M10 vs Leica 246

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any idea about black and white images out of the M10 vs the Leica 246 monohcrom?

 

Any comparisons?

 

 

[PSV]

This review talks about it to some extent http://www.momofuku.asia/the-camera-doesnt-make-a-bit-of-difference

[Advertisement]

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

[lpeeples]

I haven't compared but will.  I'm trying to decide if I should sell the M246 since I have the M10.  Part of me wants to just simplify.  

[BBHewee]

Please keep us posted!

[helged]

See also this thread.

[Peoplewing]

@epeeples

For me it is a completely different way I'm using the 246 vs. a colour-camera. Even if a b&w-converted M10-picture would be better in terms of IQ than that of the 246, I would never change to the M10 as an alternative to the 246. May be I'm seeing the world in a different way when looking through the 246 viewfinder than that of a 240 or M10...

Edited January 26, 2017 by Peoplewing

[Philinflash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Strongly but skeptically agree that this is a subject worthy of exploration.  The best case is that monochrome M10 images are good enough to render earlier monochrom bodies redundant.  I do not see how that will be the case but I maintain a hopeful but open mind.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Philinflash

[Peter H]

Strongly but skeptically agree that this is a subject worthy of exploration.  The best case is that monochrome M10 images are good enough to render earlier monochrom bodies redundant.  I do not see how that will be the case but I maintain a hopeful but open mind.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

It doesn't sound logical but it may be the case. Maybe magic is at work.

 

It's academic for me because colour is so much more important to me personally than B&W so I've no desire for a Monochrome camera, but I do like B&W sometimes so it would be nice to know how close the M10 can come to the Monochrom.

 

Of course, the M10 Monochrom is likely to be the best B&W camera. The wheels of progress never rest...

[JonPB]

I'm afraid to compare files from the M10 to the original Monochrom.

 

There be dragons. And they want me treasure.

 

I'll save my speculation, though, but I think we're safe. The dragons will need to be more clever than that to take it from me unwillingly.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[Jager]

My guess is that converted B&W images from the M10 exceed those of the MM1 in most respects.  And they come close to matching those from the M246.

 

So, in terms of image quality alone, I'd be shocked if the M10 isn't an eminently able contestant in the realm of black and white imagery.  That said, many of us know that the Monochroms, especially the first one, have something mysterious mixed in with them.  Some alchemy invisible to charts and specifications.

 

The M10-Monochrom cometh.  We hope....

[brill64]

i'm not convinced that b+w conversions from even a newly introduced color M-camera could supersede need for either of the recent monochrom M-cameras. even if the sensor was developed specifically for the M10, it's designed primarily for colour output. philosophy aside, it doesn't make good business sense. Leica would be shooting themselves in the foot. someone?

[Jager]

From Leica's perspective it's quite simple... they'll continue to sell the M246 as long as it's profitable to do so and does not cannibalize sales of some more lucrative product.  It makes every sense for them to continue the M246 in the catalog alongside the M10, notwithstanding that B&W conversions from the M10 may approach those from the Monochrom.  As the owner of both Monochrom iterations - and as someone who's first thought upon hearing the M10 announcement was when will the M10 Monochrom be released? - I'm certainly not suggesting that.

 

But for others less smitten - that would be most Leica owners, I'm guessing, as most folks want to shoot a bit of color now and then - the question of how good those M10 B&W conversions are, how close they come to images from an M246, is an intriguing one.

 

My guess is they come very close, indeed.

[steppenw0lf]

If b/w images are converted in camera or in LR is NOT important at all.

 

It is completely different, if the camera can only do b/w but at a higher resolution.

[Herr Barnack]

I'm afraid to compare files from the M10 to the original Monochrom.

 

There be dragons. And they want me treasure.

 

I'll save my speculation, though, but I think we're safe. The dragons will need to be more clever than that to take it from me unwillingly.

 

Cheers,

Jon

 

From this day forward, every new map of Germany should be required by law to have that phrase printed in red letters next to the town of Wetzlar. 

 

I am hoping for the release of an M10 Monochrom in the future - perhaps the next year or so. 

 

Some of the above observations make me wonder if at some point sensor technology and performance will advance to the point that B&W conversions will be of such quality that a Monochrom camera will no longer be needed. 

 

Leica must tread circumspectly lest they cause the extinction of one of their most revered cameras.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Carlos Danger

[steppenw0lf]

In the monochrome there is a different sensor (no bayer array). This "special construction" is probably quite expensive. Only Leica produces b/w cameras, so all but Leica say a monochrome is not needed.

Also there is no additional resolution compared to the M246, so an M10 Mono is an expensive upgrade for only a marginal improvement. Not for me, probably.

Most owners of a MM still enjoy it and see no need to upgrade. The MM/M246 is usually not for technology freaks.

