Jump to content

M246 v +36mp cameras


wolfloid

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Given that many photographers using the higher mp cameras like the D810, K1, A7rII and the 5Dsr are claiming that much greater care is needed to get the best iq that these cameras are capable of, and that actually getting the maximum resolution from them is difficult without best practice, how would those of you using the M246 like to comment here?

 

From examples I've seen the M246 seems to have comparable resolution to the 36 mp cameras at medium ISOs and perhaps even better resolution at high ISOs. Does it then follow that to achieve this resolution is actually just as difficult? Do you need best practice and perhaps a tripod to achieve it?

 

Obviously, the K1 and A7rII have IBS. Does that mean that getting the higher resolution that they are capable of is easier? Are the others when used with IS lenses then also better at maximising IQ than is possible with the M 246?

 

Can the M 246 only really be compared with these high megapixel cameras either when used with faster lenses, higher ISO, or when on a tripod? I'm close to closing in on the Leica, but would like to hear of some real-world comparative experience of the genuine and useable resolution advantages the M246 may or may not have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. If you are mainly interested in resolution, obviously a 36mp would have more. If you are interested in, say, more information picked up in monochrome, like in the shadows, that is different. It is one thing that separates the monochrome from a color camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I have a 36MP A7R, I have never felt the need for higher resolution on my M246. If anything, my Leica lenses resolve more with the M246 than I need. The only things i would (sometimes) wish for are:

  • Lower native ISO
  • Increased DR (although that's just the normal 'more is better' wish)
  • Connected with the above, better handling of highlights
  • Less restrictive long exposure times, and the ability to turn off dark frame
  • Improved EVF w/ moveable focus magnification

None of these are anything close to critical for me - just nice-to-haves. In fact, having all combined would not drive me to upgrade to a new model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the best resolution from ever increasing pixel counts is a self defeating game because a tripod will always be needed while technology is as it is. But what is wrong with using a tripod! It isn't like it has become essential to use a tripod only in the past few years to get maximum resolution, in 35mm film you'd need a fine grain film and a tripod before you could say 'that's the best possible'. Of course the point at which it makes any sort of difference to the photograph is an aesthetic judgement as much as demonstrating the skill of the photographer. The skill of the photographer is shown in whether or not they go equipped to achieve their goal. The aesthetic goal on the other hand is to make a stunning image where it shouldn't really matter if the last minute amount of resolution is achieved, the image will still be great even with it's flaws, and 99% of the time it would only be the photographer that knows why it could have been better in any case. But using a tripod wherever appropriate ticks many boxes and allows the photographer to concentrate on the important creative parts of the job 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of this discussion needs a reminder of what makes the monochrome camera what it is. Not being a technical person on these matters, but with the absence of the Bayer filter, you are getting much more tonal information in B/W. Correct? That smooth transition you often see vs a more harsh transition in tones in other images converted to B/w. More pixels of course would improve, but maybe not so much. Interested in thoughts on this......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. If you are mainly interested in resolution, obviously a 36mp would have more. If you are interested in, say, more information picked up in monochrome, like in the shadows, that is different. It is one thing that separates the monochrome from a color camera.

Not really. The resolution of those higher pixel count cameras is reduced substantially by the interpolation of the Bayer matrix. In fact, one can expect a 246 to be equivalent in resolution to a 50 MP camera.

However, and this is the bonus, the difficulties and drawbacks that are associated with high-resolution cameras originate not from the pixel count, but from the pixel size.

As the 246 has the same pixel size as any 24 MP camera, it does not exhibit these problems. In this case you can have your cake and eat it.

As for the smoother contrast transitions and better acuity, these are again caused by the absence of Bayer interpolation, but more importantly by the absence of the optical defects of the Bayer filter. It causes quite some chromatic ( and other)  aberrations on pixel level.

