Another M11 vs M10M question thread

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 minutes ago, Erato said:

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Black and White also Color Photography are both sharing the same terms so-called tone.

In color photography, the tone is about the balance of light and darkness. Other than that, the major factors are color spectrum and color stauration.

Basically, in the Black and White, the tone are classified into three different primary categories, but it's more complicated as what we thought about(spectrum/wavelength):

• The dark tone, it's dark with low lights or dark tone, for instance, low key scene
• The clear tone, the photo is rather clear with highlights or bright tones, for instance, high key scene.
• Nature tone, it's neither dark nor bright, it is a balanced tone

On the sidetones, I am more concerning the subject linked to the story line, textures, shapes, patterns and leading lines. I don't care about colors in the filed of Black and White Photography.

Watch the video tutorial.  We're on completely different pages.

Jeff

[Erato]

12 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Watch the video tutorial.  We're on completely different pages.

Jeff

This video -- Seeing in Black and White with Eileen Rafferty ?

She and I are look at the same page in the same way indeed. Thank you for leading me to this awesome video.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Erato

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

35 minutes ago, Erato said:

. I don't care about colors in the filed of Black and White Photography.

Exactly, but it’s critical in a color pic.  Which is why great color pics don’t typically make great b/w pics, or vice versa.  As Eileen shows in some examples.  The HSL panel tells the story: the first two matter in color; only the latter in b/w. 

Jeff

[hdmesa]

10 hours ago, geotrupede said:

…if you apply aggressive curves, use colour filters, pump up the contrast and underexpose to protect highlights, knowing you can always adjust the dark areas of a shot, then M10M is the only way. with M11 this approach generate tons of noise…

This only applies at high ISO. At low ISO, the M11 DNGs are nearly unbreakable.

[Sergius]

52 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

This only applies at high ISO. At low ISO, the M11 DNGs are nearly unbreakable.

What value of high iso in your opinion ?

[hdmesa]

18 minutes ago, Sergius said:

What value of high iso in your opinion ?

I don’t have issues with M11 noise until it goes past 6400, but it depends on how hard you push the files. Very aggressive edits may limit you to less.

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no problem converting my M10 files to great b/w interpretations - I tend to set the camera to b/w jpeg and then beyond that I don't have any issue "thinking" in black and white, so I don't really buy that argument, at least for my personal use. Then again philosophy is usually the primary justification for any Leica.

I haven't owned either but I've analyzed a bunch of files and held them. I'd take the M10M. The resolution is, for printing purposes, basically the same, and the Monochrom a bit better at high ISO and in dynamic range. Then there's the other thing which maybe I'm alone in but I prefer the physical body of the 10 series over the 11. I'm in a similar situation as you (different shooting style) but was waffling between the R and the M. I am getting an M, but I have to wait a bit longer because the used prices are a bit higher. 

Honestly, my 10 is fine but my main complaint about it since I got it was that 24mp just isn't quite what I need sometimes - 40 has been a sweet spot for me for years, since the Pentax 645D - each 40 mp sensor is  a bit different but that, to me, is the digital sweet spot for someone who wants some flexibility in print size but isn't doing entire shows of 60 inch mega prints. 

[geotrupede]

I think (and have experience of) the MM being different from colour conversion.
If one is only to desaturate an image, fine, all same.

But if one wants to play with contrast, curves and exposure in conjunction with colour filters (or colour light) then things are VERY different.

Mindset, yeah sure.

But also technical. 

An RGB sensor will try to build up colours out of 3 channels/ The MM does not need to do so, as there is 1 only channel which is somehow linked to the luminance of the scene. This means that saturated colours or not, there shall be no banding or odd artefacts. And using colour filters does not deteriorate image quality as there are not R, G or B to be disregarded.

In fact I can tell, for sure M11 is not the same as MM1.  I am ok with M11, but the files of MM1 are another thing. Mind MM10....

G.

 

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, geotrupede said:

...And using colour filters does not deteriorate image quality as there are not R, G or B to be disregarded...

The purpose of a color filters used on the lens of a monochrome camera (or film camera with b&w film) is to block out light and darken areas of the image, thereby achieving a given look. For example, using a red filter, you will lose light in the shadows and have baked-in higher contrast and lower dynamic range without the ability to go back to an unfiltered image. I'm not saying that is bad, I'm pointing out that there can be drawbacks compromises with either sensor type.

