Tim Gray
Well-known
Even if it was the best camera in the world, the M-M isn't $6300 niftier than the X-Pro. No argument there. Diminishing returns and all. But that's pretty much true of all Leicas.
But, there is a ISO 10,000 DNG floating around from Jono Slack that you can play around with. Looks better in my mind than those linked above.
http://www.slack.co.uk/slack/Download.html
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm looking forward to seeing what the M9M is capable of and what its real strengths will be. At the moment it's all pie in the sky stuff IMO and while comparing it's files to the Xpro's is fun it's not really getting at what the M9M is all about!
Alternately it may just turn out to be the ultimate Leica con job!
Alternately it may just turn out to be the ultimate Leica con job!
rbelyell
Well-known
if its not the highly touted resolution and high iso ability, what exactly is the 'M9M" all about? i'm not trying to be a smart ass, i honestly dont understand what youre meaning is.
tony
tony
willie_901
Veteran
Ditto... No smart ass attitude here either.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
If you love B&W and love Leicas, the MM is probably a dream. Honestly. It is probably the closest thing the digital world has to an M3 loaded with TriX. But so far, M digital is just not about the high ISO.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well ... I was being kind, and optimistic!
If it's strengths aren't high ISO or blinding resolution then it has to be about tonal gradation that goes beyond what we have with our currrent digital systems.
If it doesn't have that it's a complete waste of money and as I said the ultimate Leica con job!
I'm not defending the camera because it's a Leica but I am trying to make sure it doesn't get cucified in my own mind before before it makes it to the last supper!
I also may add ... I'm no Leica fan boy since shelling out $6500 for a camera that turned all my blacks magenta a few years back. I still rate that as one of the greatest photographic crimes of this century!
rasterdogs
Member
+1
There really is nothing like a Leica from a physical tool perspective.
I'll never be able to afford a digital Leica and I love my Xpro-1 but the physical presence of a Leica is unique.
Whether if it is a prudent use of financial resources is another question.
-rasterdogs
loquax ludens
Well-known
Contrast and saturation seem low in all of the M9M images on the following two sites. Is that by intent?
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica-m-monochrom-sample-photos-19223
http://www.slack.co.uk/slack/Download.html
Tonal scale seems pretty good, but the rather flat washed out look doesn't seem desirable to me. Maybe if you printed them on grade 3 paper...
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica-m-monochrom-sample-photos-19223
http://www.slack.co.uk/slack/Download.html
Tonal scale seems pretty good, but the rather flat washed out look doesn't seem desirable to me. Maybe if you printed them on grade 3 paper...
Tim Gray
Well-known
I think the initial reviewers are doing more or less straight conversions so people have a sense of what the camera is capable of.
If you shoot film, think of the files as flat scans. You can really change up the tonality a lot with these files with very little ill effects.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Or maybe that's just the Kool-Aid that I've been hearing everybody talk about?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Having contributed to the melee in this thread, it may be incumbent on me to remind that sense of perspective is in order.
Here is a crop from a 16 Mpix scan of a 35mm ACROS negative (ISO 100). Essentially the same magnification as the 100% M9M and X-Pro samples posted upthread. Now, since this is not a drum scan the grain is accentuated. But, nevertheless, it looks a lot like the M9M at ISO 3200. And so far as I know, no one here is complaining about the results they get with ACROS.
On a 96 dpi monitor the cropped section would correspond to something like a 33 x 50 inch print.
Here is a crop from a 16 Mpix scan of a 35mm ACROS negative (ISO 100). Essentially the same magnification as the 100% M9M and X-Pro samples posted upthread. Now, since this is not a drum scan the grain is accentuated. But, nevertheless, it looks a lot like the M9M at ISO 3200. And so far as I know, no one here is complaining about the results they get with ACROS.
On a 96 dpi monitor the cropped section would correspond to something like a 33 x 50 inch print.
Moriturii
Well-known
But these ACROS images produce a level of tonal quality that the M9M hasn't been anywhere near, not in the examples we've seen so far.
The ACROS is just WOW!
The ACROS is just WOW!
BobYIL
Well-known
Well ... I was being kind, and optimistic!
If it's strengths aren't high ISO or blinding resolution then it has to be about tonal gradation that goes beyond what we have with our currrent digital systems.
If it doesn't have that it's a complete waste of money and as I said the ultimate Leica con job!
I'm not defending the camera because it's a Leica but I am trying to make sure it doesn't get cucified in my own mind before before it makes it to the last supper!
I also may add ... I'm no Leica fan boy since shelling out $6500 for a camera that turned all my blacks magenta a few years back. I still rate that as one of the greatest photographic crimes of this century!
