Monochrom M246 Reviews

[Mike Rawcs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In case anyone is interested, I've updated my MM246 article with lots of 100% crops at all different ISOs. Just look in the image captions for the links.

 

Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Review

I shouldn't have looked at those 100% crops. Wow; thank you.

 

Mike.

[earleygallery]

As a "reviewer" - and communicating with other reviewers, I can promise you that the one thing we all dread is to miss something major . . . the idea that one would agree to overlook something is so alien as to be unthinkable.

 

Hi Jono,

 

I'm not blaming anyone - apart from Leica - but I do find it hard to beleive that none of the beta testers noticed the IR issue with the M8. Actually I do recall reading a quote from one (can't remember who) who said they did notice the issue and reported it to Leica, but didn't mention it in their review because they were testing a pre-production camera. I'm sure I read it on here somewhere.

 

I think Leica rushed the camera to market before attempting to resolve the issue, then had to put the spin on it as a design feature/benefit but also gave away free filters and discounts on lenses to appease customers. Anyway it's ancient history now.

[Advertisement]

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

[wattsy]

and discounts on lenses to appease customers.

 

The discount on lenses was not because of the IR filtration issue. It was a gesture of goodwill offered to those customers who had their cameras recalled to fix the "green blob" problem (unrelated to the "green stripe" phenomenon).

Edited May 5, 2015 by wattsy

[jonoslack]

The discount on lenses was not because of the IR filtration issue. It was a gesture of goodwill offered to those customers who had their cameras recalled to fix the "green blob" problem (unrelated to the "green stripe" phenomenon).

Hi Ian

I was sure the discount on lenses was a "thank you for your patience" gesture on the IR issue - certainly I didn't have the green blob problem, but I got a WATE for a cracking price

[jonoslack]

After reading that the new M246 is using 12-bit pixels, I'm reminded that the firmware in the M8 limited it to 8-bit pixels. The sensor in the M8 is capable of much better results, and "the button dance" and M8RAW2DNG have unlocked it's true potential. It's like getting a new camera.

 

I don't know why Leica chose to go with 12-bits for the new M246 when the M Monochrom and M240 use 14-bit pixels. I would like to know more about the technical reasons involved.

 

I bought a slightly used M8 almost 6 years ago now, still have and use it. I also bought the M9 and M Monochrom since then. (After seeing a comment regarding price of lenses skyrocketing)... I paid for the M9 and M Monochrom by selling lenses bought before the prices skyrocketed.

HI There

I don't know the technicalities of the decision I'm afraid (or at least, I'm not sure enough of the technicalities to describe them!) - but it was discussed in the very early days, and there was much testing and comparison done which came to the conclusion that it was the best solution. I'm hoping that there will shortly be some clarification.

 

Certainly, the dynamic range in the new files is demonstrably better than the last MM (as you would expect based on the heritage of the sensor) - I've certainly not seen anything to criticise in the files. 

[trond]

Would i be helpful if I put up a link to 4 low ISO DNG files?

Dear Jono,

 

Yes, low ISO DNGs would be very helpful, so please post a link.

 

Best regards

 

trond

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know the technicalities of the decision I'm afraid (or at least, I'm not sure enough of the technicalities to describe them!) - but it was discussed in the very early days, and there was much testing and comparison done which came to the conclusion that it was the best solution. I'm hoping that there will shortly be some clarification.

As far as the ancient history of the M8 is comcerned, here is my highly speculative account from 7 years ago: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/47502-interview-with-andreas-kaufmann-on-handelsblattcom/page-5?do=findComment&comment=508393. No further revelations have been forthcoming since then. I hope the background of the 14 vs. 12 bits decision will be cleared up eventually.

Edited May 5, 2015 by mjh

[trond]

Dear Michael,

 

I would believe that the base sensor chip is the same as the one in M Typ 240, only with the Bayer filter removed!?

In that case the 14bit AD-converter is still present in the Typ 246.

So it might be possible to update the firmware to include the 14 bits.

 

I believe the full 14 bits would be a better choice, even if the two additional bits contains mostly noise.

The choice of 12 bits (11.5 bits) makes the exposure very critical, and a 1-1.5 stop of less than ideal exposure will ruin a otherwise perfectly good shot.

 

This would lead to 1024 levels in the final print, and this is not sufficient for a high quality A2 print if perfectly smooth tonality is required.

Then noise will have to be added to avoid banding, so I would prefer the two additional LSB, as there is bound to be at least a little bit of useful image information there.

 

The DR of the Typ 240 is more than 13 bits, so the 14 bits should certainly be warranted for the Typ 246 also.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

Edited May 5, 2015 by trond

[wattsy]

Hi Ian

I was sure the discount on lenses was a "thank you for your patience" gesture on the IR issue - certainly I didn't have the green blob problem, but I got a WATE for a cracking price

 

No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't for that because the IR filtration problem was something that affected all M8 cameras for the entire production run and the free filters was Leica's solution for that. The green blob thing was to do with a defective part that Leica replaced on all early M8 cameras (roughly the first month's worth of shipped cameras) and the lens discount was a gesture of apology for the disruption (which from memory was about 5 days front door to Solms and back again – if only they could be that efficient with the delamination problem). It is possible that the discount offer was also designed to take some of the heat out of the IR filtration furore but as far as I know only those who had a camera that was recalled back to Germany (to replace the component causing the green blob) received the letter and an entitlement to the offer. I bought a 28 Summicron when anyone with any sense (or a crystal ball) would have bought an F1 Noctilux.

Edited May 5, 2015 by wattsy

[BerndReini]

No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't for that because the IR filtration problem was something that affected all M8 cameras for the entire production run and the free filters was Leica's solution for that. The green blob thing was to do with a defective part that Leica replaced on all early M8 cameras (roughly the first month's worth of shipped cameras) and the lens discount was a gesture of apology for the disruption (which from memory was about 5 days front door to Solms and back again – if only they could be that efficient with the delamination problem). It is possible that the discount offer was also designed to take some of the heat out of the IR filtration furore but as far as I know only those who had a camera that was recalled back to Germany (to replace the component causing the green blob) received the letter and an entitlement to the offer. I bought a 28 Summicron when anyone with any sense (or a crystal ball) would have bought an F1 Noctilux.

Nope. Everyone who bought their camera before a certain point received the offer. I did not have to send my camera back for any issues. The offer came for early adopters together with the two free UV/IR filters, which continued for every M8. The offer of course had the most impact with the Noctilux, and I already knew about the coming price increase, so yes, it was a no-brainer.

[fotografr]

I loved my M8 and I still look at some large prints made from it with amazement. The M8 was and is an amazing camera. I didn't like having to use the IR filters in front of the lens, but the per-pixel sharpness that the camera produced because of the week IR cover glass is still breathtaking by today's standards. Being an early adopter of the M8, I was able to buy a Noctilux f1 new from Leica for $2,795, and being my first digital rangefinder, the M8 was instrumental in developing my style as a photographer. No regrets whatsoever. Every antenna should be up for any new camera, no matter who the manufacturer is. Leicas tend to bring a lot of joy to most owners, and you will find a lot of previous M8 owners on this forum that have stayed with Leica and purchased one or more of their recent cameras. As a matter of fact, most M8 owners were lucky, because they bought lenses before prices skyrocketed.

+1

[Lenshacker]

As far as the ancient history of the M8 is comcerned, here is my highly speculative account from 7 years ago: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/47502-interview-with-andreas-kaufmann-on-handelsblattcom/page-5?do=findComment&comment=508393. No further revelations have been forthcoming since then. I hope the background of the 14 vs. 12 bits decision will be cleared up eventually.

Other CMOSIS CMOS sensors, including their 24x36 full frame sensor use a 12-bit A/D convertor that can be configured as "Linear", the dynamic range of the analog signal is divided evenly across the digital range or as non-linear, where the A/D values change scale over the range. IF (big IF) this is the way the M240 sensor works, it would be easy to convert this non-linear 12-bit value to a 14-bit linear value. That should work well for color images, not as well for monochrome. Again- just a guess of how you would do these cameras using the other full-frame sensor from CMOSIS.

