Leica Monochrom M246

[Dante_Stella]

From the test reports I have seen (MM vs. M246), apparently you'd have to really look for the CCD magic with the original one. There is a slightly different color sensitivity; looks like it might be less like having a light green filter.

Dante

 

[Calzone]

My last exhibit were all 18 X 12 prints in 20 X 24 mats and frames and some friends of mine (silver gelatin heads one was one of my college professors) were amazed at the print quality of the ink jet prints from the MM. I shot with Blads for decades and I agree that the files are a lot like medium format B&W as far as sharpness and tonality. The range in the MM files are spectacular.

And wanted to say the the 18 MP original mono has been compared to the D800 in regards to sharpness and DR because it is native B&W. No RGB to deal with. I know my files from my MM beat the files from 5DII and IIIs

Thanks for your insights.

I also would like to add that Leica also does not use an anti alias filter on any M-body digital cameras, and and this lack of an AA filter also adds to resolution and sharpness.

Am I wrong in judging Leicas claim of a "100% increase in resolution?" To me it is like Leica is almost saying the M-246 24MP sensor is like a 48MP sensor. I don't buy that. My estimate would be that the M-246 sensor is kinda like a 32 MP sensor as far as resolution and sharpness.

Still pixel size has its own richness.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I struggle to believe that a competent photographer couldn't achieve those images with an M240 or any other modern digital color camera.

To this day I still don't see the hype of the MM, and B&W was all I did for the first few years of this hobby.

Harry,

You do make a point. One could likely make the same image with a color camera, but if you scale things up and want to print big I would say the print would kinda tell you something besides capturing the same image.

I made a lot of test prints that were 8 1/2x11's to learn how to utilize Piezography and Quadtone RIP on an Epson 3880. With Piezography I use 7 shades of black instead of the Epson OEM's 3 blacks. 8 1/2x11's were not really big enough to reveal the detail, sharpness, resolution or tonality of the MM files. It seems that you really need to get to about 13x19 to actually see the files breath and give you a rather stunning print that inspires possibilities.

The points I'm trying to make that might be helpful to anyone considering a MM or M-246 is that there are a lot of other costs that kinda go with a purchase of a monochrome Leica like a large calibrated monitor and a rather large printer to fully exploit the camera's full capabilities. I will also tell you that printing big has a lot of costs that become great in just paper and ink. It truely is a nitch camera and not for everyone.

I owned my Monochrom for over two years before I began printing because I had to save thousands to build a printing system that was worthy to fully exploit the camera's capabilities.

I think my prints kinda speak for themselves.

Cal

 

[daveleo]

Seriously, now that I've read some of the explanations above, I am tossing my skeptical / cynical opinions of the MM's.
They appear not simply to be different, but truly better (the best ??) at the specialized task of large (huge!) B&W prints.

If that's what you need, they are not overpriced.

 

[Godfrey]

I struggle to believe that a competent photographer couldn't achieve those images with an M240 or any other modern digital color camera.

To this day I still don't see the hype of the MM, and B&W was all I did for the first few years of this hobby.

...
Am I wrong in judging Leicas claim of a "100% increase in resolution?" To me it is like Leica is almost saying the M-246 24MP sensor is like a 48MP sensor. I don't buy that. My estimate would be that the M-246 sensor is kinda like a 32 MP sensor as far as resolution and sharpness. ...

I think it best to just look again at Egor's tests of the MM246 at low and high ISO settings compared against both the MM9 and M240.

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

My evaluation:

While at base ISO setting you would be hard pressed to say there's a radical difference between them, at high ISO settings there is a clear advantage to the MM246 with respect to dynamic range and retained detail rendering.

G

 

[Calzone]

Seriously, now that I've read some of the explanations above, I am tossing my skeptical / cynical opinions of the MM's.
They appear not simply to be different, but truly better (the best ??) at the specialized task of large (huge!) B&W prints.

If that's what you need, they are not overpriced.

Not for everyone, but it really is a specialized best tool for the job.

