M9: Thom Hogan on Luminous landscape.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thom Hogan is thoughtful and very knowledgeable on B&W, which he clearly has a passion for. I have learned a lot over the years from his writings about B&W conversions. His personal plea for a B&W Digital M is eloquent, but I wonder how many others Thom speaks for. Certainly not for me.

 

Excellent Post.

Before the advent of the M8, Leica was clearly in serious trouble. Nowadays they are selling all the lenses and cameras they can make (and some of those lenses are very very expensive). Yet the Photographic industry pundits seem to be predicting their imminent demise.

 

The digital M has clearly been a real success for Leica . . . a new lease of life indeed. Despite the criticisms of it by those who don't use it (like Thom, excellent though he is),

 

I think there is real scope for them to produce other niche products (and I'd love to see it), but it would seem sad to ditch the achievement of the M8 and M9 for something clearly quite different.

[Advertisement]

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

[chmilar]

Shooting with a monochromatic sensor is exactly like shooting with B&W panchromatic film. Put a yellow, orange, red, green, or blue filter on your lens depending on the situation.

[markowich]

HI Peter

It's a funny old world - when you apply technical criteria to an artistic endeavour you do at least have the consolation that most other people are only interested in the demonstrable and will follow you (hence Canon's great Success, and also that of dpreview).

 

I persevered with Nikon right up to the D3, and I always knew that (for natural light) the colours were horrible - brutal and unsubtle. I quite accept that the Kodak sensors have poor high ISO, and lots of noise, but since the Olympus E1, the colour has been 'just so' and I still think that's the case with the M9. I'm not talking about accuracy, but about 'satisfactoriness'.

 

I quite understand that you are a mathematician, and that you're concerned with absolutes and not nuances - still, I actually think that Thom Hogan wanted a monochrome sensor on the M9 because of the lack of a Bayer filter and the resultant lack of the demosaic and consequential increase in resolution - not because he was necessarily irritated with the poor high ISO noise on the M9.

 

And reading his article again, I think you've put a lot of emotive content into it which wasn't there in the original (scaringly bad, midtone noise etc.). Which is surprising, you being such an empirical kind of a guy.

 

jono,

i do believe that the M9 sensor is sub par and that the poor-man leica research budget shows here. and let us talk only about base iso: the M9 gives you a file which is color perfect if you nail everything...exposure, WB etc. if your contrast range is larger than x fstops (i do not want to define 'x' accurately here) then the M9 file beauty becomes a beast. as thom says: reminiscent of the kodak 14n ages ago. scary.

i do not know why but my HD3 II 50 files are so much more lenient towards PP.

maybe kodak does not care much about the low volume (digitally ignorant) customer leica which struggles so hard hard to get the f1.4 lenses right but is completeley lost on common 'digital issues'. no other company produces a camera of similar high price with similar problematic issues. M9...unbelievably bad processor (saving 50 euros/piece??), funny bottom plate, <21m lens color issues and you name it.

apparently you have an inroad to them....why don't you ask them if they are resigned on producing collector items. i have not seen more serious tech from them in the recent years. and on the fly, please tell them to at least read MR's blog.

on color fidelity: did you try the D3s? its color accuracy is simply amazing.

peter

ps: forgot to say, i love the M9 form factor and lenses (most of them).

[jonoslack]

on color fidelity: did you try the D3s? its color accuracy is simply amazing.

peter

.

No Peter

I've given up - when I was fed up with the colour on the D1x I was told that it was all sorted with the D2x (it wasn't) then again with the D3 (it wasn't). I'm simply not going there again.

They did wonderfully well with colour charts and artificial light and skin tones, but with evening light on a summers day it was a catastrophe . . .

I think Leica have done well with the M9 - of course it's a compromise, and of course their budget doesn't reach as far as others (which is probably why the dropped the R10). For me it's produced a lot of images which are as good as I could expect.

