Leica Monochrom M246

Vince I'll be surprised and curious if slower Sandisk card like you were using were the issue. When you described the 5th and 6th frame viewing in playback simply showing up as a file #instead of an image...same thing happened to an aquantances camera and it turned out to be a card that acted corrupt in that camera but not some of his other older ones. He never quite figured it out but stopped using that one particular card. The other instance of what you described I heard about was simply an M9 that somehow was writing corrupt frames to a card and they only showed up as DNG #'s both in playback and when he tried opening files on his computer. I simply hope its nothing more than the card (in all liklihood).

Dave (D&A)
 
Vince Lupo said:
Thanks for the info Doug -- I'm going to try to pick up one of those SanDisk 95MB/s cards today, and will try it over the weekend to see how it does. If it turns out that the camera's performance does improve, then I'll likely have to get a set of cards that are strictly dedicated to my 246.
Click to expand...

This isn't so bad as you have to reformat them for your other cameras.

I gave all my slower (less than 95 MB/s) cards away.
 
Doug said:
The card I've been using in my M240 is a 16Gb Lexar Platinum II, 30MB/s read, 22MB/s write. No complaints, has worked ok... I had recorded a note in Sept 2013 that "Online chatter indicates the camera's write speed limits the useful speed, and this SD is adequate."

I checked startup time to first pic with shutter held down...
6 sec Sandisk 16Gb Class 4
4 sec Sandisk 8Gb Class 10
3 sec Sandisk 32Gb Class 10
2 sec Lexar 16Gb Platinum II 100x

Still, faster startup would be useful.
Click to expand...

I ordered two of the Sandisk Extreme Pro 32G cards ... I'll see what the difference to the HP 32G cards is like. I needed another pair of cards anyway..

G
 
Just picked up four of the 32GB 95MB/s cards from Best Buy. Seems to have fixed the problem of both image playback and startup time.
 
I'm hooked on the eye-go cards. A bit more write time is fine when there is a full JPEG on the iPad and Phone a few secs after taking it (RAWs stay on the card ).
Does the 240/246 have wi-fi ?
 
A mis-typing or a misreading? Puts is comparing the MM-I and the M246, which he calls the MM-II; nothing about M240 in this part of his review.

He says "The verdict from this comparison is that the MM-II does perform in the same league as the MM-I, but any one who hoped that there would be a quantum leap in image quality between the MM-I and MM-II will be disappointed."

I can't be sure, because nobody has taken a look-in-deph at MM vs M246 tonalities. But so far I think the 246is a boon mainly to available light shooters. I'm not yet convinced that those of us who use the MM mostly at base ISO can gain a noticeable improvement in IQ.

Kirk
 
thompsonks said:
A mis-typing or a misreading? Puts is comparing the MM-I and the M246, which he calls the MM-II; nothing about M240 in this part of his review.

He says "The verdict from this comparison is that the MM-II does perform in the same league as the MM-I, but any one who hoped that there would be a quantum leap in image quality between the MM-I and MM-II will be disappointed."

I can't be sure, because nobody has taken a look-in-deph at MM vs M246 tonalities. But so far I think the 246is a boon mainly to available light shooters. I'm not yet convinced that those of us who use the MM mostly at base ISO can gain a noticeable improvement in IQ.

Kirk
Click to expand...

Posted much earlier in the thread:

grEGORy's review might provide the data you are looking for: http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/

He does a good piece of careful comparison between MM, M240, and M246, at low and high sensitivity settings, and shows examples of the differences.
Click to expand...

Egor's test photos show little difference in tonality, DR, and resolution between M240, MM9, and MM246 at base ISO, but significant differences as the ISO is elevated into the ISO 6400+ range.

G
 
I can only compare to what I've printed from my newly-acquired 246, but I can definitely see the difference in an 11"x16" print shot at ISO 320. The prints are very clean - maybe too clean in fact - and are definitely sharper.

