Black and white with M10 and M10 Monochrome

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You are forgetting the omission of the Bayer filter which certainly influences the tonality. In fact, Leica tweaked the cover glass to mimic Delta 100. But hey! If you don’t see the difference there is no need to consider a monochrome camera. 

[Advertisement]

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

[3D-Kraft.com]

As long as "tonality" and "tonal range" cannot be explained and made measurable, it's something esoteric like the "Leica look"...

So I prefer to stick with that, what can be explained and justified and that's only slightly higher resolution and ISO performance. Not worth sacrificing the color option for me.

[jaapv]

Sure. If otherwise Leica would sell millions of Monochroms. These are and remain specialized cameras. 
BTW, are the photographs you produce measurable and explainable in numbers and graphs? 
 

Another example: I don’t see the need for a 60MP camera for my photography. The Nyquist sampling theorem dictates that I don’t need more than twice the final resolution to get optimal detail in my photograph. So 24 MP is already overkill. 

[brickftl]

On 5/24/2024 at 3:34 PM, jaapv said:

You will still miss the tonal rendering of a monochrome camera. It cannot be replicated in postprocessing. 

I would love it if someone who has a M10 and M10M (or M11 and M11M) would shoot some pics of the same subject same settings side by side - both low and high ISO, and both night and day, and then post them and point out EXACTLY what is this "tonal rendering" difference.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

BTW, are the photographs you produce measurable and explainable in numbers and graphs? 
 

Another example: I don’t see the need for a 60MP camera for my photography. The Nyquist sampling theorem dictates that I don’t need more than twice the final resolution to get optimal detail in my photograph. So 24 MP is already overkill. 

Many properties of my (and other's) photographs can be measured, described or explained but we are entering a gray area when we talk about "look" or bokeh. The size and shape of out-of-focus-light-bubbles still can be described and measured, also the "background blurryness" can be measured e.g. by transforming into frequencies (DCT, FFT etc.). Otherwise, a contrast-based autofokus would not work. But in discussions, if a bokeh is "pleasing", we enter the subjective world again...

The discussion about the better "tonal range" or "tonality" of b&w photos taken with a monochrome sensor and some color filter tweaks for the "desired look" compared to b&w converted RGB lives completely in that subjective world.

Regarding the resolution: This is measurable and you can easily find good reasons why a higher sensor resolution than the 24 MP which you "feel" already as overkill can be justified. Here we talk about different use cases (desired crop reserve, output format etc.) and not, what you "feel" as optimal. So, if someone prefers the Monochrome over the Color (Bayer) version in order to squeeze out the last 20-30% microscopic details (assuming that the lens, the focusing and everything else is perfect) or to shoot sports at night without sufficient light at ISO 256000 or needs an extra portion from the IR spectrum, I am totally fine with that decision...

But I am pretty sure, that if someone shoots the same scene with ISO in the typical range between 100 and 6400 with a M11 and M11-M and same lens, comparable settings and converts the M11 to b&w in postprocessing and resizes it to 24 MP, which you already designate as "overkill", no one will be able to reach a significant hit rate when deciding which picture comes from which sensor. The major difference left over will be, that the raws from the M11 still can be tuned to other "filter-looks" later and so have the options to be made more pleasing to the taste of some viewers.

Edited May 27, 2024 by 3D-Kraft.com

[jaapv]

Cropability applies to the Q only (OK, maybe the M if one wants to go beyond 135mm..)  So you print at @ A2 or A1, most photographers don't...

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

In order to switch my mind to a "monochrome view", I do not need to buy another camera. The support from the camera can be only a B/W preview, which you also can get from the color models.

 

You missed the point. I don’t need a B&W preview as a crutch to translate color (actually lumaninces/brightness) into monochrome.  Didn’t need it with decades of B&W film; don’t need it now.  The issue for me is avoiding the tendency to look for pics that would work in color; a Monochrom eliminates that distraction.  After all, the camera is not always to my eye, and the world remains in color; previews don’t change that.

Jeff

Edited May 27, 2024 by Jeff S

[3D-Kraft.com]

Forget about my added comment about the b&w preview. I got your point and my point was the confirmation that "people differ" in regards what they need to switch their brain.

[brickftl]

I think the chief advantage of a monochrome sensor is it's performance in terms of noise at ultra high ISO as compared to a color sensor. Hands down the monochrome sensor will yield a much less noisy and much more usable image at those ultra high ISO values. That said:

• for my purposes, and I expect the purposes of many other people, in the exceptionally rare instances where I shoot at ultra high ISO values with my M10, its color sensor images at ultra high ISO values clean up nicely with ACR AI noise reduction and/or Topaz Photo AI.
• if you can afford both a M10 and M10M, great, go for it. But if you can only afford one camera, and if you like to shoot color even if very infrequently, then the M10 is the best choice.
• I still am scratching my head at the claim of M10M shooters that it yields superior "tonal rendering" as compared to M10 images, and would appreciate if a direct comparison of M10M and M10 images is posted in this thread, pointing out exactly how "tonal rendering" is presented in both camera images. Or if a direct comparison of those images can't be posted, then can a M10M owner post an image he/she feels has superior "tonal rendering" and explain what we should be looking at in the posted image? If not, then many of us are left to speculate that the "tonal rendering" argument is akin to the emperor's new clothes. 