BTW It is hard to imagine a camera better than my MM. Not an easy camera to shoot either because it is IMHO likely to be the most unforgiving camera to shoot. It really likes perfection, and on those ocassions that you get everything right you get unbelievable files that can print not big, but huge.

BTW perfection is not easy to do. Anyways my MM has made me both humble and a better photographer.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I think it best to just look again at Egor's tests of the MM246 at low and high ISO settings compared against both the MM9 and M240.

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

My evaluation:

While at base ISO setting you would be hard pressed to say there's a radical difference between them, at high ISO settings there is a clear advantage to the MM246 with respect to dynamic range and retained detail rendering.

G

G,

Thanks for the link.

I think it is really clever how you distinguish the Monochrom as a MM9. Very clever.

I need to learn more and I appreciate your help.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

G,

Thanks for the link.

I think it is really clever how you distinguish the Monochrom as a MM9. Very clever.

I need to learn more and I appreciate your help.

Cal

You're welcome, and thank you.

I didn't invent the "MM9" term, but I picked it up because I do get tired of trying to type out "M Monochrom typ 246" every time I refer to it and then other constructions to differentiate it from the M9 derivative Monochrom; "MM9", "MM246", "M240", etc presents a convenient and (reasonably) unambiguous shorthand.

G

 

[Photog9000]

I would not be upgrading, nothing replaces a CCD sensor, I would just be buying a second monochrome camera body.

Cal

Why not just wait till the M246 hits and catch a CCD Monochorm used and save a few bucks?

 

[Calzone]

Why not just wait till the M246 hits and catch a CCD Monochorm used and save a few bucks?

Seagrove,

I already own a MM9 and have loved it for almost 2 1/2 years. For me, an old B&W film die-hard, the MM9 really advanced my photography and took me out of the box.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

You're welcome, and thank you.

I didn't invent the "MM9" term, but I picked it up because I do get tired of trying to type out "M Monochrom typ 246" every time I refer to it and then other constructions to differentiate it from the M9 derivative Monochrom; "MM9", "MM246", "M240", etc presents a convenient and (reasonably) unambiguous shorthand.

G

G,

Everyone should read the link you posted. Thanks again.

My jist is at base ISO my MM9 is a comparible camera as far as IQ, resolution, and noise levels. The M-246 is the clear winner for resolution and low noise at high ISO so the new camera offers a very real advantage. Also Harry's point before of capturing the same image and converting to B&W is somewhat also validated as really-really close, but no cigar.

For those of us who are tapped out like me who own a MM9, upgrading does not make sense if we mostly shoot at base ISO (I rarely go above 800 for IQ), but if High ISO is good for you then an upgrade kinda makes sense. A M-240 owner is not left far behind, but is not the best tool for the job.

Cal

 

[willie_901]

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!

Visually you will see less read noise and more analog dynamic range (at all ISOs).

Neither have color-filter array filters. The differences in R, G and B Bayer filter band widths is no longer a factor in rendering aesthetics.

The IR transmission of the M-246 is unknown at this time, however IR can be aesthetically pleasing for some monochrome rendering. The microlens T-factor differences are unknown as well,

Of course the pixel density will increase.

CCD and CMOS sensors use pinned-diode technology to model light amplitude as electrical charge. So what happens when the shutter is open is identical.

"Both CMOS and CCD chips sense light through similar mechanisms, by taking advantage of the photoelectric effect, which occurs when photons interact with crystallized silicon to promote electrons from the valence band into the conduction band. Note that the term "CMOS" refers to the process by which the image sensor is manufactured and not to a specific imaging technology."

The analog SNR, and DR differences are primarily caused by disparities in efficiencies of the analog electronics after the shutter closes.

These technical aspects of the cameras' data streams are only one aspect of the final images' aesthetics.

 

[willie_901]

...
They appear not simply to be different, but truly better (the best ??) at the specialized task of large (huge!) B&W prints.

...

Absolutely.

 

[Calzone]

The IR transmission of the M-246 is unknown at this time, however IR can be aesthetically pleasing for some monochrome rendering. The microlens T-factor differences are unknown as well,

Willie,

Thanks for the added clarity.

