jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I would say it is mainly market saturation. There are not that many photographers prepared to sink that kind of money in a B&W only camera, regardless of quality. Most Monochrom owners I know own an M240 -or M9- as well, so I do not think it is a matter of either-or.
Maybe it is my lack of postprocessing skill, but I cannot get my M240 files to match the MM.
Maybe an M10 would be better. I wouldn’t know. I have never seen one, nor ever heard one existed….stevencrichton
Established
I suppose the question of what kind of black and white output as well determines this. I expect the users of the Monochrom will be people looking for more fine art tonal gradation. Like a 25iso film stock rather than street guys who like the tri-x edge and contrast.
From working with nikons up until the M9 personally I noticed that earler CCD cameras as with the M9 gave a much better out of box rendition. Latterly my D3s and D800 required a lot more post work, but gave very good colour, easily the rival of the CDD before.
I suppose it all comes down to personal preference much like film in the past, neither camera is bad, each has it's own advantages and in some cases those willing to deal with a little more work post capture the disadvantages are negligible.
I also imagine as well that the slower sales are due to so many M mount users getting M9's before. The realistic upgrades are few in the new M10/240 .. it still is FF, it still is RF etc .. the main points that until the release of the M9 could not be met anywhere else. In addition, as mentioned, the Sony A7/r has taken a big chunk of the market too. When you consider most 50's and above are pretty darn good on it it and you could buy 3 for the price of 1 M10/240. Especially when you compare the added bonuses the new leica adds are much better on the sony.. Viewfinder, absolute resolution ... BATTERY COST!!!
In an ideal world we would all be able to simply pony up for the new cameras when they come, but personally a second hand M9 was only achievable by giving up a comprehensive nikon D3s/D800 system. I'd love a monochrom and an M10/240 but justifying that expenditure even on a second body is not feasible.
I hate to say it but I think Leica in many respects made the M9 too well as 90% of their core market will never need anything more.
From working with nikons up until the M9 personally I noticed that earler CCD cameras as with the M9 gave a much better out of box rendition. Latterly my D3s and D800 required a lot more post work, but gave very good colour, easily the rival of the CDD before.
I suppose it all comes down to personal preference much like film in the past, neither camera is bad, each has it's own advantages and in some cases those willing to deal with a little more work post capture the disadvantages are negligible.
I also imagine as well that the slower sales are due to so many M mount users getting M9's before. The realistic upgrades are few in the new M10/240 .. it still is FF, it still is RF etc .. the main points that until the release of the M9 could not be met anywhere else. In addition, as mentioned, the Sony A7/r has taken a big chunk of the market too. When you consider most 50's and above are pretty darn good on it it and you could buy 3 for the price of 1 M10/240. Especially when you compare the added bonuses the new leica adds are much better on the sony.. Viewfinder, absolute resolution ... BATTERY COST!!!
In an ideal world we would all be able to simply pony up for the new cameras when they come, but personally a second hand M9 was only achievable by giving up a comprehensive nikon D3s/D800 system. I'd love a monochrom and an M10/240 but justifying that expenditure even on a second body is not feasible.
I hate to say it but I think Leica in many respects made the M9 too well as 90% of their core market will never need anything more.
stevencrichton
Established
To answer the initial thread question though, undoubtedly the main things in CMOS processing is getting a good sensor profile at first.
Something like a colour passport checked will do this very easily.
In tonal rendition, rolling off the highlights and paying attention to where the blacks are clipping is required too as I've seen CMOS has a tendency to roll towards a green/yellow shadow.
From there in Lightroom finding a good sharpening scheme is also a good idea which allows for the sensor level to be accounted for. On a D800 36mp cmos with an AA you would look at 0.4 radius with 100% so half that for non AA. 0.4 50% .. and with the slightly lower resolution of the M probably 0.5px. This will protect fully against artifacting.
In terms of image contrast, using the curve is also much more advisable than the blacks whites and contrast sliders in lightroom as they tend to induce clipping with the slightest of movement and heavily work against the shadow and highlight sliders. I noticed CMOS type files were prone to this more so.
The final aspect of getting the best out the files is finding the lowest acceptable noise reduction settings you can. start with colour reduction and then apply luminance. You will find that colour reduction will normally be more aggressive due to the way the technology produces higher iso colour noise, there is much less off the large blotching that CCD's make. My personal preference is with luminance is to leave it as low as I possibly can, as the noise in that of the image structure is much less intrusive and reduction of it leads to massive resolution loss.
Whatever else M9/Monochrom/M10/240 files are still a million times better to work on to get good images out of as the glass is the main image enhancer, Leica optics tend to allow a much greater response in tonal components missing in other manufacturers lenses. I've seen this especially when using Leica R lenses for filming vs nikon AIS primes. you can expect at least 2 stops more midrange retention in gradients.
I would say work first on the 3 main issues of profile/sharpening/noise and getting results you can be happy with. Also taking time away from the screen and returning to an image whilst tuning your setting for this is a good way to work, as you do tend to over analyse and spend a lot more time judging in magnified modes. Any viewer of the image will never see this scenario. Unless they are inches away from a print or peering over your shoulder as you are working.
Whatever you get out will always be better than most cameras and keep that in mind.. comparing the 3 bodies is like comparing 3 film stocks. I had the misfortune of working with Canon 5dMk2 files for Getty of the pacific oil leaks a while back and the Canon fingerprint after many years of Nikon was abhorrent to me at first, but once I managed to get past that point I figured out where the starting points were and by the end of the project you would be hard pressed to ever tell if one of these shots when in print was placed next to one from a Nikon.
Something like a colour passport checked will do this very easily.
In tonal rendition, rolling off the highlights and paying attention to where the blacks are clipping is required too as I've seen CMOS has a tendency to roll towards a green/yellow shadow.
From there in Lightroom finding a good sharpening scheme is also a good idea which allows for the sensor level to be accounted for. On a D800 36mp cmos with an AA you would look at 0.4 radius with 100% so half that for non AA. 0.4 50% .. and with the slightly lower resolution of the M probably 0.5px. This will protect fully against artifacting.
In terms of image contrast, using the curve is also much more advisable than the blacks whites and contrast sliders in lightroom as they tend to induce clipping with the slightest of movement and heavily work against the shadow and highlight sliders. I noticed CMOS type files were prone to this more so.
The final aspect of getting the best out the files is finding the lowest acceptable noise reduction settings you can. start with colour reduction and then apply luminance. You will find that colour reduction will normally be more aggressive due to the way the technology produces higher iso colour noise, there is much less off the large blotching that CCD's make. My personal preference is with luminance is to leave it as low as I possibly can, as the noise in that of the image structure is much less intrusive and reduction of it leads to massive resolution loss.
Whatever else M9/Monochrom/M10/240 files are still a million times better to work on to get good images out of as the glass is the main image enhancer, Leica optics tend to allow a much greater response in tonal components missing in other manufacturers lenses. I've seen this especially when using Leica R lenses for filming vs nikon AIS primes. you can expect at least 2 stops more midrange retention in gradients.
I would say work first on the 3 main issues of profile/sharpening/noise and getting results you can be happy with. Also taking time away from the screen and returning to an image whilst tuning your setting for this is a good way to work, as you do tend to over analyse and spend a lot more time judging in magnified modes. Any viewer of the image will never see this scenario. Unless they are inches away from a print or peering over your shoulder as you are working.
Whatever you get out will always be better than most cameras and keep that in mind.. comparing the 3 bodies is like comparing 3 film stocks. I had the misfortune of working with Canon 5dMk2 files for Getty of the pacific oil leaks a while back and the Canon fingerprint after many years of Nikon was abhorrent to me at first, but once I managed to get past that point I figured out where the starting points were and by the end of the project you would be hard pressed to ever tell if one of these shots when in print was placed next to one from a Nikon.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Wait… Since when am I an authority on the M 240?!
I don't do a lot in post besides fix cropping (for some reason, even without glasses, I can't see where the 35mm framelines end…), convergenece, etc. Occasionally I change the color balance to reconcile flash with non-flash pictures taken in dim light. But for the most part, these look like my M8 or D700 files, which is to say on the warm and contrasty side. As to the unsharp mask comment, I'm not sure why you would need that with better lenses.