 

I wouldn't dream of talking to them about MR's blog - I'm certain they've read it, and I expect that they're thinking about all those options - but EVERYBODY has their pet features to turn the digital M into a digital non-M (even me) and I for one would be sad to see it.

 

On the other hand I'd love to see a new and innovative camera with lots of these features which would take both M and R lenses . . .just not instead of an M.

[haroldp]

Jono, I understand what you are saying about the resolution, but the point I was making about the light values is that they would be a simple map of the light intensity for each pixel.

 

If you desaturate a colour image, you are removing the colour information and are left with a pixel that varies from black to white according to the intensity of the light falling on it. Desaturating an image does not give very pleasing black and white results.

 

What does black and white film do.? It maps light intensity to pixels (grains).

 

To my eyes black and white is one area where film still has some advantage, we can learn from this.

 

Regards ... Harold

[stunsworth]

Shooting with a monochromatic sensor is exactly like shooting with B&W panchromatic film

 

Not really because although Panchromatic films are sensitive to all visible light, the level of sensitivity is not linear across the visible spectrum.

 

Look at this webpage...

 

http://www.silveroxide.com/BWTech.htm

 

Ignore the fact that they are plugging their Photoshop filters, look at the black and white images of the Macbeth colour checker half way down the right hand side of the page. The shot of the colour checker shot with Tri-X is vastly different to a straight desaturation of the same chart.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What does black and white film do.? It maps light intensity to pixels (grains).

 

But it doesn't do it in a linear fashion. Different black and white films are more sensitive to some colours than others.

[adan]

RE: Thom Hogan:

 

Another "5%" solution. "I have a really great idea, but no concept of how to implement it. That's up to Leica to figure out."

 

Of course, if Leica thinks the overall concept of the rangefinder is just peachy the way it is - why would they bother?

 

What I still haven't seen is a reason to change the unique selling proposition of the Leica M - the coupled manual range/viewfinder - and turn it into an "also-ran" EVF/LCD/EVIL clone.

 

As far as I can tell, this whole thing is basically an attempt by people - who have no love for the rangefinder concept, but do like Leica lenses and the fact that it is the "smallest 24 x 36 sensor" camera - to hijack the M9.

 

( A "conspiracy" or orchestrated attempt? No. Although MR certainly seems to enjoy seeing himself as leader of the band.)

 

The good news is that it won't really get anywhere. Leica is smart enough to look at the chest-thumping on LL (and among a few forum members here) - and then look at the sellout hit that is the plain o' vanilla no-EVF, rangefinder, classic M9 - and draw the appropriate conclusion.

 

You want M-lenses and/or an M9-sized full-frame body? The viewfinder/rangefinder is part of the package. If you can't live with that, well, here's your tuchus, there's the door - don't let the two collide on your way out. No loss to Leica whatever.

__________________________

 

RE: monochrome sensor. Here's a set of tests by someone strongly in favor of monochome sensors (scroll down about 3-4 screen-fulls): diglloyd.com blog: July 2007

 

About an 8% improvement in clarity and detail (if one shoots a lot of 6-point type!) Whoopee!

 

I notice he is (or was - 2007) trying to assemble a group of photographers to buy a special run of monochome PhaseOne backs. Managed to find 5 (with 2 "maybes"). Ummm - yummy, that's an attractive market share, isn't it?

 

A monochrome M9? - I'm interested, so long as it costs about 25% the price of the full-color version - say, $1800. That's about how much of my work I can do only in B&W.

[jaapv]

Andy - what is the fun in talking sense?

[chrism]

"But let's bring the viewfinder into the 21st century and have a monochrome version of the camera, please."

 

Hogan is an Irish name, isn't it?

 

When the M8 came out and there was talk of a monochrome version, I had thought that I would jump at it. After all, I had only used Tri-X in my M7. But whilst I still convert a substantial proportion of my pictures to B&W, and expect to continue doing so, I have started to learn colour photography, which is only loosely related to monochrome photography. Since I can't justify owning both an M9 and an M9m, I'll stick with what I have. I don't want live view, especially if it means a CMOS sensor and an anti-alias filter on it, with degradation of the image so that I can't benefit from Leica glass. There are times when I'd like focus confirmation in a more reliable (easy) way than the rangefinder, but truth to tell, the answer to that is more practice with the rangefinder, not an electronic cheat.

