Who wants Leica to make a S Monochrom?

[LeicaS2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M10M with no Bayer filtration and 40 mp provides effective 80 mp resolution.

in my rudimentary testing my M10M vs a converted to B&W 007 S image, I prefer the M10M image. The S3 should erase that difference. I doubt any S will be mono, but maybe the Q mono would produce adequate sales.

[Stuart Richardson]

Where did you hear that it is 80mp effective? My own experience is that the megapixel ratings are not exceeded that much. They are certainly a lot sharper than their color equivalent, and lower noise, but I think they are no match for significantly higher resolution cameras. In printing exhibitions from the older M monochrome cameras, I found that while it was very good for an 18 or 24mp camera, it was not as good as a converted S file. I do not doubt that the new one can best the current S, assuming you can give it a good enough lens. In the tests I have seen, it is pretty equivalent to the A7Riv, but completely trounced by a Phase One camera. My guess is that the S3 will be between the two somewhere...with the benefit of color.

[albertknappmd]

Regarding the comparison between the M monochrome and the S 007....

Last fall while in Ireland with a prominent B&W photographer, I conducted a simple experiment. The pro had a monochrome and I had the 007. We took the same set of pictures and developed in LR B&W.

We compared them and essentially could not tell the difference!

This was not the case with the M10 versus monochrome which was also done....

Leica may have known about this in the past, or if they are reading this, they know it now!

Hence no utility for an S3 monochrome in my opinion.

Albert

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!

[albertknappmd]

This was one of the comparison photos...

Albert

[LeicaS2]

Stuart,

Regarding effective resolution, I have read in the Forum variations of 50% to 100% more resolution, ie 60 and 80. I was adding to my post quickly and should have posted the more conservative guess. The Bayer filter takes four sites and filters one with red, two with green and one with blue. The algorithm converting the four sites to a color signal from the cooked four sites still gives you four sites but if you are converting to B&W you will not be as good as a mono sensor of the same size. If this were not to true, why have this S forum asking for mono. I do not have the science to argue 60 vs 80 for the M, but when the S3 has 64 mp the equivalent for a mono would be 90?  

I have a friend Joe who still lusts for a mono S,. He shoots an S and only prints huge B&W. He can justify the request and the need. Albert doesn't see the need. Leica has to figure out how many Joes versus Alberts. I suspect while there is a business case for the S3, and maybe a mono Q2, and certainly the M monos, there is unfortunately not enough demand to make a business case for a S mono.

Perhaps this Forum thread will help them decide.

For me, having seen how the M10M performs, I would buy an S mono over a S3, but retaining my 007 S. So there is one vote more for a mono S.

[Stuart Richardson]

Hi again (sorry, I do not know your name!), I think the bayer matrix numbers can be a bit misleading regarding resolution. Those pixels are still there in color sensors, and the more pixels you have in the first place, the more efficient a "guess" the algorithm is going to make, assuming things like overall signal to noise ratio are ok. So I would extrapolate from that that the higher resolution the sensor, the less dramatic a difference a mono camera would make. I could be wrong about this, however. In my printing experience, I have noticed that the monochrome cameras perform much better for noise and ISO performance than similar color cameras, and the resolution is better too. That said, if we say it is a 24mp camera, it acts like a better 24mp camera rather than a 50mp camera. In making large prints, these brute force pixels seem to translate to higher quality, at least at lower ISOs. I would not say you gain that much resolution versus a color camera...maybe 25%, but you gain crisper detail and a larger shooting envelope. Anyway, I have not conducted a deep research, only printed some exhibition work from monochromes up to about 100x150 from the 24 mp...that one could not come close to what the S could do at the same print size. The new one, however, is pretty stunning given that it has 40mp instead. I think it will be quite challenging to get it all out of it, however, as I suspect many M lenses will likely not be up to the task...at least other than the latest, greatest APO ASPH lenses. This is not to say other M lenses won't make great images, only that they might not be able to maximize the sensor's performance.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Hi again (sorry, I do not know your name!),

I think he's just being modest...

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/06/the-leica-s-series-print-offer-jack-macdonough.html

Jeff

 

[helged]

FWIW: M10M vs M246, M9M, GFX: https://leicarumors.com/2020/02/17/leica-m10-monochrom-sensor-measurements-and-comparisons.aspx/

[SaW]

As we all know color sensors lets us play with the color channels mixer in post-prod. Although a bit annoyed by the lack of elegance of this option I must admit I missed it when I was using my MM.

Using color filters to compensate is the way to go. But depending on the color and thickness of the filter focus shift can occur.  Color filters on a dslr are also coloring the OVF which is a conflicting situation when trying to immerse in the BW mindset, at least to me.

Taking the rangefinder monochrom route would only be justified for getting the best low light results which is not a concern to me.

Focus shift, colored OVF and $$$$$ price will not motivate me to jump in the S monochrom.

Using mirrorless monochrome cameras instead of rangefinders or dslr solves the focus shift and colored finder issues. It also adds the WYSIWYG benefit making the exposure compensation (needed to compensate the color filter) more obvious + helps immersing himself in the BW world.

I'm also secretly hoping that a mirrorless monochrom will somehow be a dual monochrom camera using a pure monochrom EVF.

Current 5.7m dots EVF are good,  in pure BW they should be awesome!  Super resolution, better DR EVF.

Q2MM or SL2MM please 😎

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by SaW

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the bayer matrix numbers can be a bit misleading regarding resolution.

That's the problem with these equivalences. Bayer matrix sensors under-perform compared to (almost) every other digital capture technology. Not just Foveon and monochrome, but also linear arrays in scanners, 3-CCD video cameras, filter-wheel/triple exposure, PMT, pixel-shift, etc.

Bayer is by far the dominant technology, so we use it as the reference point, but all of the other ways of capturing a digital image provide "real" pixels and more accurate tones.

The other problem is that "Bayer" isn't even a fixed reference point. Different manufacturers have different philosophies re: low-pass filtering, colour filter array accuracy, de-Bayering methodology. You can de-Bayer an image in many different ways using DCRaw, and come to different conclusions about the same raw file.

In other words, it's hard to claim that two 24MP Bayer files are "equivalent." It's almost pointless to try to pick an exact equivalence ratio between Bayer and non-Bayer images (especially across different sensor formats). The best we can do is to accept that Bayer-sensor files need more pixels for the same level of accuracy, and that the ratio is around 1.5x to 3x. Depending on the camera. And the subject. And the end-image. At common print sizes. With notable exceptions.

[Stuart Richardson]

That makes sense. I am only speaking about print quality from my perspective as a printer. The monochrome cameras are better, but not better than cameras with substantially more megapixels. It is as simple as that for me. They are not miraculous, just higher quality on a per-pixel level.