M11 Monochrom vs. M10 Monochrom - Image Thread, including some links to DNGs

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now with some dodging and burning in the second image, too. I really don't see using color filters with the M11M. Always used them with the M246 and M10M.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-nrdw8D/

Before

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!

 

After

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Chaemono

[Budfox]

Chaemono,

Do you have an opinion on banding issues at high ISOs for the M11M versus the M10M. The first page of the M11M images thread in this forum has images at 100K and 200K which both show pretty obvious banding, mostly in the top right corner, but actually across most of the frame. Those shots actually stopped me buying the camera. Now considering a used M10M if it's high ISO is less prone to banding.

Any experience comparing the banding between these cameras?

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Budfox:

Chaemono,

Do you have an opinion on banding issues at high ISOs for the M11M versus the M10M. The first page of the M11M images thread in this forum has images at 100K and 200K which both show pretty obvious banding, mostly in the top right corner, but actually across most of the frame. Those shots actually stopped me buying the camera. Now considering a used M10M if it's high ISO is less prone to banding.

Any experience comparing the banding between these cameras?

Let’s just say ISO 200K in lowlight, high contrast scenes is unusable even without moving any sliders in LR. I need to check both cameras again more carefully but what I’ve seen so far is that for clean pushed shadows in high contrast scenes from ISO 12.8K-51.2K you may want to go with the M10M. It’s not so much banding that I’ve seen but more white pixels in pushed shadows noise. They are sporadic, can only be seen in the dark areas of the image if I zoom in and can be removed in post. I think white pixels in pushed shadows noise is a Sony BSI sensor thing. The M10M has a cutdown version of the S3 sensor.

The tonal range of that 60 MP BSI sensor is something else, though. If you look at the DNGs in #14 and #23, adjust the tone curve in the M10M file to match the M11M file in #23 in contrast, and zoom in on the wood, you’ll see a huge difference in tonality. M11M tonal range looks more like MF. I have an S3 and maybe I should compare and post the DNGs here. 

[Guest]

On 4/18/2023 at 11:53 AM, Chaemono said:

There are two reasons why almost all digital B&W is like drinking rotten pond scum:

1. The first is that B&W film is biased toward richness and detail in the highlights and lacks information in the shadows (hence the old adage "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights," because if you didn't get the shadows right in camera you weren't going to be able to get them by prestidigitation later), and this happens to match how our eyes see. Digital does the opposite: it has a low amount of detail in the highlights and has vast reserves of information in the shadows. Ever taken a raw file with a camera high in DR and tried to dig the shadows in a good raw converter? It's amazing. This does not match how our eyes see. Bad highlight detail isn't just a problem with digital B&W: it plagues all digital. We're getting used to digital highlights now, thanks to the habituation of constant bombardment, but that's like learning to love an ugly dog. It still doesn't make it pretty.

2. The second reason why almost all digital B&W is slathered with pasty poodle excrement is that digital depresses the middle values. Compared to a scale of theoretically ideal tones, Zone VII is rendered as Zone VI if not Zone V, Zone V is rendered as Zone IV if not Zone III. It looks terrible. Rodinal used to have this effect on film. Mildly, not as bad as a lot of digital. Okay, okay, granted, it's a "look," and a fewphotographers have done it on purpose and can make it look aesthetically coherent. Emphasis on "few." Especially if their subjects are dark and airless. But most digital B&W is that way by default and it looks awful.

 

I would say that you describe perhaps a situation specifically regarding Adobe Lightroom.

Here is a comparison (M10M) between C1 (top) and LR (bottom). C1 using linear profile (not available in LR) - which brings you back to a world where the zones apply as expected. No need to buy a new camera. Shot on Tuesday, no adjustments of any kind in either tool (besides having set C1 to linear by default):

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!

Contrast in LR is obscene, IMHO ...

Edited April 22, 2023 by mzbe

[Jon Warwick]

7 hours ago, mzbe said:

I would say that you describe perhaps a situation specifically regarding Adobe Lightroom.

Here is a comparison (M10M) between C1 (top) and LR (bottom). C1 using linear profile (not available in LR) - which brings you back to a world where the zones apply as expected. No need to buy a new camera. Shot on Tuesday, no adjustments of any kind in either tool (besides having set C1 to linear by default):

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!

Contrast in LR is obscene, IMHO ...

Very interesting, thanks for posting, and yes, the bottom image seems reminiscent of the high contrast I get natively with the M10M in ACR in Photoshop. Is there a way to change its default settings and/or how would you get the DNG in your 2nd picture in LR to look like the 1st picture (also in LR?) ….., at the moment I take down the Contrast slider and lift the Blacks slider on pretty much every DNG as a starting point, but perhaps there is a better technique?

Maybe I should just check out C1 here,  the M10M in C1 you show seems similar to how I see the flatter DNGs off the M11M currently in ACR, both seem a very good starting point.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Jon Warwick

[Olaf_ZG]

6 hours ago, mzbe said:

I would say that you describe perhaps a situation specifically regarding Adobe Lightroom.

Here is a comparison (M10M) between C1 (top) and LR (bottom). C1 using linear profile (not available in LR) - which brings you back to a world where the zones apply as expected. No need to buy a new camera. Shot on Tuesday, no adjustments of any kind in either tool (besides having set C1 to linear by default):

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!

Contrast in LR is obscene, IMHO ...

Very interesting, this year I moved to LR after switching to a new OS. I am still in a learning stage and am struggling to get b/w base output to my liking. More for the Q2 than the mm’s, but linear was my base setting with c1…

[Budfox]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Let’s just say ISO 200K in lowlight, high contrast scenes is unusable even without moving any sliders in LR. I need to check both cameras again more carefully but what I’ve seen so far is that for clean pushed shadows in high contrast scenes from ISO 12.8K-51.2K you may want to go with the M10M. It’s not so much banding that I’ve seen but more white pixels in pushed shadows noise. They are sporadic, can only be seen in the dark areas of the image if I zoom in and can be removed in post. I think white pixels in pushed shadows noise is a Sony BSI sensor thing. The M10M has a cutdown version of the S3 sensor.

The tonal range of that 60 MP BSI sensor is something else, though. If you look at the DNGs in #14 and #23, adjust the tone curve in the M10M file to match the M11M file in #23 in contrast, and zoom in on the wood, you’ll see a huge difference in tonality. M11M tonal range looks more like MF. I have an S3 and maybe I should compare and post the DNGs here. 

Thanks for the info. I can live with some white pixels that are fixable - but I don't want a sensor prone to high ISO banding. Pics 8 and 9 in the M11 picture forum gave me cause for concern. I already have a Q2M and don't notice any banding at all.

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Budfox:

Thanks for the info. I can live with some white pixels that are fixable - but I don't want a sensor prone to high ISO banding. Pics 8 and 9 in the M11 picture forum gave me cause for concern. I already have a Q2M and don't notice any banding at all.

There appears something funny to be going on in this ISO 12500 picture upon export from LR. It looks super clean in LR but the exported JPEG shows tons of banding. I will post a link to download the DNG later. I want to check in C1 first. I didn't see any white pixels from the ones yesterday.

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!

[Chaemono]

The banding effect is much more subtle if at all with the ISO 12500 M10M JPG exported from LR. I made this one a bit darker than the M11M picture above but tried to match them otherwise.

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!

[Chaemono]

Now the M11M picture from the in-camera JPG processed lightly in LR. I shot DNG and JPG yesterday. It's seems to be a JPEG compression issue in LR.

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!

[Chaemono]

Ok, the issue seems to be that moving the shadows slider in ISO 12500 M11M files to +100 in LR will result in banding in the exported JPEG. Shadows at +60 does the trick and use of the tone curves to adjust contrast. 

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!

[Chaemono]

And here the exported JPEGs in LUF compression

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!

[Budfox]

Chaemono,

It does appear as an unusual artefact from LR jpg compression. However, it's not the sort of old-style sensor banding I am worried about though.

Many thanks for posting!

[Chaemono]

Yes, LR artefact from LR jpg compression above. C1 does much better. The ones that follow are from ISO 12500, ISO 16000, ISO 25000 DNG files opened in C1 - DNG Neutral and linear tone cure profile used - shadows +100, and Exposure -0.6, -0,7, -0.8 in C1, respectively. Then exported as TIFFs and treated lightly for noise in Topaz DeNoise. BTW, TIFFs provide only a little bit of latitude to lift shadows further in LR but a lot of latitude to pull back highlights. The M11M files are quite malleable up to ISO 25000. I'd say lowlight, high ISO performance of M11M is similar to M10M. More MP are offset by better lowlight/ISO BSI technology. I can provide the DNGs if anyone wants to play around with them. 

M11M ISO 12500 as shot

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!

Shadows +100, exposure -0.6 in C1, Topaz DeNoise AI

[Chaemono]

Now ISO 16000

M11M ISO 16000 as shot

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!

Shadows +100, exposure -0.7 in C1, Topaz DeNoise AI

 

 

[Chaemono]

ISO 25000

M11M ISO 25000 as shot

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!

Shadows +100, exposure -0.8 in C1, Topaz DeNoise AI

[algrove]

C1 now supports the Leica M11M.

[Kiwimac]

I think it depends how you like your B&W. 
 

Even when I was developing and printing from film I used hard contrast papers and over developed the film a bit to deepen the blacks too. 
 

B&W with a lot of mid grey in it has never appealed to me much. 
 

In these images the M10M usually looks better to me although I’ll sure you could make them very similar in post. 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Kiwimac

[Derbyshire Man]

Agreed Kiwimac, for some subjects such as a still life a full spectrum is going to likely be more attractive, for much portraiture, street, city, etc if I'd have been shooting on HP5, PanF, TriX, Tmax 100/400 I'd have been going for something more punchy.

My dad was an electronic engineer but spent all of his life in TV news, studio and outside broadcast camera work, he was very specific about how a picture should look without under or overcooking contrast. There's a modern obsession with reclaiming every drop of detail from images but my feeling is that in reality that is not how we view the world, subconsciously we zone out shadow and highlight detail even if we can 'see' it, our brains are processing for danger/opportunity but we usually are less aware of it, including all of that detail into a picture can [often] be more of a hindrance than a help. I agree with the truism; 'photography is less deciding what to include than what to leave out'.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M