New Monochrom - should I bother?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am just reminded that I might need new camera bag what with all these EVFs and MF grips taking up so much room. Where's RickLeica to steer me in the right direction? I need one bag with the potential to carry 4 M bodies and no lenses.

Uh? pinholes in body caps only?

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

Algrove ........

 

If you set up a review subscription site like Reid Reviews I will gladly subscribe. 

 

There is very little that caters for the financially incontinent .......  or with tips on how to cover a debauched lifestyle by use of 'photography'

 

Short and pithy reviews like 'looks great ..... expensive ..... buy it !' would help a great deal with the occasional guilt feelings I have when I hand over the credit card  

[algrove]

Sean Reid, for one, has produced extensive comparisons.

I guess it's OK to mention that in his article Sean compares the old MM, M240 and M246. It is at times like this that subscribing to his site makes the entire year's subscription worth it.

[MarkP]

I guess it's OK to mention that in his article Sean compares the old MM, M240 and M246. It is at times like this that subscribing to his site makes the entire year's subscription worth it.

 

I agree with that.

[algrove]

Algrove ........

 

If you set up a review subscription site like Reid Reviews I will gladly subscribe. 

 

There is very little that caters for the financially incontinent .......  or with tips on how to cover a debauched lifestyle by use of 'photography'

 

Short and pithy reviews like 'looks great ..... expensive ..... buy it !' would help a great deal with the occasional guilt feelings I have when I hand over the credit card  

I really think an annual pilgramage to the English Garden in Munich would very cathartic for most of us. Heck, maybe the nun will come back while we are there!  If we stay long enough and ask enough tourists if we can return their empty mass, we might collect enough plastic chips (jeton in French) to pay for a nice hühnchen or bratwurst meal.

[wilfredo]

Hi There

Well, first of all, I still have an original Monochrom, and it's a lovely camera and produces great results.

Wilfredo - the differences between CMOS and CCD have normally been averred to affect colour rendition . . . you can't transfer that argument to black and white (can you?) It gets to sound more and more like a mystical rather than a qualitative difference. 

 

As far as the image quality is concerned - Sean Reid, grEGORy Simpson and I all agreed that you get between 1.5 and 2 stops better high ISO with less banding, and the resolution boost you would expect 24/18. 

 

Of course, the 246 is heavier and 0.6mm fatter (surprisingly noticeable) than the MM . . . . . but you also have to take into account: 

 

•Faster processor

•Larger buffer

•Longer battery life

•Higher resolution LCD

•Quieter shutter (without re-cock pause)

•Less shutter lag

•Integrated thumb grip

•Thumb wheel

•Improved ergonomics

•Improved Rangefinder design

•Focus assist / exposure compensation button

 

(and that's without even mentioning Live view, video, possibility of close up photography etc. etc. )

 

Maybe you don't need this stuff, but it ought to be part of your decision making. 

 

All the best

Jono:

 

A big thank you for your review of the new product.  I think many of us on this forum truly appreciate what you've done, and the advantages that you list regarding the Monochrom2 are something to take note of. 

 

You wrote above that "the differences between CMOS and CCD have normally been averred to affect colour rendition . . . you can't transfer that argument to black and white (can you?) It gets to sound more and more like a mystical rather than a qualitative difference."  This may be the case, but color rendition using a CMOS is of little consequence to me.  In that regard, I can live with it, for the most part.

 

Primarily, I see differences in B&W CMOS renderings and CCD B&W renderings (especially in human skin).  Perhaps it is a "mystical" difference?  It certainly is visceral.  I realize that many of us don't see this difference, and believe that PP is all you need to even the playing field. In my experience, starting with a MM1 CCD file as the "musical score," gives me a rich latent image to work with that allows me to create a print - a performance of the musical score - that at a visceral level, leaves me in the WOW zone  (I'm borrowing Anselm Adams language). Of course you can also apply this to PP with a CMOS sensor DNG, but it's in the how that these DNG's are made (the technology that defines them) that forms the foundation from which you will make your musical score perform.

 

The MM2 comes with many advantages that most of us would embrace.  To be honest with you, I'm looking forward to seeing what photographers do with it; and I would love to experience a shift in my point of view, especially since I fear that CCD sensors will soon be a thing of the past for average Joe photography enthusiasts such as myself.  

 

In the end, the choice between the MM1 or MM2 will be visceral for some, and rational for others.  If you are a "Right Brain" creative type like myself, I believe it will be the MM1 for you; if you are more of a "Left Brain" rational type, it will be the MM2 for you.

 

Cheers!

[2slo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all those latest replies, interesting and helpful reading. Algrove, reading yours made me smile I can tell you! Quad-X LOL!!

 

Anyway, as I said, it's only something I'm thinking about, I'm not in a rush to buy a new camera, just weighing up the options, hence my original question.

 

Let me ask another question whilst I'm on. The Monochrom appeals to me for three main reasons, it's size, its relative unobtrusiveness (compared to a DSLR) and most importantly the quality of images it can yield. Now in some cases I've noted Monochrom images showing burned out highlights (not just electric lights but quite often featureless skies). I have to say that this doesn't appeal to me and I'm wondering why it often shows up. For example, if I'm doing 35mm street photography with Canon DSLR gear, my technique is to take a metering from the shadows or lower mid tones and then take another from the highlights, balance the two probably around 2/3 of a stop overexposed, expecting to reduce highlights and raise shadows in pp to achieve a correct exposure without losing detail or suffering banding at either end. One I took a couple of days ago using this method to illustrate:

 

 

The question is, could I do this with a Monochrom or does it require the user to underexpose the shot from a single meter reading (i.e. expose for the highlights) then raise shadow detail from the rest of the image, which will be underexposed, in p.p.? Maybe it's stating the obvious for Leica users but bear in mind I haven't used a Leica before so for me it's a valid question.  If it is as I suspect, a need to expose for the highlights, this would explain why some Leica images I see have no detail in the highlights as the photographer has metered for the subject only. If this is the answer it wouldn't put me off, I'm just curious to know how Leicas work in this regard.

[BerndReini]

 

 

The question is, could I do this with a Monochrom or does it require the user to underexpose the shot from a single meter reading (i.e. expose for the highlights) then raise shadow detail from the rest of the image, which will be underexposed, in p.p.?

You could absolutely do this with a Monochrom. Yes, you do have to be somewhat careful not to overexpose and blow out the highlights, but for this you just have to figure out how the center weighted meter in the Leicas interprets a scene. Please don't take this as a personal criticism, but coming from black and white film, the photo you posted looks very "digital" to me. There is too much of an HDR look going that I associate with digital black and white conversions. People tend to do this with the MM as well by overdoing the "clarity" and "structure" adjustments, but it destroys mid-tone tonality to a large extent, and tonality would be the main advantage of a Monochrom. I think you should try to get your hands on one and take some test shots.

[jaapv]

Compared to a Monochrom,and with the caveat of web jpg, I think you could gain a considerable amount of differentation in the midtones here.

I do agree with Bernd, there is quite a bit of scope for technical improvement.

And he is right, imo the clarity slider should be disabled for B&W ( a bit of hyperbole here )

 

As for blown out or flat skies, that is more a fault of the photographer by either choosing uninteresting light, or an exposure error.

The technique of exposing for important highlights and pulling up the shadows is the way to go on a monochrome sensor.

 

Actually I blame the A setting on the camera for a large part of your observation. There is a tendency to put too much trust in the miniscule brain inside. At best the photographer will dial in an exposure compensation guesstimate and leave it at that.

Going manual and exposing precisely is as important as it used to be on film. Yes, there is a lot of scope for adjustment in postprocessing, but such adjustments eat up dynamic range and midtones.

[Jager]

The short answer is that, yes, you can continue to use your current technique of meter-the-shadows, meter-the-highlights, and expose appropriately.  In fact, I'd argue that a photographer paying attention to light in such a way is likely to be well-rewarded with his/her photography, regardless of tool or technology.

 

The longer answer is that there are several things one must be mindful of.

 

The Monochrom, having only a single luminance channel, is more subject to mild/inadvertent highlight clipping than a conventional color digital camera.  Clip the highlights a little bit with your Canon DSLR and you might get them back, if there's detail left hiding in one of the other channels.  With the Monochrom's one channel, they're simply gone.

 

That said, as someone who has shot the MM for thousands of frames, without setting default underexposure, I think the frequently repeated concern over MM highlight clipping is much overdone.  Maybe that's because I spent many years shooting film transparencies and hence came to digital with the notion that exposure ought to be understood before you take the picture, not after.  

 

Getting good images from the Monochrom, with highlights intact, is not hard.

 

Finally, remember that web images may appear to have clipped highlights even when the original DNG file - and any prints made from it - still holds detail.  You can thank jpeg compression.  Here's an example (this is actually from film - TMAX 100 rated at 50; Rodinal 1:75; scanned on a Flextight X1)...

 

[algrove]

Well, I must say that you will see all kinds of exposures taken with the Monochrom-some good, some bad. Just the other day there was a thread which a guy started who works on an oil rig somewhere off Africa and when he is off duty while on the rig he asks a million questions. Some answers are good and some are less so, but one thing we realized that he had no feel of how to set the over/under exposure parameters on the Monochrom. Keep in mind he has been using this camera for a few years now. I offer no criticism, just wanted to explain that many people do not digest the manual for this highly specialized camera and for which they spent a ton of money to obtain. In the end it was suggested he set the over at 95% (for bright Malaysia if I remember correctly) where if you hit this level somewhere in the image it will flash red. Under flashes blue. I cannot remember now since I sold my MM's in anticipation of getting the new one, but the default upon delivery might have been 98% and 2%, over/under. I did not worry about the under so much, but watched the red like a hawk and in many instances while first experimenting with the MM I had pushed to the right and kept pushing to the right with ½ stop increments. The histograms looked good all along, but wanting to ETTR (when first using the camera that is) I wanted to see where blown highlights occurred. All of a sudden the screen started to flash red. I could not believe how sensitive that camera was and how with just a half stop I was suddenly blowing out the highlights quicker than a swallow of beer. The comment above about if you came from the Kodachrome days, it puts you way ahead of the power curve when first using the MM.

 

What is VERY good about the Monochrom is that after capturing an image, at first you get a jpeg generated histogram and then it takes roughly 15 seconds for it to display a DNG generated histogram with 11 zones. Many never wait for the DNG histogram to show up and probably do not even know the camera does that since they did not read the manual carefully. Think about that--what more could you ask for? The histogram is your guide and everytime I found when I thought I knew more than the camera in tricky situations, I would loose.  This can be especially true when you first get the camera. After using the MM for some years I started mainly getting a nice histogram right about dead center with the height of it extending right up to the top and with nearly equal shoulders falling off well within the histogram edges. Some pros told me I was loosing data by not pushing it further to the right. In normal situations they were right (they shoot DSLR's), but this camera is anything but normal. Then in LR I could do what I wanted according to my personal style and vision. Remember the quicker one gets out of the digital darkroom, the more beer one can drink that day.

 

You know one way just for fun in Dunham would be to rent an MM with a lens similar to the one you would use most often on your DSLR. Then take both and have some fun trying to document what you did (that is often the hard part) while shooting various familiar scenes to you (ones that you know well) and then load all your images into LR and have at it. IMHO, it would be much better to spend a few hundred on a rental than many thousands on a purchase and decide it is not for you.

 

Sorry my answer is so generalized, but it's time for a beer. By the way, thanks for being such a good sport about my crazy post.  You see what happens when I can't my German beer any longer!

[Jeff S]

 

Primarily, I see differences in B&W CMOS renderings and CCD B&W renderings (especially in human skin).  Perhaps it is a "mystical" difference?  It certainly is visceral.  I realize that many of us don't see this difference, and believe that PP is all you need to even the playing field. In my experience, starting with a MM1 CCD file as the "musical score," gives me a rich latent image to work with that allows me to create a print - a performance of the musical score - that at a visceral level, leaves me in the WOW zone  (I'm borrowing Anselm Adams language). Of course you can also apply this to PP with a CMOS sensor DNG, but it's in the how that these DNG's are made (the technology that defines them) that forms the foundation from which you will make your musical score perform.

 

The MM2 comes with many advantages that most of us would embrace.  To be honest with you, I'm looking forward to seeing what photographers do with it; and I would love to experience a shift in my point of view, especially since I fear that CCD sensors will soon be a thing of the past for average Joe photography enthusiasts such as myself.  

 

In the end, the choice between the MM1 or MM2 will be visceral for some, and rational for others.  If you are a "Right Brain" creative type like myself, I believe it will be the MM1 for you; if you are more of a "Left Brain" rational type, it will be the MM2 for you.

 

 

Only days ago you said all you needed was online pics to see the difference…hardly a basis to invoke Adams' 'performance of the score', which is a print.   

 

So, given what you just wrote, how would you know the difference between the MMs unless YOU made prints with each?  Until then, it's all in your head, not in the print.  Otherwise you have no basis IMO for your seemingly 'visceral' reaction to this CCD/CMOS issue.

 

BTW, brain research has come a long way since the simplified notion of right and left brain…interesting and complex crossover effects.

