erwin says MM-I is better at low to medium ISO than MM-II

[patrick parker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-50/

[jaapv]

Yeah-well- great anti-GAS. However I defy anybody to show up this kind of subtlety on a print....

[Advertisement]

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

[k-hawinkler]

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-50/

I noticed this as well. IQ-wise MM and MM2 seem about the same.

[FrozenInTime]

At high ISO, the un-smoothed  fine 'grain' of the MM-I  looks less clumpy and more pleasing to my eyes.

[pico]

Grain? Grain is black. Pixels do not clump.

[Jeff S]

Already being discussed….  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/245136-mm-m240-mm246-comparison-images/page-8

 

Jeff

[patrick parker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Naturally Erwin Puts can be mistaken, but not likely. I read the Steve Huff review (where he states that it is not a review for some reason) , in there he claims that the IQ and noise on MM-II  is so incredibly much better than the MM-I. I know these guys make money getting adds and stuff but they should hold on to some credibility in order to be taken seriously, right?

I don't know if Mr.Puts will be writing a part 3 for the MM-II but I do wish he would comment on the blown highlight issue which Huff claims is solved with the MM-II.

Edited May 24, 2015 by patrick parker

[wilfredo]

Used MMI prices just went up with this review! 

Edited May 25, 2015 by wilfredo

[BerndReini]

Generally I like Steve Huff's positive attitude and enthusiasm, but he is definitely an upgrader. He buys the newest toy and then everything he has gotten bored with and sold is so much worse. Sometimes I get offended when he inadvertently insults the gear I am still using successfully.

[bocaburger]

Not enough of a b&w shooter to own either camera, but to me an M240 or M246 would make better images than an M9 or MM sitting at Leica awaiting a new sensor.  Impetus enough for me to prefer the newer generation.

[jffielde]

I'm a little baffled by this.  There are a fair number of reviews out now with samples that show 1.5 stops of better ISO performance or so (and even slightly better detail) in favor of the M240.  Sean Read has lots of samples.  I've also downloaded direct comparisions from one of our contributors, and the difference in the files at every ISO is easily noticible.  I don't know what to think now that there's one reviewer who sees it the other way.  Very interesting data point. 

[MarkP]

I think that rather than being baffled, it means that on balance there's little in it.

 

Well I've been waiting patiently for the release of the M246 to upgrade my Monochrom.

 

I made the well worthwhile upgrade from M9 to M240 a while back and I've been looking forward to eventually having both cameras on the same platform for all of the obvious advantages of the M240 (discussed ad-nauseum elsewhere).

 

However, and this isn't to say that I won't upgrade down the track, the lack of improvement in IQ over the original model means that the only advantages are functional (unlike the M9 to M240).  these are not insignificant issues but it's a lot of money to upgrade for no real benefit in IQ.

 

I don't buy into the CCD vs CMOS debate, and the Erwin Puts comparison was most informative (albeit images even less exciting than Sean's fruit & vege).  It just shows what a great job Leica did with the original Monochrom.  

 

For the moment I've decided to put the funds into a 50mm APO-Summicron which I'll weld onto the Monochrom for a while .

I'll reconsider the M246 once the hype and prices have settled.

[jaapv]

 

I'm a little baffled by this.  There are a fair number of reviews out now with samples that show 1.5 stops of better ISO performance or so (and even slightly better detail) in favor of the M240.  Sean Read has lots of samples.  I've also downloaded direct comparisions from one of our contributors, and the difference in the files at every ISO is easily noticible.  I don't know what to think now that there's one reviewer who sees it the other way.  Very interesting data point. 

 

 

I’m not baffled. When the M8 was replaced by the M9 using very much the same sensor and the same electronics there was a 1½ stop jump in noise performance, caused by the higher resolution through size increase of the sensor, which did not show up in the type of test Erwin is using now. And indeed the on-sensor acuity is better on the M8.

 

Here we have a resolution increase through sensor technology, so it is quite possible that the results through rigorous technical testing will show these results.

[250swb]

I'm a little baffled by this.  There are a fair number of reviews out now with samples that show 1.5 stops of better ISO performance or so (and even slightly better detail) in favor of the M240. 