Actually this is not what this thread was about. Leica may update/upgrade the M9M in the very future or introduce another monochromatic body, this time based on a CMOS sensor for instance. From my end it has nothing to do with a certain brand.
I was looking for some practical, empirical comparison results to be observed and confirmed easily, without much insight; to reveal where the state of the CMOS technology has reached, what it means for us for practical use and whether it's feasible to stick to CCD technology anymore.
Why specifically the M9M against the X-Pro1? Because the former is (indeed!) the pinnacle of the Full Frame CCD technology optimized for hi-ISO by sacrificing color output. The latter is the present state of art CMOS sensor, however being 2.25X smaller APS-C size and with color output and no gimmickry.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. With the above comparisons it's up to everyone to derive their own conclusions. For me, however, one substantial outcome: CCD is not worth to base designs anymore if the product is to be employed for practical photography while the option of CMOS was available.
Just my two cents..
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Sure -- but remember that the ACROS was shot at ISO 100. With these new digital cameras we can readily work at ISO 3200 -- five stops = 32X lower light. And operated at their native ISO's (200-320 for the X-Pro), these sensors are just amazing.
philosomatographer
Well-known
I have had a careful look at the samples posted, and in my opinion (not being an X-Pro 1 owner, however), they are just shockingly bad for a $15,000 camera/lens combination.
Half of them are mis-focused, and the noise pattern is extremely "gritty" at a per-pixel level, it reminds me of computer graphics from the early 1990s that were converted to 4-bit (16-colour greyscale).
The limited dynamic range compared to the standard M9 (not to mention B&W film) also shows. I honestly think somebody is absolutely crazy to part with this kind of money for something so technologically limited - whether they have the means to do so or not.
Just my opinion - not Leica-bashing, I am a happy M3 user.
Half of them are mis-focused, and the noise pattern is extremely "gritty" at a per-pixel level, it reminds me of computer graphics from the early 1990s that were converted to 4-bit (16-colour greyscale).
The limited dynamic range compared to the standard M9 (not to mention B&W film) also shows. I honestly think somebody is absolutely crazy to part with this kind of money for something so technologically limited - whether they have the means to do so or not.
Just my opinion - not Leica-bashing, I am a happy M3 user.
gdi
Veteran
+1
No amount of Leica hype, or Fuji hype, will change this fact. It is simply the advantage that film has over digital B&W - IF this look is what you like and are after. But if you like the digital B&W look, there are a number of cameras to choose from.
rbelyell
Well-known
I also may add ... I'm no Leica fan boy since shelling out $6500 for a camera that turned all my blacks magenta a few years back. I still rate that as one of the greatest photographic crimes of this century!
keith i couldnt agree more. personally, after that fiasco, i put absolutely zero faith in anything leica claims, and constantly chuckle at protestations of the brands present superior quality. i'm actually sorry that this latest product seems at this point to be pretty disappointing, because i was hoping its success might inspire imitation, as philosophically i think an optimized for monochrome cam is a great idea.
tony
willie_901
Veteran
Thanks Keith... it is usually best to be kind and optimistic.
My hypothesis is Leica faces a huge handicap with their sensor technology and they are doing the best they can with what they have.
My hypothesis is Leica faces a huge handicap with their sensor technology and they are doing the best they can with what they have.
Well ... I was being kind, and optimistic!
If it's strengths aren't high ISO or blinding resolution then it has to be about tonal gradation that goes beyond what we have with our currrent digital systems.
If it doesn't have that it's a complete waste of money and as I said the ultimate Leica con job!
I'm not defending the camera because it's a Leica but I am trying to make sure it doesn't get cucified in my own mind before before it makes it to the last supper!
I also may add ... I'm no Leica fan boy since shelling out $6500 for a camera that turned all my blacks magenta a few years back. I still rate that as one of the greatest photographic crimes of this century!
willie_901
Veteran
I was only slightly disappointed with how Leica handled the M8 release. After all, all they had to do was state the truth, and point out the advantages of having the IR filter in front of the lens. I would have probably bought a M8 if Leica stated from day one what was going on, why they chose that design, and the advantages of putting a filter in front of the lens.
What really opened my eyes was how the Leica users initially denied there was a basic flaw. They initially claimed a few tweaks in PS would fix everything. Then there were the early reviewers either didn't understand the basics of the issue or were reluctant to highlight an obvious problem for any number of reasons.
So I decided I would never own a Leica product used or new. I lost faith in the company, the users and the reviewers.
BobYIL
Well-known
Divinity is not necessarily over the validity of the facts; it's more over what we want to believe in. And it's among our constitutional rights to believe in things proportional to what we pay for them.