 

Jeff 

[Jeff S]

 

Of course, the 246 is heavier and 0.6mm fatter (surprisingly noticeable) than the MM . . . . . but you also have to take into account: 

 

•Faster processor

•Larger buffer

•Longer battery life

•Higher resolution LCD

•Quieter shutter (without re-cock pause)

•Less shutter lag

•Integrated thumb grip

•Thumb wheel

•Improved ergonomics

•Improved Rangefinder design

•Focus assist / exposure compensation button

 

(and that's without even mentioning Live view, video, possibility of close up photography etc. etc. )

 

 

Plus...

• Better weather sealing
• 2m frame lines
• Illuminated frame lines (better VF contrast)
• Smoother shutter release mechanism
• Better tripod mount

 

And, as far as we know, a much more reliable platform, without corrosion, etc.

 

Jeff

[Lenshacker]

The difference between monochrome CCD and CMOS sensors has something to do with the original camera having ~70dB range and ~16300 values to divide it into, and the new camera having ~4dB greater dynamic range and 3750 values to divide it into. Something caused Leica to truncate and clip the image from the monochrome CMOS sensor. It just wasn't to save everyone's time in post-processing the image.  I see much more fixed-pattern noise in the M240 and M246 than in the M9 and M Monochrom. I hope they solve the problem and revert back to using 14-bit images.

[wilfredo]

Jeff:

 

You can't appreciate an Ansel Adams photograph on a computer screen? What I said a few days ago still stands. Ultimately, a print is the definitive truth behind all this, but unless you are printing in the darkroom, we all do our PP on a computer screen, that's where we interpret our musical score. There are enough posted images online to see the difference between CMOS and CCD. I will let this rest, and what I said about the human brain still holds water. In the end we should all be happy with our choices. Cheers!

[Geoffrey James]

I am constantly amazed by what the MM can do in all kinds of light conditions. I wish I could understand Lenshacker's posts, but I don't have the necessary technical background. But I don't feel the need to trade up right now, although I might try to get Leica to lend me a 246. This one is from PHiladelphia last week.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jeff S]

 

You can't appreciate an Ansel Adams photograph on a computer screen? 

For image quality (which is what we're discussing here) compared to a print? …oh my…we live in different universes.   Like asking if I get a visceral reaction to seeing a Vermeer online as opposed to standing in front of one.  That's why I collect vintage photos from some of the greats in addition to the books….both give pleasure, but for far different reasons...only one 'sings'. Otherwise I sure could have saved a ton of money…and time.

 

Not only don't I care about screen pics for most generalized statements about IQ; I care even less based on others' images and interpretations, which depend on myriad variables.  I make my judgments by doing the work, since ultimately I'm limited by my skills, not someone else's.

 

Your left/right brain comment is subtly condescending….as if anyone who is satisfied with a print that came from a CMOS-based camera must not be capable of a visceral reaction, or else not capable of judging the difference.  I have, and have seen, some of the most stunning silver prints ever made….I think I know a gorgeous print when I see one…skin and all.

 

Jeff

[wattsy]

Your left/right brain comment is subtly condescending….as if anyone who is satisfied with a print that came from a CMOS-based camera must not be capable of a visceral reaction, or else not capable of judging the difference.

 

I'm not sure it is even very subtle. It's also rather bizarre to suggest that there is some correlation between creativity and a preference for a digital sensor type. (In my experience, those who invoke the hackneyed left/right brain thing to self-label as "creative" tend not to be especially so.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lenshacker]

 I wish I could understand Lenshacker's posts, but I don't have the necessary technical background.

 

Sometimes I am more at ease looking at an image as numbers, which is why I really like monochrome...

 

It's like the new flat screen television sets that use contrast ratio as one of the specifications. An older set with "some arcane technology" that delivered 15000:1 contrast can show more differences in tone than the new one with a less expensive, more flexible technology that has 3000:1. For every "grey level" of the newer 3000:1 set, the older one shows 5 levels. Like the box of 100 crayons vs a box of 20. Now suppose the set with 3000:1 boasted that it could show a scene that was twice as bright- that would mean it had to pack 10 grey levels as seen on the older set into 1 grey level. This is about what the M246 is doing: the dynamic range allows a scene that is twice as bright, but it only has 20% of the levels to divide it into compared with the M Monochrom.

 

I don't know what forced the Leica engineers to make this compromise, but I suspect it was like yanking 80% of their teeth out.

 

And remember what Bob the Blob says about brains, "Turns out you don't need one, they are highly over-rated." I use that line a lot.

 

- Brian

[Geoffrey James]

Brian, That makes it a little clearer for me. Apparently the pixels of the CMOS are smaller, too, although I have no idea what the real-world result of that is. Bottom line for me is that the MM allows me to do what I want. I shot 8x10 for years, so I have some notion of what a good print looks like.