m10 vs M246 no comparision for BW

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Was using Leica monochrom ccd, then 246 for the past 4 years.

 

 

Picked up a Leica m10 and reviews said the BW was very close to the 246 especially at low isos.

 

I dont know maybe after a lot of post processing but I dont see it.

 

The files from the 246 were so much richer in BW and the skin tones so much nicer right out camera with so little post needed.

 

Anyone else here feel the same?

 

for BW work just seems a dedicated BW camera as crazy as most find it, makes sense.

[Jeff S]

User issue, not camera issue, at lower ISO. Even the M240 was terrific for b/w, and the M10 is even better...

 

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/bw-iso-showdown-leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Errr.. Jeff, did you read that link to the concusion?
 
For instance:
 

[...]The new Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) was the clear victor here,[...]

Nobody denies the quality of the M9 through M10 B&W conversions, but a Bayerless sensor  will still have its advantages: No optical aberrations  by the filter, no light loss by the filter, no resolution and tonal value loss by the interpolation. And it shows...
 

[Jeff S]

Errr.. Jeff, did you read that link to the concusion?

 

For instance:

 

Nobody denies the quality of the M9 through M10 B&W conversions, but a Bayerless sensor  will still have its advantages: No optical aberrations  by the filter, no light loss by the filter, no resolution and tonal value loss by the interpolation. And it shows...

 

 

Errr, Jaap, yes I know how to read.

 

For instance...  "What I didn’t account for was just how well the M240 fared in this experiment. When converted to B&W, it is actually not too far behind its B&W brother, the MM246, and matched up extremely well versus the M9M. I saw far more of a difference between the M9M and its color progenitor, the M9, when I originally tested them against one another. But as good as the M240 is, the MM246 is noticeably better for low light shooting and offers a much higher ISO range, as well as crisper files throughout the entire range."

 

The significant differences, beyond the noted resolution, are at higher ISOs, which is especially where he declares the M246 the champ.  I referred exclusively to lower ISOs.  And I think the M10 takes things a step further than the M240.

 

In any case, I only care about my prints, which aren't huge, and my M10 b/w print results are exceptional....a result of a lot more than just the camera files.

 

Jeff

Edited September 21, 2017 by Jeff S

[adan]

Bayerless sensor advantages:

 

No light loss - correct.

No resolution loss from interpolation - correct - mostly. A monochrome sensor is not totally immune to moire, jaggies, "dotting" or "striping," if the picture/lens detail exceeds the sensor Nyquist limit. That is simply a function of overlaying real-world patterns onto a checkerboard of pixels. But it will do better than a Bayer color image, with certain patterns at certain resolutions. In theory, about a 0.4-pixel improvement (i.e. a 5000-pixel-wide Monochrom image can (but won't always) render detail like a 7000-pixel-wide Bayer sensor).

 

M Monochrom CCD. 200% crop

 

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!

 

No tonal value loss from interpolation - open to discussion and evidence.

 

A tone is a tone is a tone. If I get 14-bit output, every pixel has 16000 possible tonal values, whether there is a color filter in front of it or not. But I can see where the tonal values of a red shirt, for example, will be different 14-bit values from a Bayer sensor than from a Monochrom. And if one color channel "blows" (operator error) that can lead to a loss of tonal distinctions in that color.

 

No optical aberrations - I don't think this is correct. Don't confuse the per-pixel color filtering with the overlying protective glass/IR filter (which may well introduce aberrations, with or without Bayer filtering).

 

No matter how much a Bayer filter may bend or scatter light - ALL the light, no matter how "aberrant," ends up still on only one pixel, outputting as a single value. It does not, for example, get spread to neighboring pixels.

 

http://www.siliconimaging.com/Images/Microlenses.gif

[Pjay]

This conversation seems vaguely familiar....

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/274346-m10-black-white/page-3

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/269427-is-m-monochrome-really-worth-if-still-own-m240/

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bayerless sensor advantages:

 

No light loss - correct.