I think the M 240 is pretty easy to live with; its super-primitive meter seems to do better than the X-Pro in tricky light, and with digital, that's half the battle.
Dante
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Why would post be any different for this camera than others? I've gone through several different cameras and haven't varied my method other than to do certain tasks for this camera that I didn't have to do for that camera.
As explained in the first post, the issue is that many M9 fans have commented that unprocessed M9 images have a better color look than unprocessed M240 files. Yet many M240 fans believe M240 files can be tweaked to look as good as M9 images. IF that is true, how ?
Alternatively, does the claimed M9 image preference really stand up to close analysis? What is the general RFF consensus ?
Stephen
crispy12
Well-known
As someone who's had both (M-E and M240) for a year each, I can safely say that the files from the M240 are much easier to post process. The colours are more accurate and the RAW files seem to have a lot more dynamic range. They also work much better at reasonable ISOs (3200 is fine) which is not something anyone would consider on the M9.
PP-ing a M9 file shot at 1600 is like pulling your hair out. However, at ISO 160 the files look as good on the M9 (sometimes better). These days, anyone can process a file even from an iphone to look good. How much time you put into it is a big factor, and the M10 makes it a bit easier.
Overall, the other features of the M240 outweight the cons easily (eg battery life, LCD, ISO range).
PP-ing a M9 file shot at 1600 is like pulling your hair out. However, at ISO 160 the files look as good on the M9 (sometimes better). These days, anyone can process a file even from an iphone to look good. How much time you put into it is a big factor, and the M10 makes it a bit easier.
Overall, the other features of the M240 outweight the cons easily (eg battery life, LCD, ISO range).
__--
Well-known
crispy12, there is obviously a matter of taste and how photographers see color involved in this issue. Therefore, I'm not inclined to argue about color accuracy; and "accuracy," even if we could agree on the meaning and definition, would depend under the nature of the light and predominant colors of the scene in each case. There was such a wide range of color film available so that photographers could chose according to their preference for color rendition.
On the M240 vs the M9, it's quite clear that the dynamic range and high-ISO noise level is better with M240 files. However, my own view from the images one can see on the web and my own processing is that I prefer the color rendition of the M9. And even for high-ISO I prefer the M9 color rendition, using the technique of shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in Lightroom 5, to the "superior" high-ISO files of the M240. My view on this is also influenced by the conclusions of some other photographers, whose color vision I like.
Ming Thein, in his blog M240 review, wrote about a range of color rendition from the M9 (which he liked) to the Nikon D800, and placed that of the M240 between the two.
Marc Williams ("fotografz"), who gave up on the M240 after a two-week trial because, concerned about skin tones, found that he was always "trying to fix" (rather than just post-process) M240 files top get the color rendition that he wanted, and often found that he could not. He has written that his mind is not closed on the matter and that he would look at this again if the situation were improved by future firm ware changes or improvements in Lightroom processing of M240 files.
The writer of the "prosophos" blog (Peter) originally bought an M240, but after two weeks also gave up on it. Now, after running into some problems with the M9 rangefinder mechanism, he once again has bought an M240. This time, he says that he has given up on trying to achieve the color rendition of the M9 in his M240 processing — with this approach he feels he may be able to achieve a more satisfactory look for his color work with the M240. So far, in my, and I think his own, view he has not gotten there yet.
All of the above photographers are highly skilled in post processing — and all of them think that there is a difference in the color rendition of the M9 and the M240 that cannot be equalized by post-processing. Against this, most M240 owners seem to prefer the color rendition of the M240.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
On the M240 vs the M9, it's quite clear that the dynamic range and high-ISO noise level is better with M240 files. However, my own view from the images one can see on the web and my own processing is that I prefer the color rendition of the M9. And even for high-ISO I prefer the M9 color rendition, using the technique of shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in Lightroom 5, to the "superior" high-ISO files of the M240. My view on this is also influenced by the conclusions of some other photographers, whose color vision I like.
Ming Thein, in his blog M240 review, wrote about a range of color rendition from the M9 (which he liked) to the Nikon D800, and placed that of the M240 between the two.
