B&W with A7(r) vs. M240 vs. MM

[mmbma]

can't compare like this. A7 and M240 will be just as good 99% of the time. The advantage of the MM lies in it's tonality and DR (not to mention high iso). So it's in the ability to stretch and manipulate the files rather than in the final image. Therefore it's hard to tell the difference in the final Jpeg.

A good way to tell is to shoot wooden textured objects in dim light while having a high contrast highlight present in the picture. After pulling in the highlight and increasing the shadows, it should be apparent that the MM files would retain the fine texture and tonality of the wood pattern while other cameras lose detail

 

[Paratom]

Sony A7 with Sony 28-70 lens, Leica M(240), and Leica Monochrom.
Cheers, Matt

Hi Matt, just from initial impression I find the last 2 (MM) are my fav.

 

[turtle]

I own both the A7R and MM, but I'm currently overseas with only the A7R. My subjective first impression is that the MM remains the king of B&W. Files just look more organic, especially once processed, and where the A7R may just have a small edge on centre for resolution, the MM claws even more back on the edges and in the corners. Its just stunning. The A7R is great, but the images have a more digital look and different tonality. Ming Thein had it right in his D800E vs MM article, which some scoffed at. I have no vested interest and think the MM produces just beautiful files have have a tonality Ive yet to see anywhere else.

 

[Joe S]

It seems to me that the lack of three color channels in the MM for a black and white conversion would be a serious loss in creative black and white images. The same for the rumored Sony version. Basically trading tonal controls for resolution. Would someone familiar with both comment on this?

 

[mjm6]

can't compare like this. A7 and M240 will be just as good 99% of the time. The advantage of the MM lies in it's tonality and DR (not to mention high iso). So it's in the ability to stretch and manipulate the files rather than in the final image. Therefore it's hard to tell the difference in the final Jpeg.

A good way to tell is to shoot wooden textured objects in dim light while having a high contrast highlight present in the picture. After pulling in the highlight and increasing the shadows, it should be apparent that the MM files would retain the fine texture and tonality of the wood pattern while other cameras lose detail

I don't understand this statement... Why can't a file from an a7/a7r be compared to an m240 or similar? They are both image files in the end. They can both be applied to the same purpose, meet the same function. They both ultimately can be employed to the same end.

We're not talking about the "SLR vs. rangefinder" kind of comparison here. That has serious apples/oranges issues that make the comparison difficult. This question was about the images produced. Not the methods needed to produce.

Finally, if you are comparing JPG files, then you might as well pack it in. 8-bit grayscale has little or nothing to say to inform the situation about tonality in a B&W image.

 

[mjm6]

It seems to me that the lack of three color channels in the MM for a black and white conversion would be a serious loss in creative black and white images. The same for the rumored Sony version. Basically trading tonal controls for resolution. Would someone familiar with both comment on this?

Joe,

Think of the B&W sensor cameras as your favorite B&W film (in my case, TXP), except it may have slightly different spectral sensitivity (it seems the MM needs a light yellow to have somewhat comparable sensitivity to many traditional B&W films).

What you gain in theory is a certain level of sharpness due to the (theoretical) lack of a Bayer filter and demosacing algorithm, and lack of the need for an AA filter. But that's only a part of it.

You also gain speed in the sensor (the Bayer filters have pretty strong filter factors, around 2 stops generally). This is why the MM is able to go so high on ISO.

Lastly, you gain in the tonality because each photo site is not (theoretically) based on any interpolation. When you interpolate a photosite to produce a value, as is done with the Bayer filter approach, (but in that case it basically interpolates for 2/3 of the RGB information at each site), you aren't producing unique information from the scene, you are guessing at the value based on the neighbors. That helps with the tonal information in theory.


---Michael

 

[fotografz]

Dave and all, not sure how one is supposed to evaluate images shot with Leica prime lenses like the excellent M24/3.8 or M50/1.4 verses an inexpensive Sony kit zoom?

Plus, available light quality, quantity and direction has everything to do with how an image renders in B&W verses another shot in different light. I see way to many attributes given to this to that piece of gear that is actually just good lighting.

I'm in the process of working on hundreds of images shot with the Leica MM and M50/0.95 Noctilux, and A7R with FE35 & 55 and adapted Noctilux. Even though many were in similar lighting conditions, each camera was used to its strengths which introduced so many variables as to make comparing them quite difficult.

I do not have a handle on B&W conversions with the A7R yet … it is a new beast that will take time to figure out. I've worked with the MM long enough now to grasp post-processing work with it more fully. I seriously doubt the A7R will measure up to the MM no matter how good I get at converting to B&W.

