jja
Well-known
I agree with you, and have always felt that the smoothness of acros 100 was very close to true digital b&w when scanned properly.
About the images in the review: let's keep in mind that these photos were taken for the purposes of demonstrating what the camera is capable of, not as part of a photographic project--artistic, documentary, or otherwise. If the photos lack "character" (apart from the "character" of film), it is because they are decontextualized images. Having said all this I find the photos impressive, technically speaking.
MCTuomey
Veteran
as a digital negative, i think the files have great potential. can't wait to see what talented people will be able to wring out of them.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
To me this is a little like selling someome a car that comes standard with a six speed gearbox, removing two of the gears to convert it to four speed and charging more because four speed gearboxes are 'cool' and give you a different driving experience! (ducking!)
They are good photos but I don't like the processing. The range of tones in them seems limited to me and I agree that they do look like Acros ... but Acros that has been pushed a stop or two! The one photo that I've seen that impressed me the most from this camera was posted in the China thread ... the range of tones in this blows my mind but I'm not seeing that in the photos shown in this review ... they look overly contrasty to me and not representative of what the camera may be capable of!
Eric T
Well-known
Has anyone taken the same photos with the Leica M9-P in black and white and the Leica M9M? If so, can any significant difference be seen?
furcafe
Veteran
Nah, it's like they took out the stereo, AC, the backseat, & roof to make it faster.
To me this is a little like selling someome a car that comes standard with a six speed gearbox, removing two of the gears to convert it to four speed and charging more because four speed gearboxes are 'cool' and give you a different driving experience! (ducking!)
. . .
BobYIL
Well-known
"... but Acros that has been pushed a stop or two!" Best description of the tonality exhibited in these examples....
My first impressions with them "Looks great, sharpness in MF quality but where are the tones? Where are the long gradation of mid-grays?".. As if the pictures transformed into graphite pencil drawings where blacks and charcoal grays happened to be the dominant tones.. I checked indoor as well as outdoor shots; the same "short" tonality, almost the same gray pattern. The cat on the stairs is "gloomy", the "Cityscape" (daylight!), how many zones can you detect? Eight? Nine? Try to count the same on a well exposed Acros shot for example.
Ming Thein, undoubtedly is a talented professional and I love to read his reviews as a working professional, not like some other desktop reviewers. However note what he says there about the issues of landing on with proper exposure for proper rendering/depiction of tones.
In my former posts I have been pointing to the increase of resolution & sharpness obtained through the elimination of the CFA together with my doubts about the possibility of dynamic range change at the end. With some reservation I would still be waiting for some insightful b&w comparison tests between the Monochrom and the regular M9.. For I think I have sufficient idea of how the regular M9 turn out b&w; and in my eyes they were mostly "different" than the samples of Mr. Thein. Even some M9 users may confirm what I am trying to point to.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I thought the images were extraordinary for their tonal range. If I were able to get those results out of TMAX 100, I would be thrilled. Whether the subject matter is your cup of tea is another question, but not one, I think, that should take away from the tonal gradations and detail that Ming was able to render in his shots. In fact, I had safely placed all lust for this camera away in a deep dark place based on the rather flat tonal range that all of the Day 1 images posted to the web evinced. Not these though. Wow.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sorry but I'm not seeing that tonal range! These examples remind me a lot of the work of RFFer Mitch Alland and his excellent black and images from Thailand courtesy of a GRD where the limited range of the GRD's sensor is not really an issue because it's not pretending to be the holy grail of digital black and white.
MCTuomey
Veteran
It's way too early to make judgments of the kind Bob is suggesting, certainly without the benefit of seeing good prints or, at minimum, viewing the files on a high-end B&W monitor.
Here's a M9M v M9 comparison from getdpi, though many prolly have seen it already:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/leica-m-x-r/37552-fun-mm-dng-compared-m9-dng.html
Here's a M9M v M9 comparison from getdpi, though many prolly have seen it already:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/leica-m-x-r/37552-fun-mm-dng-compared-m9-dng.html
MikeL
Go Fish
Dang, I sure like what I see. The tonal range, across the range of photos and light conditions, even potentially masked by his personal processing decisions, looks pretty nice on my monitor.
I like what I'm seeing in the bright transition zones, and from my armchair it looks like a fine camera for those who know how to expose and process (like those do as evident in the BW digital thread).