 

Ancient History: The CMOS sensor used in the Kodak SLR/n was made by FillFactory, and used the same troublesome S8612 glass in the M9 and M Monochrom. On the positive side, there are people happily using their SLR/n cameras with the cover glass intact, no corrosion. It came out ~2002 or so.

 

Just as an experiment, I plan on modifying some of my DNG files from the M Monochrom and convert them to 12-bit images. I already have the software written to read in the DNG files, all I should have to do is shift the pixels right by two bits, and change the White Level to '0FFF'x and shift the Black level by two bits. The bits/sample stays at '0010'x as 16 bits are used to store each pixel. I want to see for myself what happens when working with the images.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Lenshacker

[Guest JonathanP]

Other CMOSIS CMOS sensors, including their 24x36 full frame sensor use a 12-bit A/D convertor that can be configured as "Linear", the dynamic range of the analog signal is divided evenly across the digital range or as non-linear, where the A/D values change scale over the range. IF (big IF) this is the way the M240 sensor works, it would be easy to convert this non-linear 12-bit value to a 14-bit linear value. That should work well for color images, not as well for monochrome. Again- just a guess of how you would do these cameras using the other full-frame sensor from CMOSIS.

 

Interesting. I think if the M240 was expanding a non-linear 12bit value to 14 bit linear, I would expect to see some missing values in the 14 bit space (unless dithered to hide it). I've looked with RawDigger and not see any evidence of this so far.

 

Also, the CMOSIS press release from 2012 about the M240 sensor  http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/new_leica_m_uses_cmosis_24-mp_cmos_image_sensor  says:

 

"Pixel data are digitized by patented low-power, high-speed 14-bit column AD converters."

 

Which would be rather misleading if it was only really a 12 bit ADC.

 

Jonathan

[dkCambridgeshire]

 

…   Ancient History: The CMOS sensor used in the Kodak SLR/n was made by FillFactory, and used the same troublesome S8612 glass in the M9 and M Monochrom. On the positive side, there are people happily using their SLR/n cameras with the cover glass intact, no corrosion. It came out ~2002 or so. ...

 

 

 

But to what extent might heat be a factor ref the coating degradation e.g. if the M9's 18.5 megapixel sensor operates at higher temperature than the KodaK SLR/n 13.5 megapixel sensor. Could their different operating temperature stresses affect their coatings differently? 

 

dunk

[dfarkas]

As far as the ancient history of the M8 is comcerned, here is my highly speculative account from 7 years ago: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/47502-interview-with-andreas-kaufmann-on-handelsblattcom/page-5?do=findComment&comment=508393. No further revelations have been forthcoming since then. I hope the background of the 14 vs. 12 bits decision will be cleared up eventually.

 

Michael,

 

I think you summarized the course of events quite well with regards to the M8 IR bleed situation.

 

I received an early pre-production M8 to test in August 2006. Remembering back, the IR bleed didn't jump out at me in the 1,000 or so test images that I had a chance to shoot over the course of a couple days. Why? Well, firstly, no one wears black synthetics in August in Miami. The camera didn't have an issue with people in shorts and white cotton t-shirts. Secondly, I wasn't looking for it. Given my extensive experience at the time with the R9/DMR using the same base sensor tech, I had little expectation of unusual sensor issues. And lastly, there were no color profiles in C1 (the preferred software at the time), and as you already mentioned, the WB and colors overall were fairly wonky in early pre-release firmware. Getting a usable, normal-ish color image in C1 without profiles was challenging enough that IR considerations weren't really there. 

 

Upon careful review after the first user images of black fleece were posted here, I went back through my images with proper profiles. Once you're aware of an issue and know what to look for, those examples stand out. Even still, obvious IR bleed instances were few and very far between in my tests. Most could have been perceived as slightly skewed profiling. When I tested the M9 a few years later, I specifically tested for IR bleed and knew what to look out for. 

