Leica M10 BW conversion vs Monochrome CCD

[gunston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if you see BW, those are taken with MM CCD

https://www.instagram.com/gunston/

[Advertisement]

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

[Fireboy]

Thanks for that, but I doubt that the image of T. Abrahamsson was made with an M10.

Correct, that was shot with the M9. My M10 photos are marked with #LeicaM10. 

 

For all those who knew Tom, he will be missed. I live in Vancouver and was very fortunate to have met Tom many times at friday morning Zen breakfasts. He was inspiring, kind and sharing of his knowledge.

[Fireboy]

No matter how well conversions are, the monochromes are in a different league.

Therefore replacing a MM or M246 by a M10 makes no sense. You might just as well replace it by a CaNikon or Fuji.

Darn and I just sold my D800e to fund the M10 I bought.

[Tailwagger]

I do a lot of B&W, I've contemplated a monochrom for a long time.  From my utterly non-scientific, look at every one else's results, style of visual research, I find the the CCD MM more to my liking in general. It has a gentler feel than most of the 246 images I've seen. Perhaps its that I associate B&W more closely with film and find the more biting nature of the 246 output, at least that I've seen, to be somewhat out of character to what I'm accustom to. Certainly I can appreciate where others might celebrate that capability.  There are a number of reasons why I haven't succumbed to the original MM, and I still might, but the biggest one is that I'm not particularly willing to trade the convenience, not to mention flexibility, of filtering in post for having to carry a raft of extra glass discs around and make permanent decisions in the field.  If some argue that with the right level of shooting discipline either MM can significantly  outdo the results of any color M, I would never argue the point. But I've found the 240, particularly with vintage glass, is fully capable of producing what I find to be a convincing result and there's little reason to doubt the M10 isn't at least its equal.   So I'd guess that in many circumstances which camera might be 'better' likely comes down to one's personal taste as well as how committed one is to making it so.

[harmen]

Do those of you who chose an MM do so in part for the same reasons that one might choose an M-D?

 

In other words, is the deliberate limitation a feature? Personally I don't see such benefit in not having live view (never used it), not having video (never used it), or not having a screen (it usually stays off). However, I do use my M240 first as a color camera and struggle a little to apply it for black and white. Now that I've set capture one to apply b&w settings on import, I don't succumb to a color view so easily. (When I wanted a color result in the first place I skip applying settings.). Curious how others made their choice.

[JonPB]

To me, the Monochrom excels in its handling of noise. (The 246 is also outstanding, but in a different way. I'd prefer the 246 if cost were no object, but they're different enough that it is a matter of taste rather than objective quality.) My default test is to examine a photo taken at ISO 5000 or 6400. This sensitivity is what allows me to shoot urban scenes at night with f/1.4 and 1/60s, so it is a meaningful and pragmatic hurdle. Color cameras show definite mottling of tones at this level. I printed a few SL images today, converted to B&W, that were good and perhaps tolerable at 10x6.7". In comparison, noise is more obvious with the Monochrom, but since it comes in the form of single-pixel points rather than blobs of mush, similar images from the Monochrom retain higher resolution and, to my eye, read as though they have more continuous tonalities. 

 

If I could get a color camera that cleared that benchmark -- and also shot color images that pleased me -- I'd prefer that camera. Indeed, unless I'm paying particular attention to the finest possible resolution, I'll shoot a color camera in daylight so I can benefit from that extra data when processing images. But, from what I've seen, to get a color camera that would give the Monochrom a run for its quality, one would need to look at medium format systems, which don't interest me.

 

And, as an aside, my impression is that the SL has lower luminance noise than the M10 (which is a good indicator for the M10's colors, but not for its B&W dynamic range), and the SL comes close but does not equal the original Monochrom in this regard to my eyes, so I don't think the M10 will be compelling for me -- until the Monochrom variant comes out.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[DwF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do those of you who chose an MM do so in part for the same reasons that one might choose an M-D?

 

In other words, is the deliberate limitation a feature? Personally I don't see such benefit in not having live view (never used it), not having video (never used it), or not having a screen (it usually stays off). However, I do use my M240 first as a color camera and struggle a little to apply it for black and white. Now that I've set capture one to apply b&w settings on import, I don't succumb to a color view so easily. (When I wanted a color result in the first place I skip applying settings.). Curious how others made their choice.