 

But the base ISO images are very similar between the two cameras. The talk of 1.5 stops of 'better ISO performance' will for most people be purely theoretical because as happens with almost all new cameras the reviewers, testers, early adopters etc. all push the limits. But then for the majority of the camera's short life the ISO is set back to the lowest value and left there. Most new camera sales are based on perceived potential, hence the interest in high ISO. I for one would love the M246 because it's live view makes the genre of navel contemplating landscapes so much easier and I can use it much like a view camera (as I did with the M240 before I sold it). But nothing in the initial release of base ISO images makes me yearn for it over my MM. And even at high ISO I'm not sure I prefer the M246 images I've seen, at 8000 ISO there is something about the granular deconstruction of the MM image that I like more than ever increasing fidelity. In short I am in a situation where I can't make up my mind, so the M246 can't be that good or a choice would be clear.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

One phrase I disagree with, Jeff. "Short life"  I notice quite a few users are hanging onto their MM1-s. I think there will be quite a few photographers that will only retire it after parts run out and it finally dies - which could well be twenty years in the future, at least more than ten, which in the digital world is eternity.

[Bill Livingston]

... Or until Leica decide that they can no longer supply, support and replace the original CCD sensor and offer a PX on the MM against the M246... Which will probably be a LOT sooner than ten years.

 

I suspect there will come a time when there really isn't any choice, something that seems to have been forgotten by those using their current MM's.

 

IQ isn't everything... ease of use and long term confidence in the platform are at the very least of equal value. Given the performance (in normal use) of any of these cameras, IQ is probably the least of the issues.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Livingston

[DandA]

I would personally say yes and no Livingston. Everyone places a different value on outright image output characteristics of a given camera vs.it's actual performance in other given areas like build, shutter quietness, versitilty, refinement etc. I think its hard to get an actual consencious of exactly what these value levels are in a very diverse set of users...especially that we all have different uses for a given camera and different expectations.

 

Dave (D&A)

[enboe]

So, I must admit a slight chilling of the lower extremities based upon Puts' review.  From all meta reviews, reviews of reviewers, he is a knowledgeable, fact-based reviewer and expert on Leica, so his reviews are to be considered seriously.

 

Running down the semi-prioritized list of benefits of the M246 vs Monochrom M:

 

1)  2GB buffer - still a benefit.  I have bumped into the buffer limit on the Monochrom M several times in the past.

2)  B&W HD video - still a benefit, although you can shoot B&W HD video with an M240 or M-P240.

3)  Image quality/optical resolution - the 15% bump in linear resolution was never a big driver, call it a wash now.

4)  Image quality/tonal resolution - the 12-bit DNG file vs 14 bit in the Monochrom M gives a theoretical advantage to the older camera.  Having 4 times as many sampling points between white and black could give more subtle detail in the tonal range, but I don't know if this has been demonstrated.  I remember reading that the human eye can distinguish roughly 64 shades of grey in reflected printing, 256 shades in transmissive viewing, so both cameras have ample headroom depending on how they place those samples in the range of light to dark.

5)  Image quality/noise performance - a split jury, Puts saying no benefit, a less technical reviewer saying +1.5 stops benefit to the M246.  Perhaps a second expert review would help break the tie - would anyone care to weigh in on Mr. Reid's findings, while respecting his copyright, of course?

6)  Live view for fast glass - yes the focus peaking on the M240 and M246 series cameras is genuinely useful for the f/1.4 and below crowd.  I also could envision odd-angle shooting, low-perspectives of plants or held overhead in a crowd, where the live view screen would be useful.

7)  Shutter - much quieter on the M246.

8)  Physical build - improved weather resistance on the M246, although the lenses are no less or more prone to weather.

 

So, is all the above worth another $7450?  I think I'll keep my spot on the wait list, at least for now.

 

Eric

[erlingmm]

There are many subtle parameters here, but other reviews (see for example Sean Reid's real life examples at ISO 10.000) show considerable improvement at high ISO. Same with Jono's high ISO test (he says he deliberately used low light in the high ISO test for it to be realistic - what lighting did Erwin use?)

 

But no need to be unhappy with the original M. I upgraded because of the sensor issue, and the new M package (buffer, battery, finder, less noisy shutter).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

... Or until Leica decide that they can no longer supply, support and replace the original CCD sensor and offer a PX on the MM against the M246... Which will probably be a LOT sooner than ten years.

 

I suspect there will come a time when there really isn't any choice, something that seems to have been forgotten by those using their current MM's.

 

IQ isn't everything... ease of use and long term confidence in the platform are at the very least of equal value. Given the performance (in normal use) of any of these cameras, IQ is probably the least of the issues.

Probably? What indication do you have? One can still buy much older sensors.