No resolution loss from interpolation - correct - mostly. A monochrome sensor is not totally immune to moire, jaggies, "dotting" or "striping," if the picture/lens detail exceeds the sensor Nyquist limit. That is simply a function of overlaying real-world patterns onto a checkerboard of pixels. But it will do better than a Bayer color image, with certain patterns at certain resolutions. In theory, about a 0.4-pixel improvement (i.e. a 5000-pixel-wide Monochrom image can (but won't always) render detail like a 7000-pixel-wide Bayer sensor).

 

M Monochrom CCD. 200% crop

 

M9Mcrop.jpg

 

No tonal value loss from interpolation - open to discussion and evidence.

 

A tone is a tone is a tone. If I get 14-bit output, every pixel has 16000 possible tonal values, whether there is a color filter in front of it or not. But I can see where the tonal values of a red shirt, for example, will be different 14-bit values from a Bayer sensor than from a Monochrom. And if one color channel "blows" (operator error) that can lead to a loss of tonal distinctions in that color.

 

No optical aberrations - I don't think this is correct. Don't confuse the per-pixel color filtering with the overlying protective glass/IR filter (which may well introduce aberrations, with or without Bayer filtering).

 

No matter how much a Bayer filter may bend or scatter light - ALL the light, no matter how "aberrant," ends up still on only one pixel, outputting as a single value. It does not, for example, get spread to neighboring pixels.

 

http://www.siliconimaging.com/Images/Microlenses.gif

Actually, it does get spread to the neighbouring pixels in the form of crosstalk. The dots on the Bayer filter are so small that diffraction cannot be avoided.

[Chaemono]

If I find time, I will try to do some comparisons this or next weekend between the M10 and the Monochrom 246 using a yellow filter on the latter to ensure tonal separation.

 

[Peter H]

If I find time, I will try to do some comparisons this or next weekend between the M10 and the Monochrom 246 using a yellow filter on the latter to ensure tonal separation.

 

 

But the title of the thread says "..no comparison.."

[mhicks]

Was using Leica monochrom ccd, then 246 for the past 4 years.

 

 

Picked up a Leica m10 and reviews said the BW was very close to the 246 especially at low isos.

 

I dont know maybe after a lot of post processing but I dont see it.

 

The files from the 246 were so much richer in BW and the skin tones so much nicer right out camera with so little post needed.

 

Anyone else here feel the same?

 

for BW work just seems a dedicated BW camera as crazy as most find it, makes sense.

I have an affinity for strong opinions. Makes things interesting!

Can you show two pictures you think are of high quality, one from each camera, so I can see your point with my own eyes?

[Chaemono]

I took a number of pictures yesterday with the M10 and the Monochrom 246 at low ISO to address the OP’s question. The 246 seems to have more dynamic range but less exposure latitude. For this reason, I used a slightly faster shutter speed on the 246 except in the first one. I also used a yellow filter with the 246. The difference on a screen between the two is very small in the ones I show below. Aperture on the Noctilux was either at f/4 or f/5 for all of them except where stated otherwise.

 

Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vNdjHV/

 

Monochrom 246 - ISO320, 1/90 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

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!

 

M10 - ISO200, 1/90 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

 

And here the M10, again, because the colors are so sweet. WB adjusted slightly and Clarity +10.

[Chaemono]

Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vNdjHV/

 

Monochrom 246 - ISO320, 1/90 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

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!

 

M10 - ISO200, 1/60 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

 

Monochrom 246 - ISO320, 1/180 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

 

M10 - ISO200, 1/125 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

[Chaemono]

Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vNdjHV/

 

Monochrom 246 - ISO320, 1/90 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

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!

 

M10 - ISO200, 1/60 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

 

Monochrom 246 - ISO320, 1/500 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

 

M10 - ISO200, 1/350 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Exposure -0.15, Clarity +10

[Chaemono]

And here two only with the 246. In the first, I'm not posting a similar one I took with the M10. It ended up looking differently even though the light hadn't changed. I took it within one minute but at a slightly lower angle. So that made a difference in capturing the flare, perhaps. The second one is wide open. Also, no M10 comparable shot. My focusing was off. I did realize that the M10 is easier to focus in the whole process, BTW.