When I had the M240 for two trial weeks of shooting, I found the MM out did it for B&W if for no other reason that it walked away from ISO 2000 onward. In all fairness, two weeks wasn't enough time to get a handle on M240 B&W conversions either. I spent more time trying to get decent color from the M240, let alone B&W. By the time I got a good color rendering from the M240 to allow a B&W conversion I simply wished I had shot the dammed image with the MM in the first place

If it holds true for the Sony A7R camera, I found that Sony tends to favor mid-tone color response and skin tones for out-of-camera color, which was very apparent with the A900 verse the same sensor in the Nikon D3X … yet the Nikon's flater tonal scale tended to make for more easily done punchy B&W conversions in Nik Silver Efex, in a similar manner that the MM files are tonally flat out-of-camera.

The only color sensor camera I've used that produces as good as, or sometimes better than, MM B&W images is the Leica S2 … but only up to ISO 640.

The MM is unique (for now), and while the B&Ws I'm doing from the A7R work very well, the MM still appears to be that much better in presence and tonal subtleties.

- Marc

 

[D&A]

Thank you Marc for your insights. When I started this thread comparing B&W imagery for the aforementioned cameras, I wasn't expecting a definitive answer. As you say, there are far too many variables that contribute to a given image and making direct comparisons between each camera, would require very well controlled tests. Even that would invariably introduce variables (different lenses etc.).

I wasn't looking for whether one camera or the other excelled at higher ISO, or had better acuity and resolution....simply that when each was shot at base ISO, and their respective color files were converted to B&W, what was their overall impression of the richness and tonality of resulting B&W imagery. Obviously files from certain cameras are more malleable and therefore provide a greater pallet to work with, so that's part of the evaluation process.

I suspect most who shoot their cameras regularly and often convert files to B&W, get a feel for which cameras they favor for conversion. I didn't expect that when all is considered, that any would supersede the MM. I simply wanted those who had a MM, to elaborate a bit as to which of the other cameras mentioned, gave satisfying B&W images where they felt although not a MM, acquitted itself well in this regard.

Again Marc, your observations are well taken and the variables you elaborated on, most certainly contribute to as much or greater to the look of a B&W image as most any other parameter, including the camera used for conversion of color files to B&W.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Joe S]

Joe,

Think of the B&W sensor cameras as your favorite B&W film (in my case, TXP), except it may have slightly different spectral sensitivity (it seems the MM needs a light yellow to have somewhat comparable sensitivity to many traditional B&W films).

What you gain in theory is a certain level of sharpness due to the (theoretical) lack of a Bayer filter and demosacing algorithm, and lack of the need for an AA filter. But that's only a part of it.

You also gain speed in the sensor (the Bayer filters have pretty strong filter factors, around 2 stops generally). This is why the MM is able to go so high on ISO.

Lastly, you gain in the tonality because each photo site is not (theoretically) based on any interpolation. When you interpolate a photosite to produce a value, as is done with the Bayer filter approach, (but in that case it basically interpolates for 2/3 of the RGB information at each site), you aren't producing unique information from the scene, you are guessing at the value based on the neighbors. That helps with the tonal information in theory.


---Michael

Michael, thanks for the information. If I understand correctly each camera maker would have their own formula, JPEG like, for the tonal interpretations of colors. I suppose it would be possible for a manufacturer to have a choice of several B&W formulas to choose from in firmware although I have not heard of this as yet. One would perhaps go back to using yellow, red etc. filters to alter tonality. If I wanted a darker sky I would need to decide in advance rather than altering the blue channel in Photoshop as I would now. I am not sure I like the idea of giving up the current flexibility for the possible gains. I find the three channels very valuable in creating an image. This seems like an area of great interest I have not heard discussed.

 

[mjm6]

Joe,

That's not quite right... As far as I understand it, the spectral sensitivity of the sensor is the only thing that will determine the response curve coming out of the chip. At that point, the camera manufacturer will make some determination about contrast response curves, but that's about all they can do.

They could bake a bit of filtration onto the chip in the cover glass or where the AA filter used to be, for example, but that would be the only way to adjust the spectral response. As far as i know, Leica did not do that in theirs, which is why it needs a bit of yellow filtration to match traditional films.

In color chips, they use a pretty strong adjustment to produce a properly balanced file, (due to the filter factor to get the RGB information from each photosite). Plus, they then probably make a contrast curve adjustment to make a file that looks like we expect. However, as far as I know, that is done for the JPGs only, and the RAW files don't have that baked into them.

The exceptions to that are the in-camera adjustments for the lens apparently. The RAW file information is modified to correct for falloff and color shifts in the Leica cameras, and presumably in others like the a7/a7r that are capable of identifying their own camera lenses.