The print from this image exhibits definite differences than what I'd been getting from the 'old' Monochrom:


The Three Evils by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Plus, I detect more going on in both the shadows and the highlights. Simply my own opinion, mind you, but based upon physical print results and not test charts on a computer screen.

There are other small improvements to the camera that don't have anything to do with the sensor - things like the screen size and its resolution, the larger buffer, small improvements to the ergonomics, different metering options (I personally don't care about Live View or video). I'd agree that these elements may not necessarily add up to worthwhile reasons for someone who already has the original Monochrom, but for someone who is looking to buy a Monochrom for the first time, I can see the advantages of the 246 over the 'old' one.
 
Of course a 24 MPixel camera will be "sharper" than an 18 MPixel one - just more real estate.

The real question is if the M240 (14 bit dynamic range) is as good as he M246 (12 bit dynamic range) when shooting B/W, in the mid tones, and wrt resolution, depending on the channel mix.

When comparing the Ur-Monochrome to the M9, there was no question. Thick IR filter on the M9 sensor, and 14 bit DR for both.

But with the thinner IR filter on the M240 sensor, and its higher dynamic range, I expect the M240 to be similar or better than the M246 in some respects. And how do they compare when you use a yellow filter on the 246 ?

Roland.
 
That's a good question -- I'll have to do some comparison with and without the Heliopan yellow filter (the one that Cal has recommended in other threads). I only have a 39mm yellow filter, so I'll have to compare with my Summicron or my 35/1.7 Ultron.

Based upon my 'seat of the pants' testing, I'm seeing more shadow detail and highlight detail. Plus, I'm not sensing that I have to 'expose for the highlights' like I had to with the original Monochrom. In the new camera's 'Classic' metering mode (there are a few different metering modes), I'm tending to expose for the midtones, and the highlights and shadows seem to be working themselves out.
 
Vince Lupo said:
That's a good question -- I'll have to do some comparison with and without the Heliopan yellow filter (the one that Cal has recommended in other threads). I only have a 39mm yellow filter, so I'll have to compare with my Summicron or my 35/1.7 Ultron.

Based upon my 'seat of the pants' testing, I'm seeing more shadow detail and highlight detail. Plus, I'm not sensing that I have to 'expose for the highlights' like I had to with the original Monochrom. In the new camera's 'Classic' metering mode (there are a few different metering modes), I'm tending to expose for the midtones, and the highlights and shadows seem to be working themselves out.
Click to expand...

Vince,

Thanks for your posts. I'm most curious about how the M-246 renders the mids.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Vince,

Thanks for your posts. I'm most curious about how the M-246 renders the mids.

Cal
Click to expand...

In talking with my 'pusher' as well as the folks at the Leica Store, I seem to have one of the very few 246's around (I don't even think NJ has any!). Pays to know people in high places!
 
Vince Lupo said:
In talking with my 'pusher' as well as the folks at the Leica Store, I seem to have one of the very few 246's around (I don't even think NJ has any!). Pays to know people in high places!
Click to expand...

Vince,

Indeed you are a lucky dog. One day I hope to have my MM9 and a M-246. How spoiled is that?

Cal
 
Thanks guys -- believe me, I had to sacrifice much to get the camera (as I did with the first Monochrom, and the M9 before that). If they ever came out with a Monochrom 3, I have no idea what the heck I'd do! The only thing I think they could do in terms of releasing a subsequent model would be something like a M246-P version -- no video, no live view (and of course charge you more for the privilege).


Decided to give the Noctilux a rest for a while, am shooting with the Summicron now:


Glasses246 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
Vince,

Your experience seems to mirror mine-- I received my M246 two weeks ago-- I had assumed I would have to expose for the highlights, but in the little field shooting I've done so far, the highlights aren't as easy to blow as I have anticipated.

Shadow detail is amazing.

(I've been shooting with B+W 040 orange filters)
 
It's proving easy for me to wait because I have so little time to take or process photos at present...
:-/

I'm expecting to see the MM246 over the Summer at earliest. Meanwhile, I continue to work on technique with the M-P.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom