jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Lets replace that by " top-notch up-to-date CCD sensor", that should make it more clear. For those that dislike the CMos look, <and they are right imo>, there is no better offering on the market than the M9 / M Monochrom sensor.
boomguy57
Well-known
Whatever. Until Ken Rantwell reviews it, it's nothing to me.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Well I was able to hold one the other day. Considering that there was no exchange of money (heck all I did was hold it), it was a very good day.
willie_901
Veteran
Does anyone know how important apo-chromatic optics are to get the maximum benefit of the M9M body?
Without RGB microlense filters, wouldn't blue light hit a different sensor site than red light? Could this affect the image quality?
If not, then why did Leice release a 50mm apo-chromatic lens with the M9M?
Without RGB microlense filters, wouldn't blue light hit a different sensor site than red light? Could this affect the image quality?
If not, then why did Leice release a 50mm apo-chromatic lens with the M9M?
Turtle
Veteran
Wasn't there a review reposted on GetDpi that said the 50 ZM Planar was darned close to the new Summicron APO asph on the MM?
While everyone seems to be getting really excited by the new 50mm on the MM, I struggle to see why. Personally, the last thing I would do, would be to combine a very clinical, ultra high contrast lens, with a very high resolution digital sensor (for all the reasons Sean Reid was no fan of doing so with the M8 and beyond). Surely you will end up having to underexpose like hell in high contrast conditions to prevent the highlights blowing (as there are no colour channels to recover info from) and then have to hike the shadows like hell? Leica MM + old school glass sounds like a much better idea to tame the sensor and produce files with bags of tonality. IMHO, when shooting more detailed 'scenes' you tend to be able to stop down anyway, so these older lenses still resolve insane amounts a stop or two down.
While everyone seems to be getting really excited by the new 50mm on the MM, I struggle to see why. Personally, the last thing I would do, would be to combine a very clinical, ultra high contrast lens, with a very high resolution digital sensor (for all the reasons Sean Reid was no fan of doing so with the M8 and beyond). Surely you will end up having to underexpose like hell in high contrast conditions to prevent the highlights blowing (as there are no colour channels to recover info from) and then have to hike the shadows like hell? Leica MM + old school glass sounds like a much better idea to tame the sensor and produce files with bags of tonality. IMHO, when shooting more detailed 'scenes' you tend to be able to stop down anyway, so these older lenses still resolve insane amounts a stop or two down.
Turtle
Veteran
On Fiddling with MM Files...
On Fiddling with MM Files...
I've just done some messing around with the bicycle files knocking around comparing the M9 and MM and here are my conclusions based on a desire to get 'good looking files I like' out of them both. I was using LR3.
It is clear that Leicas claim that the MM has greater green sensitivity is true. The foliage was quite a challenge.
Getting the right tonal separation to be pleasing to a silver gelatin lover was much harder with the MM, but when I finally got there, I was marginally happier with the MM than with the M9 file (just). But boy, it was harder. I generally had to pull the highlights in, use a pretty strong S curve to get some real mid tone guts into the image, with the toe and shoulder keeping things in check elsewhere in the scale... mess with contrast much more than I would normally etc etc
With the right curve to introduce mid tone contrast, which appeared entirely lacking in the original MM file, the resolution advantage stood out very clearly. This won't be obvious in an A3 print, sure, but if you are going to make a 40 or 60" print for exhibition, I think the difference will be obvious for anyone who cares. If the scene contains fine details, such as tiny distant buildings, or foliage, the MM will have a clear and visible advantage. The same goes for the more subtle tonal transitions in the MM. I'm used to silver prints and I take for granted the insane greyscale and subtle transitions. The MM is a solid leap from the M9 file in this regard.
I can't say I like the look of the straight files knocking around on the web. In short, they are pretty awful, but in all cases where I have been able to download a DNG, I have been able to make a huge improvement and arrive at files I think are OK fairly quickly. Not as quickly as a colour file, though.
I will be most interested to see how the files look when not shoot on a technically perfect high contrast lens, but on those with lower contrast.
I am not convinced by the MM in the look department... and I was nearly horrified when I opened the files initially in LR3.... but I see some serious potential here, especially if you are prepared to use colour filters (I am).
FWIW that the MM produces images that are like Acros is not good IMO. Unless shooting architecture or shiny stuff, I can't stand films like Acros and were they the only ones available, I would have stopped wet printing five years ago! I think the notion that the MM will produce great B&W files right out the camera is completely the wrong message. it should be that it will 'perhaps' produce the best files you have ever seen out of a FF camera, but you have better be prepared to work for it
In summary, I would say this about the tonal transitions:
The MM transitions are to the M9's what 5x4" is to 6x7cmi.e. a 'format leap, but at the upper end'. It is not the quantum leap you get when going from 35mm TriX to MF.
To my eye, it makes the images look more natural and better photographic depictions of reality. The converted M9 files still have that 'more digital' look i.e. where the MM files give you a sense of 'the scene', the M9 files are give you 'a picture of the scene'.
Since I started this post, I went back and completely reworked the M9 file and I still cannot get it as good as the MM. I got closer, but the sense of natural sharpness/resolution deficit is still there and the tonal richness of the MM really shines. No amount of sharpening can bring the same sense of detail the MM possesses in areas where tiny weeny details exist, but you can get close elsewhere. The end result id that the MM files still seem to have a bit more sparkle and 'naturalness'.
My conclusion after admittedly only messing with these files in LR3 for an hour and a half is that if you are a home printer and make A3+ prints, I cannot imagine the MM will be worth it. In fact, it might be a bad idea because you will have less flexibility and more work to do. If you make very large B&W prints and work only in this medium, it might well be worth it. I'll have to make real prints to be sure (but currently stuck in Kabul).
My second concluson (!!) is that if you like heavily processed images, with added grain, heavily reworked tonal scale etc (i.e. Jacob Sobol look) the MM is a complete waste of time because you are throwing away all the things which (just) set it apart.
On Fiddling with MM Files...
I've just done some messing around with the bicycle files knocking around comparing the M9 and MM and here are my conclusions based on a desire to get 'good looking files I like' out of them both. I was using LR3.
It is clear that Leicas claim that the MM has greater green sensitivity is true. The foliage was quite a challenge.
Getting the right tonal separation to be pleasing to a silver gelatin lover was much harder with the MM, but when I finally got there, I was marginally happier with the MM than with the M9 file (just). But boy, it was harder. I generally had to pull the highlights in, use a pretty strong S curve to get some real mid tone guts into the image, with the toe and shoulder keeping things in check elsewhere in the scale... mess with contrast much more than I would normally etc etc
With the right curve to introduce mid tone contrast, which appeared entirely lacking in the original MM file, the resolution advantage stood out very clearly. This won't be obvious in an A3 print, sure, but if you are going to make a 40 or 60" print for exhibition, I think the difference will be obvious for anyone who cares. If the scene contains fine details, such as tiny distant buildings, or foliage, the MM will have a clear and visible advantage. The same goes for the more subtle tonal transitions in the MM. I'm used to silver prints and I take for granted the insane greyscale and subtle transitions. The MM is a solid leap from the M9 file in this regard.
I can't say I like the look of the straight files knocking around on the web. In short, they are pretty awful, but in all cases where I have been able to download a DNG, I have been able to make a huge improvement and arrive at files I think are OK fairly quickly. Not as quickly as a colour file, though.
I will be most interested to see how the files look when not shoot on a technically perfect high contrast lens, but on those with lower contrast.
I am not convinced by the MM in the look department... and I was nearly horrified when I opened the files initially in LR3.... but I see some serious potential here, especially if you are prepared to use colour filters (I am).
FWIW that the MM produces images that are like Acros is not good IMO. Unless shooting architecture or shiny stuff, I can't stand films like Acros and were they the only ones available, I would have stopped wet printing five years ago! I think the notion that the MM will produce great B&W files right out the camera is completely the wrong message. it should be that it will 'perhaps' produce the best files you have ever seen out of a FF camera, but you have better be prepared to work for it
In summary, I would say this about the tonal transitions:
The MM transitions are to the M9's what 5x4" is to 6x7cmi.e. a 'format leap, but at the upper end'. It is not the quantum leap you get when going from 35mm TriX to MF.