Mike, are you trying to bring reason to RFF, the nerve!
I like what I'm seeing in the bright transition zones, and from my armchair it looks like a fine camera for those who know how to expose and process (like those do as evident in the BW digital thread).
Mike, are you trying to bring reason to RFF, the nerve!
victoriapio
Well-known
tantalizing revew and i agree with Keith: the processing of the images is very nice but does not demonstrate the range of f-stops available with the MM and 50 APO. Even in compressed jpgs the detail looks amazing to me, although judging image qualty on the internet is pure folly. Still , we are getting closer to the digital grail here. I wonder if Harry Lime has seen this review?
BobYIL
Well-known
A fine media for B&W, be it film, photographic paper or digital output or LCD display, should be able to reproduce the luminance tonalities of the "recorded" close to what they are perceived by human eye. There can not be a more important criteria for B&W than the gray-scala of a reproduction; that's why almost all prominent landscape photographers worked with large-format cameras: Sharpness as well as tonality.
Once it's reproduced in close-to-real tones then it's up to the photographer to "play" with the contrast, brightness, saturation, burning-in, dodging, etc., i.e. the "correct information" has to be available on the recording. In other words, the recording device should not realize it with compromises or by compressing the gradation; it's prime function should be to "reproduce" as true-to-nature as possible. (Similar to hi-fi in music...)
The above sample is from another professional, yo_tuco, who works with film, to demonstrate how tones are to be recorded close to what is perceived by eye.
(Once my D800E arrives I will test it B&W and side-by-side against my M3 with HP5 and Acros, to see how the highest dynamic range measured so far in camera industry would stand for tonality against a well processed 35mm film.)
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Based on what I've seen, I would not want to use the MM with 50 AA for human faces at close distances. I'm not manic about avoiding high fidelity etching of skin blemishes and wrinkles--in fact, I used to love the 75 AA summicron for portraits. The new 50 used on the new MM, however, is a different story. In fact, it's not just photos of the experienced that worry me. Used on very young people, it would produce an effect that seems unreal to me. On the other hand, the combination of the MM with legacy lenses might be a real winner.
Finally someone who knows how to properly process black and white. Not the dull, low contrast shots we´ve seen here before.
jasonhumor
Newbie
A fine media for B&W, be it film, photographic paper or digital output or LCD display, should be able to reproduce the luminance tonalities of the "recorded" close to what they are perceived by human eye. There can not be a more important criteria for B&W than the gray-scala of a reproduction; that's why almost all prominent landscape photographers worked with large-format cameras: Sharpness as well as tonality.
Once it's reproduced in close-to-real tones then it's up to the photographer to "play" with the contrast, brightness, saturation, burning-in, dodging, etc., i.e. the "correct information" has to be available on the recording. In other words, the recording device should not realize it with compromises or by compressing the gradation; it's prime function should be to "reproduce" as true-to-nature as possible. (Similar to hi-fi in music...)
The above sample is from another professional, yo_tuco, who works with film, to demonstrate how tones are to be recorded close to what is perceived by eye.
(Once my D800E arrives I will test it B&W and side-by-side against my M3 with HP5 and Acros, to see how the highest dynamic range measured so far in camera industry would stand for tonality against a well processed 35mm film.)
When I see the photo which produce the near perfect tonality, just Beauty comes to my mind. very pleasing photo - actually amazing gradual tone change.
bigeye
Well-known
A lot more useful information than found here on fujifinderforum.com:
The MM has a level of clarity and acuity at the pixel level that so far has only been seen on Foveon sensors; however, even those start to become a weak at ISO 800 and above. The MM maintains its acuity all the way through the maximum ISO, though above ISO 5000 noise dominates the microcontrast structure of the image.
...the MM’s high ISO capabilities encourage you to stop down a little more to get the most out of the lens; there’s little noise penalty associated with shooting a stop or two down from your normal aperture. In fact, the camera encourages you to see and think about your images in a very different way: aside from the increased depth of field available, there’s also more dynamic range on tap. The overall look of the images is redolent of medium format – from the tonality to the microcontrast structure.