 

First there will hopefully be a higher res S, then maybe a updated SL. Or another Q. Or a grown-up TL ?

 

By the way, at high ISO values the M246 has still less banding than the M10. So there is no real progress. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[adan]

There are three main technical advantages to a monochrome camera, so "better or worse" will depend on which one is considered.

 

1) ISO - the color sensor filters (Bayer array) needed for color photography absorb incoming light, reducing the effective ISO in a color camera. About 1-2 stops worth. E.G. MM CCD, ISO 10000, M9 CCD, ISO 2500. In this regard, the M10 is somewhat better than the CCD Monochrom I - does ISO 10000 with somewhat less noise, even with the color filtering. Can't speak to the 246, however - someone will have to try that comparison. A hypothetical M10M will have the same advantage over the color M10 (e.g. ISO of 100000 with same noise as color M10 at ISO 25000).

 

Additionally, the color camera will tend to have blotchy noise at high ISOs, while the noise in a Monochrom is strictly per-pixel - one noisy pixel doesn't contaminate surrounding pixels through chroma/color interpolation, it is just a single speck.

 

2) Dynamic range - which tracks inversely with amplification of the signal. So, other things being equal, ISO 640 on a Monochrom (base ISO of 320 amplified 1 stop or 2x) will have more DR than ISO 640 from a color camera with the same sensor (base ISO of 160 amplified 2 stops or 4x). Of course, since the M10 has a different sensor, all things are NOT equal. But how unequal remains to be seen.

 

3) Resolution - Bayer filtering requires that a final image be interpolated, borrowing signal and data from surrounding pixels of different colors to get accurate color and tones. Even in B&W conversions. Otherwise your picture would be a red/green/blue or gray/gray/gray** checkerboard, as the actual sensor is. The necessary crosstalk between pixels can result in moirés in both color and luminance (B&W), and ultra-fine (pixel-sized) fine details can show "jaggies" even in a B&W conversion. Since the M10 and the 246 are both 24Mpixel cameras, the 246 should still show a distinct advantage in this regard - IF the subject matter and lens resolution actually produce lots of pixel-scale details. My experience with the M9 and MM1 is that this makes a real practical difference in less than 10% of pictures and/or less than 10% of the picture area (essentially, the same areas of detail/edges where the color camera shows a color moiré in color pictures) - but when it's there, it is a real effect.

__

 

** think about it - photograph someone in a red shirt with a Bayer-filtered camera, and the red pixels will have a very light gray luminance, while the green and blue pixels will be very dark gray or black. Without interpolation (and thus fuzzing of detail - essentially a very delicate "median" filtering of luminance), you'd still see a white/gray/black checkerboard in the shirt in a monochrome conversion.

_______________________

 

Lumping all those factors together, I don't think there will be a huge difference overall - neither M246 nor M10 users need feel short-changed. But if your primary interest in the Monochrom focuses on just one factor (ISO or resolution or DR), there will be subtle differences still favoring the MM, or the M10.

 

That of course leaves aside the "creative" desire for working purely in B&W. Or the practical advantage of being able to darken blue skies after the fact, from a full-color original, rather than carrying around red, orange, yellow, and green filters in all the Leica sizes for shooting (although I guess that can be fun, too.)

[dkmoore]

I am no expert on dynamic range but I question whether the dynamic range of the M246 is greater than that of the M240. I own the 246 and M10 and previously owned an M-P240. I love the M246 but the highlights are still much more likely to clip than the other two cameras. Obviously you can pull more shadow detail out of the M246 file but I am not sure there is an actual difference between the two except for which side, highlights or shadows, you are able to recover.

 

Just my gut reaction as I do not have any scientific data to back up my comment. 

[Philinflash]

... Obviously you can pull more shadow detail out of the M246 file but I am not sure there is an actual difference between the two except for which side, highlights or shadows, you are able to recover....

Sorry to be a bit thick on this but it is not obvious to me as to why you can pull more shadow detail out of the M246; could you elaborate?  This is exactly the sort of information this thread needs.

[dkmoore]

If you edit your raw files with the M246 you can lighten the shadows, revealing more detail,without destroying the file with more latitude than the M240. You then use the exposure and shadow sliders in conjunction with other sliders.

 

When shooting the M246 you would want to expose slightly to the left to protect the highlights (bright parts of image) while with the 240 you tend to slightly expose to the right to protect the shadows.

 

When pulling detail out of the shadows with the M246 you can push the file further before inducing negative effects at base ISO and at moderate ISO. (artifacts, banding, etc)

 

Same goes for the highlights for the M240.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Philinflash]

If you edit your raw files with the M246 you can lighten the shadows, revealing more detail,without destroying the file with more latitude than the M240. ...

Sorry, I read your post as comparing the M246 to the M10 which the original post  said you own.  This seems to clarify that the comparison was actually the M246 to the M240, somewhat less interesting.