Marc Williams ("fotografz"), who gave up on the M240 after a two-week trial because, concerned about skin tones, found that he was always "trying to fix" (rather than just post-process) M240 files top get the color rendition that he wanted, and often found that he could not. He has written that his mind is not closed on the matter and that he would look at this again if the situation were improved by future firm ware changes or improvements in Lightroom processing of M240 files.
The writer of the "prosophos" blog (Peter) originally bought an M240, but after two weeks also gave up on it. Now, after running into some problems with the M9 rangefinder mechanism, he once again has bought an M240. This time, he says that he has given up on trying to achieve the color rendition of the M9 in his M240 processing — with this approach he feels he may be able to achieve a more satisfactory look for his color work with the M240. So far, in my, and I think his own, view he has not gotten there yet.
All of the above photographers are highly skilled in post processing — and all of them think that there is a difference in the color rendition of the M9 and the M240 that cannot be equalized by post-processing. Against this, most M240 owners seem to prefer the color rendition of the M240.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Mitch, you're absolutely entitled to your own opinion on a subjective matter like color. And it's true that 2 (or 3) internet sources agree with you. I can't say whether the majority of former M8/M9 and now M240 users would agree.
That said, I don't find a lot compelling about the concurrence of Marc Williams and "Prosophos" with the idea that the M9 somehow has better or more accurate color. When it comes to learning post-processing for color, if that's a critical issue for you, two weeks seems like a very short time - because it's hard to log a comprehensive picture of lighting situations and corrections. Because he is someone who does high-pressure work like weddings, I can see why Marc may be risk-adverse about deviating from the known (and I probably would be to). I'm not sure what the story is with "Prosophos," but I'm not inclined to be as deferential.
Ming Thein's discussion was too vague (or diplomatic) to have any real takeaway.
Dante
That said, I don't find a lot compelling about the concurrence of Marc Williams and "Prosophos" with the idea that the M9 somehow has better or more accurate color. When it comes to learning post-processing for color, if that's a critical issue for you, two weeks seems like a very short time - because it's hard to log a comprehensive picture of lighting situations and corrections. Because he is someone who does high-pressure work like weddings, I can see why Marc may be risk-adverse about deviating from the known (and I probably would be to). I'm not sure what the story is with "Prosophos," but I'm not inclined to be as deferential.
Ming Thein's discussion was too vague (or diplomatic) to have any real takeaway.
Dante
pieter
Established
I have a M240 and certainly preferred the colors and the per pixel sharpness of the M8 and M9 files above those from the M240 at base iso.
I have seen plenty of users say the same on the internet (and in person just a handful). Prosophos had an open letter to Leica on his website stating a preference for the ccd sensor, which quite a lot of people cosigned.
Personally I think we have reached the point where this subjective opinion is shared by enough people and has stood the test of time for more than a year now, so that we can conclude that this goes beyond mere user error and mere subjective opinion. A fact is that quite a lot of people see a difference and have a preference.
Let me add that I have a M240 now. In many ways I find it improves on the M9, but for me personally this does not include base iso image quality.
I have seen plenty of users say the same on the internet (and in person just a handful). Prosophos had an open letter to Leica on his website stating a preference for the ccd sensor, which quite a lot of people cosigned.
Personally I think we have reached the point where this subjective opinion is shared by enough people and has stood the test of time for more than a year now, so that we can conclude that this goes beyond mere user error and mere subjective opinion. A fact is that quite a lot of people see a difference and have a preference.
Let me add that I have a M240 now. In many ways I find it improves on the M9, but for me personally this does not include base iso image quality.
__--
Well-known
Dante, it's more subjective than "accurate" color. In plain words, it seems to me that Marc Williams and Peter (prosophos) simply like the color rendition of the M9 better, the way a photographer might like one color film than another. The issue is that they don't feel that they can reproduce the color rendition of the M9 with the M240, despite the fact that they're both highly skilled in post-processing, so that, for them, a two-week trial was sufficient, although Peter is now, having bought another M240, is trying it on a longer term basis.