 

Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vNdjHV/

 

Monochrom 246 - ISO320, 1/180 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

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!

 

Monochrom 246 - ISO320, 1/750 sec. Opened in LR, not touched except Clarity +10

Edited September 24, 2017 by Chaemono

[Guest Nowhereman]

I took a number of pictures yesterday with the M10 and the Monochrom 246 at low ISO to address the OP’s question. The 246 seems to have more dynamic range but less exposure latitude. For this reason, I used a slightly faster shutter speed on the 246 except in the first one. I also used a yellow filter with the 246. The difference on a screen between the two is very small in the ones I show below...

 

Thanks for the comparison, but if you used a yellow filter on the 246 the comparison would only be fair if you used a "digital yellow filter" in the processing of the M10 image. And this goes to the general point of whether it matters if the results from one camera or the other is better "straight out of the camera." To me it doesn't matter: with B&W film, a straight "drug store" print would rarely give a satisfactory result — one would want to manipulate the contrast and graduation, and sometime burn and dodge.

 

When I bought the M10, I sold my M9 and my MM — and have never missed the MM because processed B&W images from the M10 can be so good, at least for what I want from a B&W print.

 

I'm not questioning the value of the MM — I've never tried the 246 — but feel that it is best for those who either don't want having to convert from B&W, or for those who aim at approaching a medium-format look. Though, with respect to the latter, the M10 can be very close to the MM, given the resolution, dynamic range and gradation of M10 files. 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[otto.f]

I think the MM1 would be much more recognizable alongside the M10 than the M246.

Apart from that, these are quite honest comparisons Chaemono, although I wonder what would have happened if you had used the yellow filter on the M10 too

[Chaemono]

Thanks for the feedback. Digital yellow filter changes the M10 look discernibly. I'll try to use a physical yellow filter on the M10 and see what happens but won't have time to do it soon.

[anickpick]

When I compared the M246 to the M10 for b+w, I came to the following conclusions:

 

- the difference in resolution at lower ISOs is negligible (maybe relevant for tripod users). 

 

- there is no tonal difference (with a tiny bit of post processing).

 

- The M246 burns out the lighlights more easily than the M10.

 

- The M246 files are slightly cleaner at higher ISOs 

 

- The M10 files are much more robust in post processing at higher ISOs (banding issues with the M246).

 

 

To me, the M10 is the more suitable camera, even for b+w, as the colors are available to manipulate the gray tones in post.

Edited September 24, 2017 by anickpick

[anickpick]

Thanks for the feedback. Digital yellow filter changes the M10 look discernibly. I'll try to use a physical yellow filter on the M10 and see what happens but won't have time to do it soon.

I once tried it and realized, that physical color filters on a color digital camera mess up white balance, degrade the outcome, and do not have the same desirable effect for b+w as the M Monochrom. In order to achieve the same gray tones with M10 files as with M246+yellow filter, you will have to manipulate the colors in the M10 b+w file in post.

Edited September 24, 2017 by anickpick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Nowhereman]

Yes, applying the "digital filters" is very effective: for me, it provides more flexibility than the MM in achieving the look of various tones, including skin tones. 

 

Many people have argued that an advantage of the MM and M246 monochrome cameras is that they allow the photographer to "think in B&W." However, Moriyama Daido, who has been shooting digital for the last few years, says that one of the reasons he likes shooting digital is that it gives him the flexibility of choosing to make an image either color of B&W. Remarkably, he has been using small sensor cameras, currently, I believe, the Nikon Coolpix S9100 — apparently most of the pictures in his 2016 Paris exhibition at the Fondation Cartier pour l'art contemporain, "Tokyo Color", were shot with this camera, as well as his latest book, Pretty Woman, published a few months ago.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited September 24, 2017 by Nowhereman