To my eye, it makes the images look more natural and better photographic depictions of reality. The converted M9 files still have that 'more digital' look i.e. where the MM files give you a sense of 'the scene', the M9 files are give you 'a picture of the scene'.
Since I started this post, I went back and completely reworked the M9 file and I still cannot get it as good as the MM. I got closer, but the sense of natural sharpness/resolution deficit is still there and the tonal richness of the MM really shines. No amount of sharpening can bring the same sense of detail the MM possesses in areas where tiny weeny details exist, but you can get close elsewhere. The end result id that the MM files still seem to have a bit more sparkle and 'naturalness'.
My conclusion after admittedly only messing with these files in LR3 for an hour and a half is that if you are a home printer and make A3+ prints, I cannot imagine the MM will be worth it. In fact, it might be a bad idea because you will have less flexibility and more work to do. If you make very large B&W prints and work only in this medium, it might well be worth it. I'll have to make real prints to be sure (but currently stuck in Kabul).
My second concluson (!!) is that if you like heavily processed images, with added grain, heavily reworked tonal scale etc (i.e. Jacob Sobol look) the MM is a complete waste of time because you are throwing away all the things which (just) set it apart.
Turtle
Veteran
A word I use when I see a really good B&W print is 'juicy' and some of you might understand why.
The MM files, at high mag, look 'juicier.' I suspect it in this case it is a product of more resolution and more subtle tonal relationships.
The question of 'normal viewing distance' will be a good one though. Those who walk up to big prints and really have a look will clearly get more from MM prints, but at NVD I suspect the improvement is well below the threshold of visibility.
The MM files, at high mag, look 'juicier.' I suspect it in this case it is a product of more resolution and more subtle tonal relationships.
The question of 'normal viewing distance' will be a good one though. Those who walk up to big prints and really have a look will clearly get more from MM prints, but at NVD I suspect the improvement is well below the threshold of visibility.
Murchu
Well-known
I've just done some messing around with the bicycle files knocking around comparing the M9 and MM and here are my conclusions based on a desire to get 'good looking files I like' out of them both. I was using LR3.
It is clear that Leicas claim that the MM has greater green sensitivity is true. The foliage was quite a challenge.
Getting the right tonal separation to be pleasing to a silver gelatin lover was much harder with the MM, but when I finally got there, I was marginally happier with the MM than with the M9 file (just). But boy, it was harder. I generally had to pull the highlights in, use a pretty strong S curve to get some real mid tone guts into the image, with the toe and shoulder keeping things in check elsewhere in the scale... mess with contrast much more than I would normally etc etc
With the right curve to introduce mid tone contrast, which appeared entirely lacking in the original MM file, the resolution advantage stood out very clearly. This won't be obvious in an A3 print, sure, but if you are going to make a 40 or 60" print for exhibition, I think the difference will be obvious for anyone who cares. If the scene contains fine details, such as tiny distant buildings, or foliage, the MM will have a clear and visible advantage. The same goes for the more subtle tonal transitions in the MM. I'm used to silver prints and I take for granted the insane greyscale and subtle transitions. The MM is a solid leap from the M9 file in this regard.
I can't say I like the look of the straight files knocking around on the web. In short, they are pretty awful, but in all cases where I have been able to download a DNG, I have been able to make a huge improvement and arrive at files I think are OK fairly quickly. Not as quickly as a colour file, though.
I will be most interested to see how the files look when not shoot on a technically perfect high contrast lens, but on those with lower contrast.
I am not convinced by the MM in the look department... and I was nearly horrified when I opened the files initially in LR3.... but I see some serious potential here, especially if you are prepared to use colour filters (I am).