If I had bought an M240, I wouldn't need to refer to them as authorities. But getting the color I want with my M9, I don't see a need to get an M240. Nevertheless, I see a substantial difference. For example, in the blog of Thor Overgaard, a Leica camera blogger, I see that his color images from the M9 were a lot more better than those he took with the M240 — but he doesn't recognize that, when I asked him about it. Go figure, but it's de gustibus non diputandum est. But, as Pieter point out in the post above mine, quite a few photogragers share my view.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
If I had bought an M240, I wouldn't need to refer to them as authorities. But getting the color I want with my M9, I don't see a need to get an M240. Nevertheless, I see a substantial difference. For example, in the blog of Thor Overgaard, a Leica camera blogger, I see that his color images from the M9 were a lot more better than those he took with the M240 — but he doesn't recognize that, when I asked him about it. Go figure, but it's de gustibus non diputandum est. But, as Pieter point out in the post above mine, quite a few photogragers share my view.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
crispy12
Well-known
I agree that the IQ of the M9 at base ISO is fantastic, and I have many files at base ISO from my M9 that I much prefer to the new M. Not my experience for anything shot at higher ISO though. 1600 to 6400 is much more usable on the M.
Just my opinion... I don't have a blog, or credible website you can quote either
Just my opinion... I don't have a blog, or credible website you can quote either
jlindstrom
Established
One thing to note is that most of the reviews are now over a year old. From what I've read the latest firmware upgrades have made a big improvement on the color. So reading the usual internet sources might not be accurate at all regarding this.
Also I'm not sure if the M9 is the correct yardstick to use, for general public. In general I think it's prett pointless to tey and force one camera to produce similar results as another camera.. makes no sense.
Naturally people want to keep their own style when switching cameras, but then it should about reaching that instead of matching your previous setup.
Crude generalisation: I like my car. When I buy a new one, I expect it to be better - not the same as the old one. It'll probably need to be driven differently compared to current one.
Same ideology basically should hold up with cameras also. Otherwise upgrading makes no sense and one should just keep their old trusty workhorses.
I like and respect fex. Peter "Prosophos", but on this one I just don't agree.
//Juha
Also I'm not sure if the M9 is the correct yardstick to use, for general public. In general I think it's prett pointless to tey and force one camera to produce similar results as another camera.. makes no sense.
Naturally people want to keep their own style when switching cameras, but then it should about reaching that instead of matching your previous setup.
Crude generalisation: I like my car. When I buy a new one, I expect it to be better - not the same as the old one. It'll probably need to be driven differently compared to current one.
Same ideology basically should hold up with cameras also. Otherwise upgrading makes no sense and one should just keep their old trusty workhorses.
I like and respect fex. Peter "Prosophos", but on this one I just don't agree.
//Juha
__--
Well-known
Both "prosophos" and "fotografz" (and many others) tried the M240 with the new firmware and I am not referring to out-of-data analysis — and in general many photographers have simply preferred the color rendition of the M9, not that they blindly were trying to reproduce exactly the same look: if they thought the M240 produced a color rendition that they thought was better, they would not be concerned that it looked different.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
jlindstrom
Established
malland: not really implying that they're blindly doing so. But I think it's a matter of preference and that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Many photographers have their legitimate opinions/reasons for liking the M9 end result better, but there is also a far greater number of "internet people" who now also think so just because well known and popular bloggists and photographers have said so.
At the same time we have other photographers who don't see this as a problem at this stage anymore, fex. Jono Slack who has been involved with the new M ever sice beta testing.
Net result is that interested parties should try out for themselves and then make the call.
I for example can't see any problem with the colors.. liked the M9 colors too.. and the A7r colors. Now that I think about it, I don't think I remember ever complaining about camera colors.
Highly subjective thing.
//Juha
At the same time we have other photographers who don't see this as a problem at this stage anymore, fex. Jono Slack who has been involved with the new M ever sice beta testing.
Net result is that interested parties should try out for themselves and then make the call.
I for example can't see any problem with the colors.. liked the M9 colors too.. and the A7r colors. Now that I think about it, I don't think I remember ever complaining about camera colors.
Highly subjective thing.
//Juha