The decision to release the 50 AA with the MM left me scratching my head – but having seen the resolving power of this sensor, it makes complete sense. None of the lenses were capable of delivering the same cross-frame performance on the MM as the 50 AA, though the Zeiss 2/50 ran very close especially at smaller apertures.
The next obvious difference is a 1-1.5 stop noise advantage in favor of the MM; however, the difference isn’t quite as clear cut as that, because the MM retains detail much better than the M9.
...In practical terms, this means the MM is probably more like 2-2.5 stops more useable than the M9.
The MM, on the other hand, can be set to ISO 2500 with little noise penalty – at 100% magnification it appears as very, very fine grain; perhaps comparable to an ISO 400 B&W film. Better yet, there doesn’t appear to be much loss of dynamic range, either.
Looking at luminance only... greatly improved the impact of my output.
...the camera forces you to recalibrate the way you see the world.
I’m going to conclude by saying that the MM is not the camera for everybody. It’s not easy to see luminance only; if you can’t, you’re honestly going to get better results by shooting a color camera and then mastering the conversion process afterwards.
.
The MM has a level of clarity and acuity at the pixel level that so far has only been seen on Foveon sensors; however, even those start to become a weak at ISO 800 and above. The MM maintains its acuity all the way through the maximum ISO, though above ISO 5000 noise dominates the microcontrast structure of the image.
...the MM’s high ISO capabilities encourage you to stop down a little more to get the most out of the lens; there’s little noise penalty associated with shooting a stop or two down from your normal aperture. In fact, the camera encourages you to see and think about your images in a very different way: aside from the increased depth of field available, there’s also more dynamic range on tap. The overall look of the images is redolent of medium format – from the tonality to the microcontrast structure.
The decision to release the 50 AA with the MM left me scratching my head – but having seen the resolving power of this sensor, it makes complete sense. None of the lenses were capable of delivering the same cross-frame performance on the MM as the 50 AA, though the Zeiss 2/50 ran very close especially at smaller apertures.
The next obvious difference is a 1-1.5 stop noise advantage in favor of the MM; however, the difference isn’t quite as clear cut as that, because the MM retains detail much better than the M9.
...In practical terms, this means the MM is probably more like 2-2.5 stops more useable than the M9.
The MM, on the other hand, can be set to ISO 2500 with little noise penalty – at 100% magnification it appears as very, very fine grain; perhaps comparable to an ISO 400 B&W film. Better yet, there doesn’t appear to be much loss of dynamic range, either.
Looking at luminance only... greatly improved the impact of my output.
...the camera forces you to recalibrate the way you see the world.
I’m going to conclude by saying that the MM is not the camera for everybody. It’s not easy to see luminance only; if you can’t, you’re honestly going to get better results by shooting a color camera and then mastering the conversion process afterwards.
.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No, firstly he has it wrong, as the Bayer filter is replaced by a clear filter (not that that makes an essential difference), and secondly the price would be prohibitive. Cheaper to sell your M9 on eBay and buy an M Monochrom. Thirdly Leica prefers to sell new cameras.
Maybe in the future....
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Let me get this straight:
1. Here you have a modern camera, with a top notch, relatively up-to-date sensor.
2. You also have optically brilliant lenses to put in front of that camera
3. The camera is customized to produce B&W pictures.
4. It's a digital camera, where you can preview your shots and has zero quality-degrading transition to any good photo-processing software.
If you *still* can't get a good B&W out of the above outfit. The problem is not the camera.
A review that only showcase the *technical* excellence of this camera is darn near useless to me. I'm not bashing this particular review or reviewer (appreciate his effort) but more generally speaking.
1. Here you have a modern camera, with a top notch, relatively up-to-date sensor.
2. You also have optically brilliant lenses to put in front of that camera
3. The camera is customized to produce B&W pictures.
4. It's a digital camera, where you can preview your shots and has zero quality-degrading transition to any good photo-processing software.
If you *still* can't get a good B&W out of the above outfit. The problem is not the camera.
A review that only showcase the *technical* excellence of this camera is darn near useless to me. I'm not bashing this particular review or reviewer (appreciate his effort) but more generally speaking.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Thirdly Leica prefers to sell new cameras.
That may just be the case, and if so, it's an unfortunate departure from their old ways. Think of how many Barnacks were upgraded by Leica over the years, or for that matter, how many M8u upgrades they performed.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
... Pardon?