Edited August 2, 2022 by hdmesa

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, geotrupede said:

The MM does not need to do so, as there is 1 only channel which is somehow linked to the luminance of the scene. 

 

All sensors are linked to the luminance of the scene. The monochrome version, since there is no added Bayer filter, removes associated aberrations and eliminates interpolations required to produce color.  This eliminates resolution loss and improves acuity.

A color version, however, has the added flexibility and convenience of adjusting separate color channels in post as desired.

Trade offs, as usual with much of photography.

Jeff

[Sjz]

I carry both M11 and M10M with me along with a 28Lux, 50 and 75 APOs. 
 

I admit I am a pixel peeper and on the M10M I chimp (checking highlights). 
 

I find with the above, the M10M creates more detail and more subtle tones if I keep the filters (Red, Orange, Yellow) off the camera.  As said in posts above if you use the filters and want less of their effect you get into increasing levels of hurt in C1.
 

I do find I can create dramatic b&w from M11 very quickly in C1.  Subtle b&w is more time consuming and I do find, for those occasions, I wish I had used the M10M.

 

Just my experience, nothing scientific and still somewhere in the foothills of the learning curve. 
 

 

[Guest]

On 8/2/2022 at 11:36 AM, hdmesa said:

I don’t have issues with M11 noise until it goes past 6400, but it depends on how hard you push the files. Very aggressive edits may limit you to less.

Here is an example at ISO 500 where I ran into some limitations. I was starting with only adjustment custom color temperature. To your point, tone/noise would have been OK without changes to exposure, in this case I was interested in recovering details in the sky (... the picture as such is garbage, but the camera was new as you can see by the shot counter, so I wanted to explore its capabilities):

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!

Lifting the sky, shadows +66 (Lightroom)

Base ISO 500 noise (part of top left sky) - no noise reduction

Needs about +25 color noise and +80 luminance noise reduction

Result: uneven colors (banding); not clearly visible in the forum JPG screenshot above (as opposed in full resolution on my screen), but evident also on a screenshot if I push the shadow recovery and luminance NR to +100

In my opinion, this illustrates the value of the M10M having 'more shades' of tonal resolution, plus less noise also at medium ISO (like ISO 500 here). May be running into a 'blue object meets Bayer sensor sensor' issue here as well (mostly relying on 25% of the pixels, the blue ones, to do the job).

The banding is not a Lightroom issue, I tried other raw converters and denoising approaches as well (C1, Topaz, etc., usual suspects).

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by mzbe

[elmars]

I never tried such things. But I ask myself: Should we judge a sensors limitations in trying to recover a black (= no light) sky?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, elmars said:

I never tried such things. But I ask myself: Should we judge a sensors limitations in trying to recover a black (= no light) sky?

Fair point. I would argue though that there is light pollution and stars in the sky (it's not no light, this is in Austin, TX) - only reason why at EV=0 it appears dark is that the image is exceeding the dynamic range of the sensor (all channels blowing shadows and highlights, I did ETTR so that only 3% of highlights are lost):

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!

I picked this is an example at ISO 500 (not 6400); during the same 3-day trip I ran into other low light situations, including genuine ISO 4000-10000 shots, that led me to order a M10M the day I returned home. I was mostly shooting in the afternoon and evening/night, not happy with about half of the images due to noise, figured a had a significant use case for the Monochrome ... I recognize that the whole image quality impression is *highly* subjective <insert reflection here about how lucky we are compared to pushing analog film by several stops>.

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, mzbe said:

Here is an example at ISO 500 where I ran into some limitations. I was starting with only adjustment custom color temperature. To your point, tone/noise would have been OK without changes to exposure, in this case I was interested in recovering details in the sky (... the picture as such is garbage, but the camera was new as you can see by the shot counter, so I wanted to explore its capabilities):

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!

Lifting the sky, shadows +66 (Lightroom)

Base ISO 500 noise (part of top left sky) - no noise reduction

Needs about +25 color noise and +80 luminance noise reduction

Result: uneven colors (banding); not clearly visible in the forum JPG screenshot above (as opposed in full resolution on my screen), but evident also on a screenshot if I push the shadow recovery and luminance NR to +100

In my opinion, this illustrates the value of the M10M having 'more shades' of tonal resolution, plus less noise also at medium ISO (like ISO 500 here). May be running into a 'blue object meets Bayer sensor sensor' issue here as well (mostly relying on 25% of the pixels, the blue ones, to do the job).

