....... and the camera a bit lighter and more compact as a result .....

 

........ With B&W I can see no technical reason why more than 4096 shades of grey are necessary ...... simple logic and some maths on the back of a cigarette packet gives you the reason why ....  

 

I posted this elsewhere .......

 

I'm afraid I can't get my head around the 12 bit/14 bit moans and groans.

 

The most reliable source I can find states that the human eye in perfect conditions can distinguish a tonal difference of 2% ..... equating to approx 50 grey shades ...... or 6-7 bit . The most optimistic and unverifiable figures quote a max of 500. So for a start you can't see even the difference in 12 bits, let alone 14. 

 

12 bit is over 4000 shades ....... and with a sensor of 6000x4000 pixels even if the image varied by one discrete tone per pixel it would cover almost the whole sensor......... most images would have much bigger increments between adjacent pixels, so any increased depth in bit level would be effectively lost in the actual image. 

 

Whilst I can see purists claiming that having a 14 bit image may allow more PP before discernible problems are visible it strikes me as pointless overkill...... and for that matter it is not clear to me that this resolution is reflected in the printing capabilities of my printer (3880)

 

I remain entirely unconvinced that this has any practical implications for normal photography. 

 

and it had an updated EVF!

[Lenshacker]

You will be fine with 12-bits for your photography and it gives 4 bits to work with for adjusting light levels, a factor of 16. That's like shooting at base ISO320 and going to ISO5000 in post. 14-bits would be like going to ISO20000.

 

As Erwin has noted and grEGORory (usually I just keep the caps lock on when writing code to type faster) has written: the resolution of the M246 did not give the same jump in performance compared to the M240 and M Monochrom. The reason for this has something to do with the move from 14-bits to 12-bits. When you combine 4 levels of grey into 1, and after that- it's doing some other translation to get an image with 3750 grey levels- it means you lose ability to resolve an image. Think of it as micro-contrast. It will be interesting to see the explanation from Leica. The CMOSIS sensor used in the M240 is 14-bits. As far as what the Human eye can resolve, we could all use an Instamatic 100 with Verichrome Pan and reslove a 20/20 chart.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Lenshacker

[mjh]

Maybe Leica are saving the 14 bit version for the M246-P?

Given that the M Monochrom (Typ 246) is the monochrome equivalent of the M-P (Typ 240), a P version of this model would be extremely unlikely.

[mjh]

When you combine 4 levels of grey into 1, and after that- it's doing some other translation to get an image with 3750 grey levels- it means you lose ability to resolve an image.

Not really. The resolution of line pairs per mm doesn’t change a bit when you drop the two least significant bits. You may lose the ability to resolve very faint detail where the micro-contrast is so low that those two bits were required to preserve it at all. And even that is assuming that there was no noise to interfere with the resolution.

Edited May 16, 2015 by mjh

[Lenshacker]

It depends on the MTF of the lens, and where the threshold values are set for detecting the change.

 

But- it will be interesting to see the official explanation.

 

As this is the same 14-bit sensor used in the M240- does the M240 obliterate the last two bits of the image with noise? 

 

Anyone else have an explanation for the noted resolution performance of the M246?

Edited May 16, 2015 by Lenshacker

[Jeff S]

 

As Erwin has noted and grEGORory (usually I just keep the caps lock on when writing code to type faster) has written: the resolution of the M246 did not give the same jump in performance compared to the M240 and M Monochrom.

Where does Simpson conclude this?  He says…"Perhaps a 14-bit version of this camera (were it possible) would have even greater fidelity — but the 12-bit version that currently exists definitely bests the performance of the previous 14-bit cameras."

 

I'm also not convinced about your interpretation of Puts' initial report…as I noted elsewhere, his language is confusing.

 

I'll wait to make my own prints and practical comparisons between my M240 b/w results and the M246….the rest won't matter a bit.  

 

Jeff

[Lenshacker]

From Erwin Puts "The MM-I has a distinct performance jump when compared to the M9 and predictions, including my own, gave the MM-II the same comparative advantage. To my surprise this prediction did not materialize."

 

Usually that means that someone made a prediction, and the prediction was wrong. It will be interesting to read Part II and whether something was just translated incorrectly. But this statement, and others- seem to indicate that the resolution of the M246 as compared with the M240 did not give the same jump as the M Monochrom compared with the M9. In the latter case, both retained 14-bits. In the M246 case, 12-bits were used. So maybe the reviewers are all wrong about the resolution, and more comparisons will come forward to illustrate the point.

 

In any case, the CMOS sensor shows an improved High-ISO performance, and the camera seems optimized for that purpose. Optimizing for High-ISO could have driven the move to 12-bits.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Lenshacker