FWIW that the MM produces images that are like Acros is not good IMO. Unless shooting architecture or shiny stuff, I can't stand films like Acros and were they the only ones available, I would have stopped wet printing five years ago! I think the notion that the MM will produce great B&W files right out the camera is completely the wrong message. it should be that it will 'perhaps' produce the best files you have ever seen out of a FF camera, but you have better be prepared to work for it
In summary, I would say this about the tonal transitions:
The MM transitions are to the M9's what 5x4" is to 6x7cmi.e. a 'format leap, but at the upper end'. It is not the quantum leap you get when going from 35mm TriX to MF.
To my eye, it makes the images look more natural and better photographic depictions of reality. The converted M9 files still have that 'more digital' look i.e. where the MM files give you a sense of 'the scene', the M9 files are give you 'a picture of the scene'.
Since I started this post, I went back and completely reworked the M9 file and I still cannot get it as good as the MM. I got closer, but the sense of natural sharpness/resolution deficit is still there and the tonal richness of the MM really shines. No amount of sharpening can bring the same sense of detail the MM possesses in areas where tiny weeny details exist, but you can get close elsewhere. The end result id that the MM files still seem to have a bit more sparkle and 'naturalness'.
My conclusion after admittedly only messing with these files in LR3 for an hour and a half is that if you are a home printer and make A3+ prints, I cannot imagine the MM will be worth it. In fact, it might be a bad idea because you will have less flexibility and more work to do. If you make very large B&W prints and work only in this medium, it might well be worth it. I'll have to make real prints to be sure (but currently stuck in Kabul).
My second concluson (!!) is that if you like heavily processed images, with added grain, heavily reworked tonal scale etc (i.e. Jacob Sobol look) the MM is a complete waste of time because you are throwing away all the things which (just) set it apart.
Great write up, and interesting insight. Any images comparing the two files at hand? Would be interesting to see the difference between the two, even though there would obviously be some things you could never judge from a web-size image
Turtle
Veteran
Just to be clear, I have worked on these files to tell me what I need to know and am posting them here in case anyone wants to take them for what they are. I am not going to write 100000 words on my methodology or defend what I have or have not done!
I broadly worked the files to the starting point at which I would bother trying to make the best possible image. I suspect that from a 'photo' perspective, the M9 file would yield a far better bike photo because the MM has rendered the leaves very light and with the colour channels the M9 file will allow for much better separation of the bike and leaves. The only fair comparison would be against filtered MM shots.
The bridge image I just tried to make a pleasant looking photo and left it there. It took about 3 mins from the original.
I used default sharpening on the M9 and MM bike files, because although you can get the M9 files close with sharpening, you can also sharpen the MM files and they steal the lead back comfortably.
The main issue is microcontrast and detail but much more of the difference between cropped images is visible in LR than in these piddling JPEGs. There will be some differences in the images, due to the differences in what I had to do to them, but they could both be heavily reworked from here.
I broadly worked the files to the starting point at which I would bother trying to make the best possible image. I suspect that from a 'photo' perspective, the M9 file would yield a far better bike photo because the MM has rendered the leaves very light and with the colour channels the M9 file will allow for much better separation of the bike and leaves. The only fair comparison would be against filtered MM shots.
The bridge image I just tried to make a pleasant looking photo and left it there. It took about 3 mins from the original.
I used default sharpening on the M9 and MM bike files, because although you can get the M9 files close with sharpening, you can also sharpen the MM files and they steal the lead back comfortably.
The main issue is microcontrast and detail but much more of the difference between cropped images is visible in LR than in these piddling JPEGs. There will be some differences in the images, due to the differences in what I had to do to them, but they could both be heavily reworked from here.
Attachments
Turtle
Veteran
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
More than this (which is still very costly) I wonder how far would one go from the look of the Monochrom by removing the Bayer filter (and maybe UV and IR filters) from a camera with a modern sensor and converting the images later in whatever way they please. The Sony A65 and the Nikon D3200 with their 24Mpx sensors and low price sound like reasonable cameras to try this way. The files in Thein's page are gorgeous...
GLF
Turtle
Veteran
Turtle
Veteran
thats it folks.
In LR, at 1:2 you cannot tell them apart. At 1:1 you can, clearly. I'd expect the same off big prints.