The banding is not a Lightroom issue, I tried other raw converters and denoising approaches as well (C1, Topaz, etc., usual suspects).

 

When you’re dealing with nearly no light situations, the read noise off the sensor is going to be a problem. This kind of photography would more closely align with astrophotography and require at the least several shots, a dark frame, and the processing software for that. The reason mono sensors look better for this kind of work is read noise off the sensor just blends in with the ISO noise.

[IkarusJohn]

I’m with Jeff’s posts above.

I don’t have the M11, but I do have the M10-D and M9 version of the Monochrom.  My sense is that there is more going on with the colour interpolation than just the Bayer filter array.  The Monochrom files come out of the camera very flat, but extremely malleable.  It takes very little (a little exposure adjustment, contrast and gentle S curve) to get fabulous files from the Monochrom.  I was never aboe to achieve a similar result converting from colour.  There’s just something about the tones and the transitions which seem different.

Just my perception - I spend no time “testing”, making comparisons or diving into technical detail.  I just take pictures …

Edited August 4, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

When you’re dealing with nearly no light situations, the read noise off the sensor is going to be a problem. This kind of photography would more closely align with astrophotography and require at the least several shots, a dark frame, and the processing software for that. The reason mono sensors look better for this kind of work is read noise off the sensor just blends in with the ISO noise.

You are right that as far as capturing the sky is concerned this is a bit similar to astro-photography.

Question, though - does the dark frame really help at 1/4" shutter speed (and is read noise really the key issue)? My takeaway (other than using M10M instead ;-)) was to do exposure stacking - which I couldn't do as this was hand-held ...

[hdmesa]

3 minutes ago, mzbe said:

You are right that as far as capturing the sky is concerned this is a bit similar to astro-photography.

Question, though - does the dark frame really help at 1/4" shutter speed (and is read noise really the key issue)? My takeaway (other than using M10M instead ;-)) was to do exposure stacking - which I couldn't do as this was hand-held ...

I’m tripod-averse, so never tried astro. I just like the term dark frame, lol.

[didier]

23 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’m with Jeff’s posts above.

I don’t have the M11, but I do have the M10-D and M9 version of the Monochrom.  My sense is that there is more going on with the colour interpolation than just the Bayer filter array.  The Monochrom files come out of the camera very flat, but extremely malleable.  It takes very little (a little exposure adjustment, contrast and gentle S curve) to get fabulous files from the Monochrom.  I was never aboe to achieve a similar result converting from colour.  There’s just something about the tones and the transitions which seem different.

Just my perception - I spend no time “testing”, making comparisons or diving into technical detail.  I just take pictures …

+1

same perception for me  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Chaemono]

Am 2.8.2022 um 09:02 schrieb geotrupede:

the only reason to go M11 is for the new features, great battery and small files when needed. evf if one wants.

BUT

true monochrom files are another thing. I have seen videos and studied this in the past few months. seemed like M11 and M10M are the same, that it is easy to convert in B&W from colour.  but I question the type of photography that you see in these videos, it is really nice, but not representative of all B&W styles. 

--

it all depends on what do you do to the B&W files. if you apply aggressive curves, use colour filters, pump up the contrast and underexpose to protect highlights, knowing you can always adjust the dark areas of a shot, then M10M is the only way. with M11 this approach generate tons of noise.  I can see in your case, landscape, you will look for details and be zooming in to see these... 

--

with M11 you need to use digital filters with caution, curves and contrast not to the extreme. I have changed the technique to auto ISO so that noise is minimised rather highlight protected. this is because the dynamic range in M11. By doing so the files are ok. once printed are hard to distinguish.  yet, not the same.

---

I had the same dilemma as you, bought a M11 as I had to have colours. It took me a week and some very nice people here explaining the ins and outs to adapt to the new approach. I am now satisfied, M11 works for me, but I have changed the workflow quite significantly. 

So my advice is that if you are intending to use for B&W forget the M11 and simply get the MM10. No brainer. 

G>

PS if you want I can send you some DNG from M11 to play with, there are some on DPreview. you can then try converting to b&w and see. PM if you need anything. and good luck!

+1. 

For the OP, some M10M DNGs up to ISO 50000 available for download in the thread below. High ISO on P.5, more DNGs on the previous pages.