Tijmendal
Young photog
Really cool! In part because this means the first Monochrom will now be 'outdated' (not really, of course), which will hopefully drive down the prices. Maybe in a year or two-three I'll actually be able to afford one!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
So what is the visual difference between images made with the CCD vs the CMOS sensors?
I'm not quite ready to jump on this bandwagon....I still like what I have!
I'm not quite ready to jump on this bandwagon....I still like what I have!
SuperUJ
Well-known
Good stuff. The dynamic range in the second image (old man with a stick) is pretty impressive.
John
Lss
Well-known
My current camera budget is at around 3k. I'm seriously considering how to double it and still eat daily.
JMQ
Well-known
It's called Cal's duochrom.
oldwino
Well-known
Seems like its real strength (as compared to the older model) is its low light capabilities.
http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/
http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/
segedi
RFicianado
I was impressed by ISO 8000 on the original version. But yeah, the new version crushes it.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
SuperUJ
Well-known
CVickery
Established
Sean Reid has a review on his site, if you are a subscriber. The new one looks even better than the old one.
arseniii
Well-known
LoL the M - button is still there, for Hitchcock’s wannabes 
icebear
Veteran
I don't have money to burn and I am still mightly impressed with my results from the MM. I don't feel any urge to upgrade. The menues and buttons are different on the M240/M246 so it's easy to mess something up if you are using both simultaniously. Using M9 and MM is seamless. And I have never maxed out the high ISO capabilities of the MM. I think the highest I ever had to use was 3200.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Vince,
There is nothing like the CCD look so really there is no comparision. The CMOS sensor has better high ISO performance over the CCD, but then the less amount of of pixels of the original Monochrom can be viewed by some as being richer and an advantage.
Perhaps the pixel size verses amount of pixels offers no clear winner to say which is best. I own a Monochrom and don't plan on selling or upgrading it. The question for me is how do I fund a M-246.
People really have three choices: Monochrom; M-246; or both. If anyone sells their Monochrom to upgrade to a M-246 my bet is that they will regret it.
An example is that there are many M9 owners who still love their CCD color sensors who didn't upgrade to a M-240 for the CMOS sensor. The M9 has a very original rendering of color and less pixels than the M-240. To me both are great cameras. Nice to have choices.
Try comparing a Nikon D3S to a D3X. The D3S has a larger pixel and better High ISO performance due to the larger pixel having a larger signal and a higher signal to noise ratio than a D3X with more pixels that are smaller. The D3X (I own one) has a lot more pixels and offers higher resolution but with a lower High ISO performance. Does everyone need the high ISO performance of the D3S? Does everyone need the higher resolution of the D3X? How many photographers own both?
Then there is the two different sensors: two different looks. For many the CCD has a special look that they favor.
As far as resolution goes the original Monochrom can make crazy big/huge prints. Hard to imagine a small format B&W camera having a higher resolution. When printing big signal to noise is kinda important, so more megapixel might not be the best answer to printing huge.
Cal
danielsterno
making soup from mud
Steve Huff info on the subject: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/04/30/the-new-leica-m-typ-246-or-the-new-monochrome/
and Sean Reid:
Today I published a very extensive review of the Leica M-246 Monochrom which I have been testing, in the field and studio, for the past month. Included in this article are pictures made in the field, side by side comparison pictures made in the field (with the M-246 and M9 Monochrom) as well as extensive side by side studio tests of the M-246, M9 Monochrom, M-240 and Sigma SD1 Merrill. Reading this review will take some time but I hope the effort proves worthwhile.
Most camera review sites are supported by a combination of advertising income and commissions from click-through sales of photography equipment. Reid Reviews is supported entirely by its subscribers. I want to thank you for your support and for not summarizing the information in reviews like this on forums and the like. I also know that some of you may be pressured by people who want to read the site without paying for it. Thanks for not caving into that. By making these choices, you are supporting an unusual, independent and -- I hope -- useful source of reviews for serious photographers.