In summary, perhaps I would say that aside from high ISO etc, from a purely final image, like for like perspective:
MM = great for ultimate quality and natural results
M9 = Better for ultimate flexibility and quicker to work with
In LR, at 1:2 you cannot tell them apart. At 1:1 you can, clearly. I'd expect the same off big prints.
In summary, perhaps I would say that aside from high ISO etc, from a purely final image, like for like perspective:
MM = great for ultimate quality and natural results
M9 = Better for ultimate flexibility and quicker to work with
Attachments
Turtle
Veteran
and I can see that by resizing the images for this site, you lose the ability to see what is clear on my screen. Oh, well!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
CMOS look?
Both CMOS and CCD sensors are solid-state devices that accumulate an analog voltage with an amplitude that's (almost exactly) linearly proportional to the integrated photon dose impinging on the photosite. The analog voltage is amplified, filtered, and sent to a D-A converter. Which spits out a number.
Both types of sensors are usually overlaid with microlenses and filter masks (e.g., Beyer, IR-cut etc.).
I don't doubt that sensors differ (mainly due to microlenses and filter overlays). But what technical attrubutes could possibly account for a generalized CCD or CMOS "look"?
Other than the presence of a Leica badge, I mean.
Turtle
Veteran
still messing about with sharpening and seem to find this:
You can sharpen the M9 files to look almost as sharp as the MM files.
You cannot sharpen the MM files much before they start looking 'orrible.
When you sharpen the M9 files to approach the MM files, there is a loss of tonal quality i.e. you start to see image degredation.
Therefore....
The MM maintains quite a good lead if you are not prepared to flush a lot of the M9s subtle qualities down the toilet in a quest to bridge the aparent sharpness gap with the MM.
Sure you can mess the M9 files around and get them looking super punchy and in many respects 'better' than the MM files in the bike example, but that quality only seems to hold with smaller images, because you end up with that digital look which I cannot stand in B&W. The MM files are just... erm... more 'diginified' I figure Leicaphiles would like that stately expression.
I'm still not sold, but it is interesting. Its not film either. I suspect in the right hands this camera will be dynamite, but it wil take experimenting with filtration and image processing to get the best from it. I wonder how many of these files would have been improved just by whacking a yellow #11 on the front... so if Leica could kindly send me one by Fed Ex, I will gladly assist
You can sharpen the M9 files to look almost as sharp as the MM files.
You cannot sharpen the MM files much before they start looking 'orrible.
When you sharpen the M9 files to approach the MM files, there is a loss of tonal quality i.e. you start to see image degredation.
Therefore....
The MM maintains quite a good lead if you are not prepared to flush a lot of the M9s subtle qualities down the toilet in a quest to bridge the aparent sharpness gap with the MM.
Sure you can mess the M9 files around and get them looking super punchy and in many respects 'better' than the MM files in the bike example, but that quality only seems to hold with smaller images, because you end up with that digital look which I cannot stand in B&W. The MM files are just... erm... more 'diginified'
I figure Leicaphiles would like that stately expression.I'm still not sold, but it is interesting. Its not film either. I suspect in the right hands this camera will be dynamite, but it wil take experimenting with filtration and image processing to get the best from it. I wonder how many of these files would have been improved just by whacking a yellow #11 on the front... so if Leica could kindly send me one by Fed Ex, I will gladly assist
segedi
RFicianado
There's a company that sells converted cameras by doing what you asked. But, the process is not easy at all as sensors have the color layer afixed directly to the sensor. Removing the layer is no easy task and it's not cheap. And I also wasn't entirely impressed with some of the results.
Have you tried taking the M9 file into photoshop and removing the blue and red channels and then sharpening the remaining green channel and comparing it to the MM?
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Mmmh, I imagine, the good thing is that it should not be too difficult to get it done cheaper than the price of the Monochrom. There are also cameras (Fuji IS Pro for example) which come without UV and IR filters and can now be had for a few hundred Bucks, I don't know how this would compare when used in BW.
GLF
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The on-sensor processing of CMos sensors, needed because of the higher native noiselevels.