Edited May 27, 2024 by brickftl

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

Cropability applies to the Q only (OK, maybe the M if one wants to go beyond 135mm..)  So you print at @ A2 or A1, most photographers don't...

No, not only to fixed lens cams like Q. When travelling, I usually have 2 lenses in my bag. One wide angle in the twenties and a 55mm. This covers already much more situations than a Q and still requires some cropping. And yes, I typically print @ A2. Not really rare use cases...

[jaapv]

Your house must have immense wall space…

[Rick in CO]

I appreciate the capability to shoot in color and, depending on the subject, have the ability to later convert to B&W.  However, I do encounter subjects that, at the time I shoot, I know will become a B&W image.  I really don't want to have to carry two cameras around as I like to travel light and unobtrusively (ie. no big camera bag).

One important (to me) factor which is the printing process.  How do monochrome pix look after printing on an inkjet printer with typical color inks?  Are they noticeably better than pix converted from a color image?  Does it take laser digital printing or a Piezography B&W ink set to get really good blacks with a nice tonal range with highlights reminiscent of film?  Anyone done some comparisons?

 

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

One important (to me) factor which is the printing process.  How do monochrome pix look after printing on an inkjet printer with typical color inks?  Are they noticeably better than pix converted from a color image?  Does it take laser digital printing or a Piezography B&W ink set to get really good blacks with a nice tonal range with highlights reminiscent of film?  Anyone done some comparisons?

 

Just as with camera gear, it’s about the user.  Otherwise we’d all produce the same looking pics/prints when using identical gear.  There are myriad variables at play, from shot to print, and even beyond with the under appreciated role of display lighting.  I’ve seen wonderful prints, and mediocre prints, from lots of different equipment and approaches.

Jeff

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Your house must have immense wall space…

Unfortunately not. My solution is creating one or two calenders with the highlights of the year for my family. It needs only the space of one A2 print and if it is getting boring, hopefully the month is over...

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!

[costa43]

A bit of fun as they are edited but 2 are m9, 2 are m9m. Take a guess. 3 of the 4 are shot with the same lens.

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!

[sometimesmaybe]

10 hours ago, brickftl said:

I would love it if someone who has a M10 and M10M (or M11 and M11M) would shoot some pics of the same subject same settings side by side - both low and high ISO, and both night and day, and then post them and point out EXACTLY what is this "tonal rendering" difference.

the guys at red dot forum did a comparison a while ago

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/05/bw-iso-showdown-2020-leica-m10-monochrom-vs-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m10-p-vs-sl2/

 

[brickftl]

16 minutes ago, sometimesmaybe said:

the guys at red dot forum did a comparison a while ago

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/05/bw-iso-showdown-2020-leica-m10-monochrom-vs-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m10-p-vs-sl2/

 

thanks for that. Basically the conclusion is as I expected - that up to say ISO 12500 the M10 holds its own against the M10M. Going well beyond that number the M10M pulls away. But the article ever mentions "tonal rendering" or anything related to that, so I'm not sure if the red dot testers thought that "tonal rendering" is a real thing and if they did whether they considered it important. 

Based on this my thoughts remain the same: If you never want color images, then go for the M10M. But if you never shoot much above ISO 12500 then I still don't see any "tonal rendering" between M10 images vs M10M images. But that's just me. Perhaps my eyes can't discern such a difference if indeed it does exist, and to those eyes that can discern such a difference, so long as they don't ever want color images, then by all means the M10M sounds like the way to go.

[Ralf]

Thank you for the link, very interesting and helpful, I think I am fine with my M10-P and keep my M9M just for fun.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jon Warwick]

On 5/27/2024 at 11:17 AM, jaapv said:

You are forgetting the omission of the Bayer filter which certainly influences the tonality. In fact, Leica tweaked the cover glass to mimic Delta 100. But hey! If you don’t see the difference there is no need to consider a monochrome camera. 

To me the omission of the Bayer filter means the textures of objects look more purely and naturally captured than having a color filter array and the associated algorithms scrambling to make sense of it - ie, Monochroms are unlikely to have moire or other false nasties, and the “rendering” of a B&W sensor (admittedly hard to describe or even compare on screen!) simply looks more realistic and less processed than from a color digital camera when I look at large prints. It’s for that reason why Monochrom images consistently feel more film-like to me than what I capture on (say) my M11 or GFX. I guess both Monochroms and film are part of a simpler chain that’s light passing through the lens and straight onto the sensor ….not light into the lens and then being fabricated as an image via a color filter array before it hits the underlying sensor.

 

Edited May 28, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[SNJ Ops]

I’m going to commit blasphemy here - recently I have been on Flickr looking at M11 B&W vs M11 M and while in a lot of cases I could tell them apart I also found myself preferring overall the B&W images coming out of the regular M11 over the M11 M. Many of the M11 M images were richer and more detailed yet that is exactly why I didn’t care for them. With one notable exception I saw a particular photographer paired his M11 M with Zeiss lenses and his images were wonderful. 
https://flickr.com/photos/21969384@N06