At the end if it all, I believe there is a rift between those who grew up using film cameras and now use digital, and those who have only known the digital era. When we had ASA 400 films at best, slower lenses (I had to save hard to get even my f2.8 lenses then) we had to hold the camera steady, and not at arms length either. No chimping, and no machine gunning either as it cost real money every time the shutter was released. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming it is better to have done it that way, nor am I denigrating in the least those who grew up in the digital era. I'm merely saying it gives one a different perspective, not necessarily a better one. This divide seems to me to be at the heart of the 'What Leica Has To Do Next' debate.

 

Chris

"Luxury, sheer luxury! Now when I were lad...."

[yanidel]

MR's blog is becoming a madhouse. Who will be the next invitee? An article by Ken Rockwell adocating face detection and post to facebook functions on the M10 ?

[adan]

Not just face-detection - but ANIMAL face-detection! Surely that has to be on someone's list of things to improve in the M10!?

 

Pentax Optio i10 looks back to Auto 110: Digital Photography Review

[Chris_R]

I do not think the Kodak CCD is inferior, it is just different. If it was inferior it probably would not be used in so many professional backs. If your only concern is noise then

the Leica, Hasselblad, and many MF backs are not for you.

 

I have (retired photo sales manager with friends still in the business) been able to shoot with many cameras. I am not saying that the leica is better than the new nikons or canons I have used, I am just saying it is better for me. The look, the color, yes even the noise adds to the feel I get from the images Why do we want another ME TOO camera.

 

If my favorite ISO was 6400 I would not be looking at an M9. I like the look of the images on the CCD and this includes the Hassy I was able to use for a while as well as the M9. It is personal taste. There is more to an image than just noise or just sharpness.

 

It seems to me everyone wants to change the M for there needs. This is human nature I know. I would like a focus conformation light (that could be turned on and off) so my poor old eyes would work better, but Leica is not making a camera just for my needs.

I would like a B&W M9, but I feel that the market would not be enough.

 

My best friend, and a fine photographer, loves his Nikon D3s. His normal lens is about 400 mm (wildlife). Is he wrong to prefer the Nikon. NO his use and his taste are right for him. Do I tell him he is wrong to like the images that I consider off color and plastic looking? Yes, what else are friends for;), but he knows I am kidding.

 

Comparing very good cameras to one another is tough, because we are all looking for the perfect camera. It never existed in the film world nor will it ever in digital world. Only the perfect camera for you or me, but they will be different.

 

Thank goodness there are cameras that are different so the few of us who want less gadgets, or want film, or want rangefinders can have them.

 

There is no right or wrong for everybody. If you like Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, or any other brand then you are right.

 

This started out as my 2 cents and turned into a $1.00, sorry.

 

Cheers

Chris

[rosuna]

I don't want to replace the viewfinder/rangefinder with a EVF, but an accessory EVF + Live view would expand the possibilities of the M camera, and "classical" users like Andy may ignore it. I think it is a natural evolution of the camera, and it will happen.

 

The black & white sensor idea is an old one, and there was a Kodak reflex camera with a Bayerless sensor. Leica did prospective surveys regarding this topic during the M8 years (Sebastiao Salgado wanted one), but no substantial and real market exists for this.

 

Michael Reichmann published, a few months ago, an article about a medium format back with B&W (no Bayer matrix) sensor (Phase One), and the theoretical advantages (resolution, dynamic range) were less than substantial in practical use. Do you think many people wants to bring a set of color filters for their lenses?

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...chromatic.shtml

 

Mark Dubovoy doesn't agree, and Claus Mølgaard (Chief Technology Officer and Vice President R&D at Phase One) confirms it (same link).