On my MM9 I discovered that using specifically a Heliopan 2x yellow kinda hit the sweet spot of the Monochrom sensor. I further discovered that using Heliopan 2X yellow filters that were marked "DIGITAL" also have both additional IR and UV filters that cut the signal in a manner that either curbed clipping or in many cases eliminated clipping altogether.

From experience I can say that cutting IR signal on my MM9 greatly helped with my signal to noise ratio, curbed or eliminated clipping, and helped promote broad histograms that were exposed to the right.

How can IR signal help in B&W?

Cal

 

[airfrogusmc]

Thanks for your insights.

I also would like to add that Leica also does not use an anti alias filter on any M-body digital cameras, and and this lack of an AA filter also adds to resolution and sharpness.

Am I wrong in judging Leicas claim of a "100% increase in resolution?" To me it is like Leica is almost saying the M-246 24MP sensor is like a 48MP sensor. I don't buy that. My estimate would be that the M-246 sensor is kinda like a 32 MP sensor as far as resolution and sharpness.

Still pixel size has its own richness.

Cal

There is no color so no RGB. The original 18MP MM is really close in DR and sharpness to the D800 which is 36MPs. I haven't seen or shot with the new MM and haven't read much about it so don't know about it.

 

[Godfrey]

...
My jist is at base ISO my MM9 is a comparible camera as far as IQ, resolution, and noise levels. The M-246 is the clear winner for resolution and low noise at high ISO so the new camera offers a very real advantage. Also Harry's point before of capturing the same image and converting to B&W is somewhat also validated as really-really close, but no cigar.

For those of us who are tapped out like me who own a MM9, upgrading does not make sense if we mostly shoot at base ISO (I rarely go above 800 for IQ), but if High ISO is good for you then an upgrade kinda makes sense. A M-240 owner is not left far behind, but is not the best tool for the job. ...

If the decision criteria is on image characteristics alone, I agree.

However, having moved to the M-P typ 240 after having the M9 for three years use, I find the other benefits of moving to the typ 240/246 series cameras to be compelling enough that I'd upgrade anyway, given the resources to do so. The improved responsiveness, quieter shutter, and more ergonomic controls alone make it for me, never mind the potential of Live View and optional EVF, or the other stuff. That's my personal opinion.

Of course, if I couldn't afford it, I'd keep going with what I had. 🙂

G

 

[Srono]

Video with RAX https://vimeo.com/12636531 and MM246. He is my favourite photographer. Not sure if he is going to use it in the field for real though 😛

 

[Calzone]

There is no color so no RGB. The original 18MP MM is really close in DR and sharpness to the D800 which is 36MPs. I haven't seen or shot with the new MM and haven't read much about it so don't know about it.

My point is that there is also a contribution to the resolution and sharpness due to a lack of an Anti-Alias filter that you failed to mention in addition to the understood lack of Bayer Filter Array.

The Nikon D-800 has an "E" version that lacks an Anti-Alias filter for higher resolution. When you mention the Nikon D800 which D800 version are you refering to?

Great to hear that the MM9 does so well. Would be really cool if you think that the MM9 matches a D800E.

Thanks in advance.

Cal

 

[airfrogusmc]

Here...D800 E
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/

The original MM held it's own pretty well I'd say.

 

[ferider]

I think it best to just look again at Egor's tests of the MM246 at low and high ISO settings compared against both the MM9 and M240.

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

My evaluation:

While at base ISO setting you would be hard pressed to say there's a radical difference between them, at high ISO settings there is a clear advantage to the MM246 with respect to dynamic range and retained detail rendering.

G

Agree. To be more specific, for all practical purposes, there is an advantage with the MM2 at ISO >= 3200 ASA; 246 files and monochrom'ed 240 files have similar noise/resolution/DR at ISO <= 1600.

I'm wondering if more could be done on the 240 files with a better B+W conversion algorithm.

For Cal: remember that - compared to M9 - the 240 is more IR sensitive (thinner sensor filter). Once you'll hear the 246 shutter, you might never touch your MM9 again 🙂

Roland.