Cheers,
Sean Reid
Publisher
http://www.reidreviews.com
and Sean Reid:
Today I published a very extensive review of the Leica M-246 Monochrom which I have been testing, in the field and studio, for the past month. Included in this article are pictures made in the field, side by side comparison pictures made in the field (with the M-246 and M9 Monochrom) as well as extensive side by side studio tests of the M-246, M9 Monochrom, M-240 and Sigma SD1 Merrill. Reading this review will take some time but I hope the effort proves worthwhile.
Most camera review sites are supported by a combination of advertising income and commissions from click-through sales of photography equipment. Reid Reviews is supported entirely by its subscribers. I want to thank you for your support and for not summarizing the information in reviews like this on forums and the like. I also know that some of you may be pressured by people who want to read the site without paying for it. Thanks for not caving into that. By making these choices, you are supporting an unusual, independent and -- I hope -- useful source of reviews for serious photographers.
Cheers,
Sean Reid
Publisher
http://www.reidreviews.com
MIkhail
-
Allow me a question, without intention to offend anybody: can somebody please show me a good example of Leica MM that would be impossible to take by any other digital camera with Photoshop conversion.
I am not asking this for the sake of bickering, I just want to see it, for once...
AGAIN, only an example that so different that makes the extra cost worthwhile, PLEASE.
P.S. No comments about tactile experience using Leica vs. non-Leica, etc. Just examples. Thank you in advance.
I am not asking this for the sake of bickering, I just want to see it, for once...
AGAIN, only an example that so different that makes the extra cost worthwhile, PLEASE.
P.S. No comments about tactile experience using Leica vs. non-Leica, etc. Just examples. Thank you in advance.
rodt16s
Well-known
I'm going to Leica UK Saturday to return my faulty 50 lux ASPH for repair... if they have one hopefully be able to compare against my CCD Mono
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Mikhail,
The true advantage of a MM is the resolution. No example I could upload would show you what this camera can do. You can make crazy Salgado sized prints of 60x72 inches if you have a high shutter speed and perfect technic.
You make a very good point that if one never prints beyond big meaning huge that perhaps this advantage is kinda moot.
I can tell you that a 24x36 inch print is really not that big for the Monochrom, and I have several 24x36 inch prints wet printed on 30x40 inch fiber that was performed by Digital Silver imaging. I can also tell you that I have an 8x10 zoomed in crop of a 60x72 inch print that displays how seriously huge one can print.
At home I print 13x19 and the detail is stunning. Not sure I would get that level of IQ if I shot my Nikon D3X (24 MP) and used the file to make a B&W print. Also know that the D3X has a limited high ISO performance while the Monochrome offers a lot higher High ISO performance.
Also know that making stunning files requires a certain percision. Maybe the Monochrom is the most unforgiving digital camera one can shoot, but if you nail exposure and have great technic expect medium format results.
Not sure a color camera could surpass good results I can get with my monochrom, especially if you print huge. Might be moot if you print small, but even at 13x19 the resolution and detail is kinda mind blowing. You need to see prints and you would understand.
I would say that what Leica is stating about the M-246 not having a Bayer Filter Array to resulting in having a 100% more resolution as being a big exaggeration. I kinda percieve maybe about a 30% more resolution on my MM than say a M9 which is a color sensor with the addition of a Bayer Filter Array. Another way to look at this is to know that the M9 is a 16 MP camera, but the Monochrom without the Bayer Filter Array can produce a sharper image that is more like a 24 MP camera. I don't see how Post Processing can fill that gap. About 1/3 more resolution is the premium you are paying. In other words the Bayer Filter Array degrades resolution by about a third.
Maybe a Nikon D-800 can match or even exceed, but thats a 36 MP color camera.
Cal
Kwesi
Well-known
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are experienced enough as a photographer to be able to answer this question for your self
segedi
RFicianado
Yes, in a year or two as a special edition. And then a regular version. They've used that strategy to get more years out of their lineup. Which I'm all for. Having a new offering every 8 months is annoying.
segedi
RFicianado
With the new M246, you wouldn't need the speed. Maybe the character of f/1.4, but certainly not speed!