Monochrom CCD first compared to M246 CMOS ?

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some years of happy using first version Monochrom had lead me to try out the M246.

Hesitation for long because in my view, I didn't want to replace my MM1 with the later Monochrom.

So opportunity came with a "nice like new M246" presented itself, some weeks ago.

Over time some reasons like CCD/CMOS debats delayed untill I've found myself that the CCD/CMOS war was not a problem for me,

in my practices and final results in pictures.

With once replaced CCD sensor on my MM1 (no charge), I always fear another need to "replace again" this time with expensive notes.

Have read that sometimes, three or four replacements of same MM1 said sensor.

 

The good news is, the output of M246 is equal to (if not better than ! ) MM1 one's 😊.

In use this M246 is much responsive and I appreciate more modern features.

At first , I thought that the LED illuminated frame lines would bother me, but in use it's a very nice improvement.

The frames lines show up within 1 second when switch "ON", so nothing to complain.

No "flare" when used in contre-jour situation, as sometimes happen with MM1 (very rare but there as other film M even MP ).

In very dim scenes, this is a must, and I can use also LCD/EVF if need be = incredible this enhanced light features (a bit flickering, I admit but usable).

When I want to use some colored filters,  preview of filter rendering with rear LCD or EVF is something I've never think of.

 

I'll give myself more time to "compare" them more than a couple of weeks.

 

Please feel free to give your opinions on the outputs of Monochrom CCD/CMOS if you had used (or use now) the two nice Monochroms from Leica.

 

 

 

[mmradman]

Comparing the two is more emotive than rational in here in my humble opinion.

I tried MM1 in a shop once so cant say much about it.  Never had chance to compare two side by side so go along well known review by Egor published in early days of 246.

https://www.ultrasomething.com/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/

Not strictly OP line of enquiry but with respect to comparison of some kind i owned M9 and M240 and currently own M246.  As electronic appliance M240/246i are dated compared to current and near future offering but compared to M9/MM1 it is well advanced and reliability is excellent.  For the record there is well known strap lug fiasco with early batch(es) and on personal level one trip to HQ for sensor calibration due to dead column at ISO 640 setting.  

By the time M246 arrived all gremlins were ironed out, well there are still some, but camera is perfectly usable and i have to be mindful about easily upsetting exposure compensation dial. 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Luke_Miller]

I have both Monochroms.  I see little differences in the images they produce other than the additional pixels and better performance at higher ISO settings of the M-246.  The additional camera features make the M-246 better as a camera IMO, but the first Monochrom still has its appeal.  It feels better in my hands,  so I continue to shoot with both.

[Jeff S]

The latest sensor for the M9/Monochrom is said to fix the issue, so no further replacements should be needed.  For years, before the fix, Leica installed the same corrosion-prone sensor.  (This was similar to the situation that existed for years before Leica finally came up with a fix for the problematic S lens AF motors.)  

As far as CCD vs CMOS, there are already a few thousand posts on the matter. Pick a side.

Jeff

[Archiver]

This comparison always interests me as I have an original M9 (with replaced sensor) but have long thought about getting a M Monochrom or going for a M 246.

I'm going to assume that the M246 has better high ISO performance than the M240, as the M Monochrom was better than the M9 in this regard. Therefore, I'd be less bound by ISO limitations of the M240, if that makes sense.

I was shooting in a very dark venue on the weekend with the M9, and even though I had a Zeiss 50mm f1.5 Sonnar, even wider aperture or ISO higher than 1600 would have been useful. These are the kinds of places I'd like to use a Monochrom and a f1.2 lens, very dark weddings or events where the photographers with Nikons and flashes were having difficulty.

[a.noctilux]

After some use of M246, not the same time as MM1, as I don't want to fiddle with the two which in photo session is not "normal" for me.

In use, it's more comfortable with M246, but more weight when I use hefty lens (Noctilux 1.0 or Lux 75mm), balancing is always very good with those.

When used with long Leica R lenses + EVF2, it's more usable and lighter than the original Visoflex III that I used with the MM1 (rarely).

Battery life is nicer on M246 for a day long photo.

M246 is somewhat quieter in use.

Sequencing/quick sequence can be obtained the same on the two.

I'm not quick sequence fan, so that is not relevant.

 

The foolish thing, now = I will keep the MM1 ( as I know it so well ).

Results are not really different when I use common ISO (400 to 3200 mainly).

 

On M246, 12.5 k/25k ISO are "marketing numbers" (same as 10k ISO on MM1) and can be used if necessary.

I appreciate to be able to use Summaron 5.6/28mm in relative dark church at 3200 ISO, even if some darkness still stay dark as usual, no miracle here.

On the two Monochrom at ISO 3200, I can hardly see the winner.

Files from the two Monochrom are superbly high class in most situation.

I must admit that I don't really see CCD/CMOS "war" so far in those files.

If I didn't use the MM1 for years, I think that this M246 is "the best Monochrom" (not really new for most of us 😉).

But the MM1 can stay proud and, for me, it's not inferior to it's newer M246, as far as "final results" are important.

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@a.noctilux, how do you find the M246 files for pushing in post-processing? M9 files (and I assume M Monochrom files) are great for pushing underexposed images with little noise or banding. What are pushed M246 images like?

[a.noctilux]

Here are whole picture, a crop at darker area not corrected, then at last corrected to best histogram of the crop.