 

I've talked with a few other early testers of the M8 and they all had similar experiences. There was no grand conspiracy or cover-up. And there certainly wasn't any directive from Leica to not say anything. In fairness, though, there also wasn't a heads-up from Leica that we as testers should have been looking out for such a phenomenon. 

[jdlaing]

Hi Jono,

 

I'm not blaming anyone - apart from Leica - but I do find it hard to beleive that none of the beta testers noticed the IR issue with the M8. Actually I do recall reading a quote from one (can't remember who) who said they did notice the issue and reported it to Leica, but didn't mention it in their review because they were testing a pre-production camera. I'm sure I read it on here somewhere.

 

I think Leica rushed the camera to market before attempting to resolve the issue, then had to put the spin on it as a design feature/benefit but also gave away free filters and discounts on lenses to appease customers. Anyway it's ancient history now.

How long after you got your M8 did you see the IR problem?

[Jennifer]

In case anyone is interested, I've updated my MM246 article with lots of 100% crops at all different ISOs. Just look in the image captions for the links.

 

Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Review

 

I can't wait to get my hands on one, hopefully, later this week. Results from the MM246/APO 50 combo seem particularly stunning.

[Lenshacker]

Interesting. I think if the M240 was expanding a non-linear 12bit value to 14 bit linear, I would expect to see some missing values in the 14 bit space (unless dithered to hide it). I've looked with RawDigger and not see any evidence of this so far.

 

Also, the CMOSIS press release from 2012 about the M240 sensor  http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/new_leica_m_uses_cmosis_24-mp_cmos_image_sensor  says:

 

"Pixel data are digitized by patented low-power, high-speed 14-bit column AD converters."

 

Which would be rather misleading if it was only really a 12 bit ADC.

 

Jonathan

I believe that- note I was very much speculating with BIG IF in my post.

 

Also- the FillFactory CMOS Sensor used in the DSLR/n gives the dissipation as  176milliwatt for a 15MHz clock and 3.25FPS, which is "not trivial" for a part that size. The Kodak is a 24MHz part. I've also speculated that heat might be a cause in the S8612 corrosion issue. Someone that tends to fill up the buffer often is going to get a hot sensor. The noise figures also go way up as the sensor heats up. I use slow SD cards have never filled the buffer. 

[Mike Rawcs]

To me, putting creature comforts aside, the incremental merit of this new camera comes down to whether it can capture more highlight information and not clip as easily as the original MM.  If the answer is no, i see no benefit to upgrading from the original MM, which, other than what i view as this one material shortfall, has more capability than the vast majority of people wanting a B&W digital exprience can utilize   

 

This would be the very first point of discussion and deep analysis in any formal review that i would make.  Pixel peeping of midtones and discussion of ergonomics is kind of not getting the joke, imho.

This seems to be a very valid point. Are the highlights from the 246 less liable to clip than the original MM? Given that once they are clipped they are irretrievable, should the metering system allow for this, instead of requiring the user to set minus exposure compensation or would this impact negatively on scenes without a wide range of tones? I haven't owned the Monochrome so I'm just asking how much of a problem it is.

 

Mike.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BerndReini]

 

 

should the metering system allow for this, instead of requiring the user to set minus exposure compensation or would this impact negatively on scenes without a wide range of tones? I haven't owned the Monochrome so I'm just asking how much of a problem it is.

This is very tricky to answer. The metering system is set up pretty well. It depends on the size and location of the highlight area. If you have a large sunlit white wall, the metering system will compensate for it. Where it gets tricky is when you have a crowd of people and one person is in the sun, maybe toward the edge of the frame. If you blow out those skin tones it will be a problem. Now, on the other hand in very contrasty situations, at night for example, you may have a streetlight in the frame that will be blown out, which in this case is normal and not really a problem. You don't want to compromise the tones of the rest of your photograph just because of this small highlight.

 

You just have to become familiar with the way the camera meters to deal with all these situations. I'm hoping that at some point in the future, someone develops a sensor that can gradually roll off highlights the way film did. The MM already does a pretty good job with the highlight transition, and as you said "programming" the camera to automatically underexpose would still not be sufficient in all circumstances and definitely lead to a loss in tonality in low contrast scenes.