 

The point is: how much relevant in practical use are these differences... for a rangefinder (reportage) camera?

[Jeff S]

About an 8% improvement in clarity and detail (if one shoots a lot of 6-point type!) Whoopee!

 

Andy, I don't disagree at all with your entire post. Having loved the rangefinder concept, and having used film Ms for decades, I only reluctantly switched to an M8.2 when I decided not to build my 5th darkroom last year after a house move.

 

But, I cite the above quote because of a phenomenon I've seen on this forum since the release of the M9. Many who loved the IQ of the M8 are now oooing and ahhing (my technical terms) over the IQ of the M9. I wonder what the % difference is in IQ, assuming it could even be measured...more than 8%? (This is aside from those who recognize other important M9 attributes...full frame and such.)

 

This is not about the M8 vs M9, or any attempt at making that a debate. I merely mention it because IF a monochrome M ever came to fruition (and I'm not advocating it), I bet that users of M9s who make the switch would be singing the praises over the phenomenal improvement, whatever it was.

 

The same will likely happen when the M10 arrives, whatever its configuration, assuming no fatal flaws. I think it's human nature.

 

So, to repeat, for me the M is and always should be a rangefinder as we basically know it. But, humans have not evolved much either.

 

Jeff

[charlesphoto99]

All opinions in photography have some kind of validity (at least cultural) no matter how sometimes seemingly ridiculous. But these types of "wonky" (to quote Jaapv) opinions should not be coming from the people writing instruction manuals and operating some of the largest photo resource sites on the net. This is straight up high school photography class nerd talk. Man, this is just low. This is Ken Rockwell stuff. Do ya'll really take these people seriously anymore?

 

OT - Why are "landscape" photographers talking about gear at all? The only thing a landscape photographer needs is an 8x10 camera, tripod and some film and spot meter!!! Haven't they figured this out yet? This is not rocket science. HOw many camera systems does a person really need to go through before he figures out how to take a picture of a sunset from the side of the road of a scenic loop in a national park? It's not that damn difficult..rant over lol

 

Ha! Touche!

[FrankA]

Jumping in here with some thoughts, not facts. Ramblings to be sure. What is B&W? Who makes the decision how the B&W file should look? Remember the film days and how many choices of B&W films were available, each with a different sensitivity for a particular need? Yes, filters were used, but films were chosen on needs. And we had our favorites. No different for digital sensors. Who decides what the color accuracy should be? Jono talks about Nikon. Valid for him but some just post process their way to what they want anyway. Sometimes that is easy, sometimes not. There will not be a color digital sensor that will meet everyone's color needs. So maybe a B&W M will fill a need but you will still post process to get that exact look you want, won't you? Can't that be done now with a current color digital sensor? Would a B&W M really be that much better?

[adan]

"...humans have not evolved much either."

 

+1 (whatever that means, but I keep seeing it on threads )

 

Actually - OK, "whoopee" was a tad snarky. I was actually interested to see a head-to-head comparison with a fairly recent sensor. Most of them date to when "high" resolution meant 4-6 Mpixels and most RGB cameras still used quite strong AA filters compared to today (pre Nikon D70) - that being the last time a few "monochrome" cameras were actually on the market.

 

I do think there is some misunderstanding of how a Bayer image is de-mosaiced. Chrominance values (color) are indeed averaged across several adjoining pixels, but luminance (the light/dark "B&W" image underneath) still uses some unaveraged data from all pixels, although primarily the green ones. Which is why Bayer images suffer only a fairly small resolution loss in comparison to a monochrome sensor, instead of the 50% loss in each dimension one might expect if the pixels were fully "binned" in both chrominance and luminance.

 

Same reason the Foveon sensor is moribund - good processing of Bayer images reduces the theoretical advantage to a small practical advantage.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[poptart]

I think I will just stick with film, thank you!

[AlanG]

The whole look of b&w photography declined once dry plates came onto the scene. No amount of darkroom skills ever got that back.