I can only speak for myself in saying that I have used live-view on cameras, but having worked with M2, M4P and M6 (two or three of M2s and M6s over many years), I can't warm to the 240. To me that camera with it's bells and whistles, while it may be a fine camera was aptly named 240. For my money, M is for Misnomer. I just handled the M10 and liked the size but found it unusually heavy.  I may come 'round to it in a year or two; my mind is open.  For now I am happy with my MM CCD. I love that camera as I have loved two M9s before it -only sold the first one with a 28 'cron to remodel a bathroom. The second one went toward the MM CCD.  I love these cameras and am excited learning my MM. For shooting color, I am thrilled to learn my way around a new X Pro2. My rationale may seem irrational to some but you asked and that is my story     David

[steppenw0lf]

I do a lot of B&W, I've contemplated a monochrom for a long time.  From my utterly non-scientific, look at every one else's results, style of visual research, I find the the CCD MM more to my liking in general. It has a gentler feel than most of the 246 images I've seen. Perhaps its that I associate B&W more closely with film and find the more biting nature of the 246 output, at least that I've seen, to be somewhat out of character to what I'm accustom to. Certainly I can appreciate where others might celebrate that capability.  There are a number of reasons why I haven't succumbed to the original MM, and I still might, but the biggest one is that I'm not particularly willing to trade the convenience, not to mention flexibility, of filtering in post for having to carry a raft of extra glass discs around and make permanent decisions in the field.  If some argue that with the right level of shooting discipline either MM can significantly  outdo the results of any color M, I would never argue the point. But I've found the 240, particularly with vintage glass, is fully capable of producing what I find to be a convincing result and there's little reason to doubt the M10 isn't at least its equal.   So I'd guess that in many circumstances which camera might be 'better' likely comes down to one's personal taste as well as how committed one is to making it so.

 

I use mostly older lenses (pre-asph) maybe that is why I do not see the harshness in the M246 images.  I also prefer the "normal" Summicron 50 to the Apo50. (small differences for me)

My comment is not about which is better, but if a switch from the M246 is necessary for optimal results. And I think it is clearly not indicated. (The M246 is more than good enough).

And I think the M10 cannot be better (regarding resolution) as it is using a Bayer filter, while the M246 has a "naked" sensor.

 

I use almost no post-processing - simply too lazy (and not skilled enough to get improvements). I like to get always the "same" results - without pp.

But with a color camera post-processing is almost mandatory. So the results you see (good or bad) are mainly caused by the (good or bad) postprocessing. A switch of the camera would also mean a switch of methods. I have no intention to do that.

The M246 is maybe a diva because overexposure is deadly. But it is easy to get used to it. (As an old Kodachrome user I am automatically on the side of underexposure.)

[Philinflash]

...

 

And I think the M10 cannot be better (regarding resolution) as it is using a Bayer filter, while the M246 has a "naked" sensor.

 

...

 

Yes, one would think.  But at this point, all I have seen has been speculation.  I am waiting for more in-use evidence, i. e., actual comparable photographs from the two cameras, to come forward and I have little doubt that it will.  For me personally, the equation question is (M8+M246)<=M10 rather than just M246<=M10.  

[BerndReini]

I cannot speak about the black and white capabilities of the M10, I own the MM1, and I absolutely love this camera. When the first Monochrom was released, people were talking about the flat files the camera produces and the need for plug-ins and processing. I completely disagree with this assertion. I love the gentle files and all I do in post processing is adjust the black point and the whites, but I leave the mid-tones alone, and I find it stunning.

 

Here's a link to a recent album. All of the color photographs were done with the M9, all black and whites with the MM1:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32229012@N00/albums/72157678591997705

[charlesphoto99]

I'm regretting having sold my M9M at a pretty big loss in order to fund the M10. That said, once one works with the super tight build of the M10, quiet, no running out of buffer, nice big screen, better vf, etc etc then it becomes hard to go back to an M9 style body. I possibly see in my future an M10M (or barring that a used 246) but no way am I going back to having my subjects standing around picking their noses while I wait like a moron for the M9M buffer to clear. To me that was the achilles heal of that camera. At least the original M9, shooting uncompressed, one rarely ran out the buffer (though at times I did). Then only thing I truly miss about the Monochrom's, other than the file quality, is the unique way of working (no going back an forth!)\

 

Of course everybody's needs, budget, etc is different. It used to be there was the M6 (and oooh, then the M6TTL!) but now we have, within one small brand, a whole variety of cameras to suit anyones specific needs - if one can afford one that is. 

[thighslapper]

All this comparison malarkey is pretty pointless with the M246 unless you are just going to view images 100% on a computer monitor.

 

On A2 (23"x16.5") prints the 'grain' is imperceptible to the naked eye up to 12500 ISO. The only difference is some loss of definition at 12500 which at normal viewing distances is again very hard to spot.

 

In printed images M9 and M246 are much the same except for the few extra pixels and higher ISO performance. 

 

Quite who needs greater than iso 12500 for B&W work with fast Leica lenses defeats me ...... speleologists ..... astronomers ..... spies ...... ??? Certainly not your average Leica buyer. 

 

No idea ...... and not bothered,  about the M10 performance ...... it is the discipline of using a B&W ONLY camera that makes both of the MM's special ..... you HAVE to think purely in light, tone and composition and deliberately ignore colour..... which is why although I primarily use an SL now the Monochrom is the one M I will never relinquish ..... even if M10 performance was on a par.