M246, Summaron-M 5.6/28mm,

3200ISO, 1/24 s

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!

 

crop of left flowers

not corrected first

 

...

correct histogram of the crop area

nothing to complain for me,

a bit of normal "grain", and no trace of banding

[Archiver]

@a.noctilux That looks great! Thank you for posting that example, it's exactly what I wanted to know.

[Luke_Miller]

I shot an event this past weekend with both versions of the Monochrom.  I mounted different lenses so I would not have to perform a lens change during the event. As long as I got exposure correct there was little to choose between the images from either body.  But as a. noctilux demonstrates above, if you have to significantly pull up shadows in post processing there is a big difference.  This was my first time shooting both head-to-head.  I prefer the way the MM1 feels in my hand, but find the M-246 a bit easier to use.  Both are capable of very satisfying results.

[jcraf]

On 4/8/2019 at 1:44 PM, mmradman said:

Comparing the two is more emotive than rational in here in my humble opinion.

That's for sure.  I had an MM1 when they were first launched.  I just remember the hairs on the back of my neck standing up when I did some post-processing of the MM1 files.

Then I went to a 246.  I just couldn't bond with it; that's what I mean about agreeing with the 'emotional' statement.  For me there's something about the CCD camera's files which I love, and love working with, and which just seemed, for me anyhow, absent from the 246 files.

So, for the last couple of years now I've been happily re-married to an MM1, with the new sensor of course.  But there is no doubt that the 246 is a fine camera, as will be the M10M, I'm certain.

[geoffreyg]

A bit off topic, but did a BW comparison of M240 and MM (1). In good light, they were both fine, a bit of an edge to the MM. But a shocker was in poor light, shooting at ISO 2500, same lens (35 cron), wide open. Processed in C1. Handheld, so a bit different view, but the difference is striking. MM is creamy smooth, the M240.... And these are 72 dpi, reduced. At larger size, the differences are much more apparent. 

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!

Edited May 7, 2019 by geoffreyg

[colint544]

Is the top one the one shot on the M Monochrom mk1?

[geoffreyg]

Of the two shots posted above, the top is the M240, with brittleness in the shadows. The lower one is the MM1, and the transitions are buttery smooth. Some 100% crops below, but here the MM1 is first. The 72dpi and the reduced jpg for posting makes the M240 look worse than it is. 

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!

Edited May 8, 2019 by geoffreyg

[Alberti]

To phrase it in my words: the top one is a bit 'flat', with lower micro contrast. The second one has more grain and its structure looks like FP4 film negative. [It is the reason I choose that version.]

There is some different S-curve though that I have seen in many of the pictures posted from the CMOS MM2 version: the MM1 Monochrom tends a bit to have dark shadows.

It is just that the RAW converters process the files slightly different - or that Leica provided some more bite to the image pre-processing for the M246 (the M246 in general has a contrast that is livelier and has more presence/clarity, look at the lightness of the plastic container) ?

• By the way, the slightest focus disparity ruins comparisons: look at the top edge of the window sill that is sharper in the second picture. Else that is the proof of your comparison!

[Likaleica]

Interesting that this test shows the M246 has so much more noise at ISO 2500 compared to MM, which is counter to testing done by Sean Reid and many others.  

[Luke_Miller]

11 hours ago, Likaleica said:

Interesting that this test shows the M246 has so much more noise at ISO 2500 compared to MM, which is counter to testing done by Sean Reid and many others.  

And very different than my experience shooting both in the same lighting.

[Jeff S]

David Farkas also made controlled comparisons...

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

Even the M240 performed well.  And it can benefit from use of color channels in PP.   Lots of good choices these days, especially now with the M10 platform.  Print results still depend on the person behind the camera.

Jeff

Edited May 21, 2019 by Jeff S

[dkmoore]

On 5/19/2019 at 8:26 AM, Luke_Miller said:

And very different than my experience shooting both in the same lighting.

+1

something went wrong in this test. I have an M246 (have had a few) as well as have owned the M9M and I agree. The M246 is cleaner at every ISO above 800 if memory serves.

Edited May 21, 2019 by dkmoore

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DwF]

On 5/7/2019 at 12:59 AM, geoffreyg said:

A bit off topic, but did a BW comparison of M240 and MM (1). In good light, they were both fine, a bit of an edge to the MM. But a shocker was in poor light, shooting at ISO 2500, same lens (35 cron), wide open. Processed in C1. Handheld, so a bit different view, but the difference is striking. MM is creamy smooth, the M240.... And these are 72 dpi, reduced. At larger size, the differences are much more apparent. 

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!

To my mind and based on my monitor here (MAC 27inch), these two images are not of the sort where IMHO the MM will shine. For this lighting, while they may be different, it wouldn't matter to me which camera did what.  Colin asked the question above which while I'm sure was in good faith, I found ironic because if someone were to ask me to point them to someone's images that show the MM for what it can do, his would come to mind immediately!  If someone is achieving a similar look with the 246, I'd love to see it. There are other mages and other photographers out there who really "get" the MM. Not saying it's the better camera and in fact am quite certain that in most respects that distinction goes to the 246, the MM has an organic look that appeals to me. Not all images made with it will bear that out, like the one above.

David

(Sorry if I put anyone on the spot here....just participatin')

Edited May 21, 2019 by DwF