But the big point that you did pick up on is that people are going back to using color filters on the B&W cameras for that reason. The only way to really modify the response to particular colors with the B&W camera is filtration.

It's pretty clear that the B&W cameras are for a very narrow segment of photographers. You have to be pretty hard-core B&W to want a camera that only shoots B&W! I wouldn't own one as my only camera, but as a second, I would certainly consider one.

There are rumors of a B&W version of the a7r, so that may be a possibility, but for the time being, I'm happy with my color cameras, and shooting for B&W conversion in PS or Nik.


---Michael

 

[fotografz]

Michael, if I didn't shoot pictures for pay, I'd be content with the M Monochrome as my sole camera … or better put … my "Soul" camera

Almost exclusively used Leica M film cameras for 30+ years, and did maybe 6 rolls of color in all that time. Processed all my own B&W film and made my own silver prints.

Color is highly over-rated. My wife does the color thing with an iPhone when needed.

BTW, Nik Silver Efex Pro-II is a very sophisticated piece of software. It offers so many curve response versions, film response versions and endless wholesale and local adjustment possibilities, that when used as a PS plug-in you can layer almost any sort of look and feel … with practice. Amazing really.

- Marc

 

[mjm6]

Marc,

For personal work, I've shot far more film in b&w than color, (mostly sheets, 8x10 and bigger). Now, I'm fully digital, and definately could consider going all b&w...

I'm more of an architectural shooter, so the rangefinder really doesn't suit me well.

Nik is great, but I dont like the fact that the only way to reproduce a set of adjustments is to save a preset. If you go out and inti PS and then decide you need to re-do for some reason, you have to start from scratch. I set up presets fo consistency when doing a series, but the individual shots always need some tweaks, and those don't get saved.

Plus, now I worry about support since google purchased them.

---Michael

 

[Joe S]

Joe,

That's not quite right... As far as I understand it, the spectral sensitivity of the sensor is the only thing that will determine the response curve coming out of the chip. At that point, the camera manufacturer will make some determination about contrast response curves, but that's about all they can do.

They could bake a bit of filtration onto the chip in the cover glass or where the AA filter used to be, for example, but that would be the only way to adjust the spectral response. As far as i know, Leica did not do that in theirs, which is why it needs a bit of yellow filtration to match traditional films.

In color chips, they use a pretty strong adjustment to produce a properly balanced file, (due to the filter factor to get the RGB information from each photosite). Plus, they then probably make a contrast curve adjustment to make a file that looks like we expect. However, as far as I know, that is done for the JPGs only, and the RAW files don't have that baked into them.

The exceptions to that are the in-camera adjustments for the lens apparently. The RAW file information is modified to correct for falloff and color shifts in the Leica cameras, and presumably in others like the a7/a7r that are capable of identifying their own camera lenses.

But the big point that you did pick up on is that people are going back to using color filters on the B&W cameras for that reason. The only way to really modify the response to particular colors with the B&W camera is filtration.

It's pretty clear that the B&W cameras are for a very narrow segment of photographers. You have to be pretty hard-core B&W to want a camera that only shoots B&W! I wouldn't own one as my only camera, but as a second, I would certainly consider one.

There are rumors of a B&W version of the a7r, so that may be a possibility, but for the time being, I'm happy with my color cameras, and shooting for B&W conversion in PS or Nik.


---Michael

Interesting times. I only work in black and white but can't imagine giving up the controls available with a 3 channel conversion for a baked in process or going back to filters. I remember many years ago in the shoot film/scan/photoshop era a noted black and white photographer shot color film rather than black and white just for the 3 channel controls.

 

[turtle]

Ive found that global and local contrast controls, with brushes and gradients (which go miles beyond what you could do with film), largely negate the need for filters. Sure, they can still be useful, but far less so than when working with the limitations of film and paper. Channel mixing is nice, but rarely critical to well executed B&W work. I say this, because IMHO this is where a lot of largely colour shooters go wrong. They're still thinking like a colour photographer when they are shooting and so end up with images that are not naturally strong in mono.... so need to jump on the channel mixers for colour separation.... or they struggle with the sort of intuitive dodging and burning ye olde film folks take for granted.

Whether you are looking at Ansel or reportage, most great shooters only used one filter most of the time (or variations of yellow in the case of Ansel) and a couple of others in support. Big deviations were the exception rather than the rule and even Ansel admitted that a number of his photos could have been shot with various filters and have looked 'pretty well as good, just different'.

I feel confident in suggesting that colour and mono are actually miles apart and share relatively little. This perhaps explains why so few masters (if any) shot equally well in both. If mono is what you see before you even frame the shot, colour mixing will feature much less in the subsequent workflow. I'd even go so far as to say colour mixing gets in the way of learning good B&W.