Basically (to quote Erwin): with a monochrome camera each and every pixel can translate unaltered into print.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this interpret into use though? Does having my cake and eating it mean that I can shoot at lower shutter speeds and still get the level of detail that a high megapixel camera would only get by using IS or by being on a tripod? Have you experienced this real world difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will get the same impression of motion blur that you would get on any 24 MP FF sensor, not the enhanced blur you might see on a 50 MP FF sensor. I do not own one of these High MP-small pixel cameras. However, my 18 MP MM1 handles the same as my  18 MP M9 with greatly increased detail rendering and far better per-pixel acuity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this interpret into use though? Does having my cake and eating it mean that I can shoot at lower shutter speeds and still get the level of detail that a high megapixel camera would only get by using IS or by being on a tripod? Have you experienced this real world difference?

Re reading your original post, are you really just looking to find out if most of us use a tripod or not to get the most out of the 246? I would wager most are not. Personally I can hand hold a shot very steady even at slow speeds with an M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will get the same impression of motion blur that you would get on any 24 MP FF sensor, not the enhanced blur you might see on a 50 MP FF sensor. I do not own one of these High MP-small pixel cameras. However, my 18 MP MM1 handles the same as my  18 MP M9 with greatly increased detail rendering and far better per-pixel acuity.

Thanks, that's what I wanted confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparisons are academic; the issue is how the camera performs for you, given your shooting style, shooting and processing techniques (including printing), tastes and preferences, etc.  

 

I don't know where you're located, but in the US one can easily rent any of the current M models (including both Monochroms) to help determine if the gear suits your goals.  https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/leica/cameras

 

And if you haven't used a RF, then there are a lot more variables to assess than resolution.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now both the MM246 (had previously the MM1 and the M240, and the M9) and the S006. The BW files from the S006 are (only slightly) better than the files from the M246. But the S006 is bigger and heavier, and inferior than the M246 when there is less light.

If you need BW, and don't want color, the MM246 is a perfect tool. At 3200 ISO it delivers a stunning quality. And the detail at 320 ISO is comparable to the one given by 50Mp cameras, therefore perhaps more than a 4x5 view camera negative, I dare to say.

I don't have the SL, and therefore don't know about her.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I use my nikon D800 for 4years now and I bought my Monochrome 246 a month ago.

I love my Nikon: It's a great working tool and the resolution is stunning. But the thing I love in my Monochrom is the character of the pictures. To my eyes this is unique. I use a Summicron 35mm from 1964 and i'm amazed that still today it's a wonderful lense with perfect results. But if I use a nikkor 50mm f2 ais from around 1980 on my D800 the resolution compared to a new version (nikkor af-s 50mm f1.8) is poorer and the old version looses its power on digital. (I use the same ais lense on an analog nikon FM and it is a good lense). So I can understand that people write that the D800 needs great new lenses.

The question is: is the Monochrom such a good Camera that it can make wonderful pictures with all optics or is the quality of old Nikon, Canon,.. lenses poorer than the old Leitz / Leica lenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see much of the answer to your question in that the M10 has now been released... with no bump in sensor resolution.  Wetzlar knows its M cameras are mostly used handheld.  And as Nikon and Canon and others have discovered with their 36+ mp cameras - handholding a digital camera beyond a certain resolution is a problem.  As Jaap notes above, the smaller pixel sizes inherent to such higher-resolution cameras make them more susceptible to camera movement.  Critical technique becomes more and more necessary.  Handholding becomes less and less practical.

 

It seems that Leica has decided that 24mp is the sweet spot between resolution and practical use.  

 

My own experience with this dilemma is in medium format.  With careful handholding technique my Hasselblad 500C/M can render critically sharp images on film.  But as soon as I put my 50mp digital back on the camera - essentially replicating the larger pixel (56mm square film) vs smaller pixel (33x40mm digital) problem - it becomes much more challenging to obtain critically sharp images off-tripod.  It can be done, but the hit rate plummets.

 

That's the high-resolution / very-high-resolution dilemma in a nutshell.  And given that it's an effect not well understood by most consumers - who keep expecting more and more resolution - I don't envy the camera manufacturers.

 

The beauty of the M246 (and original Monochrom) is that it "hits above its weight."  It achieves higher effective resolution without having to resort to the smaller pixel sizes that going to a higher resolution sensor inevitably introduces.

 

It's one of the reasons I love mine.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...