New Monochrom - should I bother?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Sensors have different "looks," and that's not unlike film.  I have a favorite film when shooting B&W, and a favorite film when shooting color.  I see differences in the various film options, and if posted on a screen, I can these differences.  So let's agree to disagree, and call it day. 

 

Stating that film has different looks is no revelation….I did my own darkroom work for 35 years.

 

But my point is that it wouldn't matter to me even if I saw a difference online comparing 2 cameras.  The only thing that matters to me is having actual camera(s) in hand and producing results….for screen or print.  I would never generalize about results….repeatedly as you've done on numerous threads…without doing my own work to judge.  But you won't do that because you're biased before you start….without ever working with the files to even produce your own screen shot, let alone a print.  (And worse, generalizing about brain functions…ugh.)  

 

I never produced a silver print (even contact prints) in my life without doing 'post processing'…digital PP is just the modern version…and there are myriad ways to influence the final 'look'…whether on screen or in print.  And, yes, that means skin as well. (Look at the recent thread on Monochrom and filters and see the facial renderings of the CCD-based MM using different colored filters….some wipe out the texture altogether.  And that's just a simple step compared to what can be done digitally….to add or decrease characteristics…not to mention other printing variables.)  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/193782-m-monochrom-filters/page-3

 

Unless and until you have done your own work comparing the 2 cameras, any absolute and generalized statements you make are suspect.  [And all these other comments here about 12 versus 14 bits are just as irrelevant to me….I don't look at bits, I look at prints.] 

 

Jeff

Edited May 13, 2015 by Jeff S

[pop]

   

 

 

You are a very good photographer, a good beta tester and also excellent at jokes.

Kind regards,

Joël

And the joke would be what, exactly?

 

The M9 has a colour filter array in front of the sensor. The first Monochrom has the same sensor as the M9 but no colour filter array. Hence, where the M9 basically interpolates the values of four sensor cells to obtain one pixel, the Monochrom maps one sensor cell to each pixel. The picture becomes sharper.

 

The M has a colour filter array in front of the sensor. The new Monochrom has the same sensor as the M but no colour filter array. Hence, where the M basically interpolates the values of four sensor cells to obtain one pixel, the new Monochrom maps one sensor cell to each pixel. The picture becomes sharper.

[Advertisement]

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

[BerndReini]

 

The picture becomes sharper.

It will be interesting to see what Erwin Putts' findings are on that. In his Part I of the M246 review he makes it sound like this may not be the case for some reason.

[Jeff S]

It will be interesting to see what Erwin Putts' findings are on that. In his Part I of the M246 review he makes it sound like this may not be the case for some reason.

As I noted elsewhere, his language is typically Puts' confusing.  It could be the other way around, i.e., he expected the SAME comparative advantage (between the 2 MMs over the M9), but he sees 'subtle improvement' in the center (for the MM246).  We'll have to wait for clarification.  

 

 

Jeff

Edited May 13, 2015 by Jeff S

[biglou]

 

And the joke would be what, exactly?

 

The M9 has a colour filter array in front of the sensor. The first Monochrom has the same sensor as the M9 but no colour filter array. Hence, where the M9 basically interpolates the values of four sensor cells to obtain one pixel, the Monochrom maps one sensor cell to each pixel. The picture becomes sharper.

 

The M has a colour filter array in front of the sensor. The new Monochrom has the same sensor as the M but no colour filter array. Hence, where the M basically interpolates the values of four sensor cells to obtain one pixel, the new Monochrom maps one sensor cell to each pixel. The picture becomes sharper.

 

 

 

 

This we all know.

So good news, you stand for what i thought was Jono's funny joke ?

 

" I reckon there is nearly twice the resolution in the new MM over the 240- pretty much exactly the same as the M9 vs the MM "

 

 

Maybe we have a problem of word definition on top of the camera resolution topic.

 

Erwin puts (and others) where a little surprised by what they found and investigate in order to understand better.

 

" 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. When you look very closely at the images (here at 200%) there is a subtle improvement in the separation of the black-white spokes close to the centre, but this distinction, while visible in these comparison pictures, might be lost in practical photography. This is a slightly surprising result and one that needs more study and analysis to explain. "

 

Take note i do not say that the Monochrom (new) is not a very good or even an exceptionnal camera, this is not my point if you read me again peacefully.

[jonoslack]

   

 

 

You are a very good photographer, a good beta tester and also excellent at jokes.

Kind regards,

Joël

I will be purring all evening

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Erwin puts (and others) where a little surprised by what they found and investigate in order to understand better.

 

" 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. When you look very closely at the images (here at 200%) there is a subtle improvement in the separation of the black-white spokes close to the centre, but this distinction, while visible in these comparison pictures, might be lost in practical photography. This is a slightly surprising result and one that needs more study and analysis to explain. "

 

Post #64…read Puts again.

 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

Erwin puts (and others) where a little surprised by what they found and investigate in order to understand better.

 

I read what Erwin said - but (and others) - who exactly?

[biglou]

 

I read what Erwin said - but (and others) - who exactly?

 

 

 

OK, another one conselled by yourself on another forum:

 

" with each camera at its base ISO, I could see very little resolution difference between them. Sure, the MM9 has only 76% as many pixels as the other two cameras, but it seemed no less adept at resolving detail. Comparisons between the M246 and M240 yielded results that I would consider “inconclusive.” Sometimes, the M246 seemed to resolve slightly more detail, and sometimes the M240 did.

http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/ "

 

Jono, i do not want to start anything here and you are very certainly much more competent than me on the subject.

You could use the camera for a long time.

So whatever you say i will trust it more than my own uneducated thoughts formed after reading online reviews.

 

 

Maybe could you explain your exact thoughts on the subject for all to benefit ?

[jonoslack]

   

 

 

OK, another one conselled by yourself on another forum:

 

" with each camera at its base ISO, I could see very little resolution difference between them. Sure, the MM9 has only 76% as many pixels as the other two cameras, but it seemed no less adept at resolving detail. Comparisons between the M246 and M240 yielded results that I would consider “inconclusive.” Sometimes, the M246 seemed to resolve slightly more detail, and sometimes the M240 did.

http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/ "

 

Jono, i do not want to start anything here and you are very certainly much more competent than me on the subject.

You could use the camera for a long time.

So whatever you say i will trust it more than my own uneducated thoughts formed after reading online reviews.

 

 

Maybe could you explain your exact thoughts on the subject for all to benefit ?

Ah egor - great writeup - I read it a week or so back and had missed that bit. I really like his website (ultrasomething.com) and the way he does excellent work but makes it pleasant to read.

 

As for being competent on the subject, I'm not so sure! but I was referring to the tests I did for the ISO comparisons, and I thought that I saw the resolution improvements I'd expected - these were taken at much close range than egor, which might explain it. I've put some of the files into dropbox for download - I guess I could put some more if anyone wanted to look.

[tookaphotoof]

No need for the files, but when you receive your own M246, you can send the other one to me for thorough testdrive... 

[algrove]

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. 

Give that man a beer!

[algrove]

I will be purring all evening

And here I thought all along those were images of your cat.

[Lenshacker]

This is a nice analogy, but I'm still not very convinced that the technical distinctions between the sensors have a visual effect. To go back to your analogy, my feeling is that it's all in the 'prescription'. 

Jono- as a test, take a lens such as the Noctilux and try it with the M Monochrom, M240, M246, M9- all with lens detection turned off. If there is no difference, then the "prescription" of the CMOSIS sensor matches that of the Kodak CCD. If there is more of a light fall-off in the corners, then onboard processing is making up the difference. Whether you can see the difference in the finished print- depends on efficiency of collecting light and post-processing it. By turning off lens detection, you take a step out of the post-processing in each and get a better look at the light gathering efficiency. A highly-corrected Sonnar at F2.8 is hard to tell from a Planar, looking at images from the C-Sonnar 50/1.5. Comparing the 10.5cm F2.5 Nikkor of 1952 with the Planar 105/2.5 Nikkor- back to hard to tell.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Lenshacker

[Lenshacker]

8-Bit Monochrome, circa 1993. Less latitude than Polaroid instant Slide film.

 

pod1 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Those extra 6-bits really make post-processing much more flexible.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Lenshacker

[Geoffrey James]

IT all seems to come down to the very high ISO performance, For my own needs, I find the MM more than adequate. He is a

hand held shot of the staircase of Joze Plecnik's University LIbrary in Ljubljana -- all black fossilized limestone. The

camera renders this dark space admirably.

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!

[algrove]

IT all seems to come down to the very high ISO performance, For my own needs, I find the MM more than adequate. He is a

hand held shot of the staircase of Joze Plecnik's University LIbrary in Ljubljana -- all black fossilized limestone. The

camera renders this dark space admirably.

How does that image print? What paper do you use?

[Geoffrey James]

How does that image print? What paper do you use?

I just checked and it was at 2500 ISO. I don't think it can go really big, but it works fine on 17x 22. Very little PP -- mostly tweaking the sshadows with fill light, and a little highlight reduction snd some noise reduction. If it is just right, the staircase looks sub-aqueous. I am doing the whole series on Epson Hot Press Bright, using the Epson advanced black and white, with a little warmth added to the neutral setting. Trying to reproduce this look in a book is going to be challenging. Uncoated stock seems to soak up all the blacks.Miraculously, I didn't have to clean up the edges - it came out of the camera perfect in spite of the

imprecision of the Leica viewfinder. Hope that helps.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Geoffrey James

[Samir Jahjah]

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!

Well put - and for me I keep learning and discovering the fantastic potential of the MM1 ... and I agree with your reference to "visceral" - I have the M9 and the M240 - and I have yet to get a pic with that "visceral factor" - not that I get it on all my M9 - on the contrary - but when it hits you, you know it is there. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Samir Jahjah]

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.

...sure but when you stop subscribing to his site you can't get to read again 2 or 3 year old reviews for which you paid for!