Erwin's M246 samples

[Bill W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly my reasons for wanting the M246

 

 

*I already own a M240

*I want to have the same battery and charger on both cameras

*I want to be able to use my R-lenses

*I prefer a bigger screen for viewing.

*I want to be able to use a EVF

*I want to be able to use my handgrip and bags on both.

[doronski]

Has anyone actually printed out photos from each camera? I've found that the real difference is not always obvious in a monitor compared with a fine art printer.

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

Has anyone actually printed out photos from each camera? I've found that the real difference is not always obvious in a monitor compared with a fine art printer.

 

Look at Thighslappers comparison images in a thread in MM Forum (sorry, don't know how to cross reference it here to make it easier to find).

[yeeper]

I waited to buy a digital M until the 240 came out.  While the shutter and LCD are great, I bought it for the high ISO capabilities.  I frequently shoot at ISO 2500 and that's just not an option with the M9.

 

As for the 246, I don't think it is as substantial of an upgrade.  My friend uses his MM at 5000 ISO all the time and it's gorgeous.  Plus, who doesn't like a touch of texture to B/W?  If I had the cash, I'd buy an MM in a heartbeat if it weren't for the sensor corrosion thing...

[dfarkas]

Alright, I'll throw my hat in the ring. 

 

I shot these tests a while back but was just recently able to make the time to do a comprehensive comparison of the M9M, MM246 and M240 (converted to B&W). My findings and samples are much more in line with Sean's than Erwin's. Please take a look and decide for yourself:

 

B&W ISO Showdown: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) vs. M Monochrom (M9) vs. M (Typ 240)

[jbl]

Thanks, David.

 

Could you put the DNGs up somewhere?
 

-jbl

[jbl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Replying to myself here...

 

I got an M246 today and did some checks from ISO 1000 to ISO 25000. It’s not even close. I would say ISO 25000 on the M246 is cleaner than ISO 10000 on the MM. My guess would be about a two-stop improvement. I’ve only been shooting photos of boxes in my study, though, so I’ll get some more experience with it tomorrow.

 

Really great camera, I hadn’t realized entirely what I’d been missing ergonomically with the old one.

 

-jbl

[Hannes Lummes]

The fact that Erwin has not revised his failed comparison is sad. Seems like he is no more interested in giving accurate information. Seriously, no one has told him?

[jaapv]

Erwin: "I use DCRAW without options, thus the result is without manipulations. Other raw converters have automatic noise reductions. I do not know what other reviewers use".

[Hannes Lummes]

And the hideous moire comes from.....? Seriously "without manipulations"?

[fiftyonepointsix]

Erwin's part 3 of the test explains what type of lighting that he uses, which also explains his results. The M246 can be thought of as a "Low Gamma" response, and will not do as well with the lighting used in his test.

[Hannes Lummes]

Does not explain loss of resolution and moire in part 2 at all. Parts 1 and 3 are fine.

[jaapv]

And the hideous moire comes from.....? Seriously "without manipulations"?

Whatever. Don't shoot the messenger.

In general moiré comes from various causes. It would need analysis to see the cause. Maybe Erwin simply focused more precisely.

 

Anyway, not having or aspiring to an M246 makes me without an egg to fry in this particular skillet. I am used to reading and evaluating scientific publications and have learnt over the years that there are three ways to react to a deviant result:

 

1: To accept the article as interesting, subject to further investigation,

2.  To replicate (or wait for someone else to do so) that  particular method and see whether the result is confirmed or falsified - the scientific way.

3. To retire sneering into a corner and lash out without factual basis - the academic way.

 

I always found the last action to be the least productive.

[fiftyonepointsix]

Does not explain loss of resolution and moire in part 2 at all. Parts 1 and 3 are fine.

Yes it does- spatial and tonal resolution are related. The M246 requires about 8 times the change in intensity to produce a change in pixel value as compared to the M Monochrom. Spatial resolution is lost in the intensity contours as shown in his test. If you want the problem fixed, have Leica change the firmware to bring back 14-bit pixels as an option. The Leica Q Type 116 uses 14-bit pixels and packs 8 pixels in 14 bytes to save space. A similar option would restore the tonal resolution and save space for the M246.

[Hannes Lummes]

I wonder if you took a proper look at the pictures. Explaining the difference with 12 vs 14 bits falls short by a couple of magnitudes I think. And still, the moire... AND the fact that no one elses pictures in any light gives these kind of weird results. AND if you look carefully Erwins samples in part 1 and 3 tell a different story, contradict his own test part 2.

[fiftyonepointsix]

About a factor of 8: The M240 pixel is truncated by 2 bits for a factor of 4; and the Dynamic Range being represented requires twice the linear range to represent. Using the range 0:3750 rather than 0:4095 is still a mystery.

 

I looked carefully at his images, and his test setup. His results are perfectly reasonable.

 

Using 0:3750 range for the intensity levels to record an image with the dynamic range of the CMOSIS sensor: I find unreasonable, and no explanation has followed from Leica.

Edited July 7, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix