Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

[D&A]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Hi All,

Of course without any of us having any idea of the quality of output from the new M 240, especially for B&W....I was wondering what your opinion would be for the following question:

Assuming (big assumption), that the output in general from the new M240 is essentially the same as the current M9 except for its high ISO performance. Lets take this one step further and assume it's high ISO performance is precisely 1 f-stop below that of the MM, so that at ISO 6400, it's noise characteristics closely matches that of the MM shot at ISO 10,000 . So in this example we have essentially a M9 in terms of image quality and characteristics except it's ISO 6400 resembles that of the MM shot at ISO 10,000, especially when the M240"s color files are converted to B&W.

With this in mind and if the MM was released at the same time as the M240, would those who already purchased a MM or contemplate doing so, opt instead for the M240? Keep in mind the other B&W image characteristics we see say at base ISO for both cameras would be what we currently see between the M9 B&W output at it's base ISO vs. the MM at its base ISO, so that the high ISO performance of the MM is thus taken out of the equation.

Maybe it would come down to the M240's ability to also shoot color vs. the MM"s B&W image characteristics of superior tonality and other perceived attributes....and thus poosibly the MM superiority over a M240 color file converted to B&W. Thoughts?

Dave (D&A)

 

[Hosermage]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

so you're balancing with:
1. MM - high iso, BW, high resolution
2. M10 - ok iso, color, added features

I guess my question will be: if you're 100% BW shooter, is there anything else you'll want from the MM? It seems MM is for serious BW shooters that are 100% satisfied by it, in which case, the answer is already there.

 

[borge]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

If you want or need flexibility (color and B&W) - M
If you want to focus on B&W only - MM

Forget the technical details. The MM will deliver better quality B&W images I am sure, especially at higher iso (no color noise - which is the ugly type of noise), but the M will also most probably deliver great B&W conversions.

The cameras are very similar but they are so different in use. The MM only sees in B&W so you start working and seeing things entirely differently, and you will also look for quite different things to photograph.

The MM has opened my eyes to the type of photography that is most pleasing to my eyes, and made me focus on only that one thing. To do one thing really great you have to keep focus on doing that one thing to be able to master it. For me the MM is such a tool. It is very inspiring and challenging at the same time.

I don't understand the "should I get the M or the MM" discussions. You KNOW if you want the MM. It delivers very limited use, but does so in a very unique way and at the same time delivers great file quality. If you have to think about this question for a long time then you should get the M or M-E.

 

[jonoslack]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

The cameras are very similar but they are so different in use. The MM only sees in B&W so you start working and seeing things entirely differently, and you will also look for quite different things to photograph.

Hi There
I haven't quoted your whole post . . . because I agree with all the rest!

However, I have spent enough time with the M to know that you can shoot it just like an MM if you want to . . . ie.
DNG only
Monochrome only in the review
Monochrome in the playback

of course, I've no idea how the M conversions compare with the MM, but I'm sure you're right that the MM has more to it.

 

[borge]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Hi There
I haven't quoted your whole post . . . because I agree with all the rest!

However, I have spent enough time with the M to know that you can shoot it just like an MM if you want to . . . ie.
DNG only
Monochrome only in the review
Monochrome in the playback

of course, I've no idea how the M conversions compare with the MM, but I'm sure you're right that the MM has more to it.

There is no doubt that the M will deliver great B&W conversions as well. I do suspect that the noise/grain will not be as nice in the M at ISO 3200-6400 though, and it cannot shoot ISO 10000 natively. It will still probably deliver excellent conversions.

However, the M let's you choose then and there - and in post. That means that people most probably will be less focused on what they are photographing while they are doing it compared to if they only had one option (color film or black and white film).

Personally - with the MM - I know exactly what I'm looking for and what I want out of a picture. The MM keeps me focused. So for me the MM makes me - the person behind the viewfinder - deliver better photographs.

The technical differences are moot to me. The differences are so irrelevant and small compared to working with only one way of making images. Less confusion - more focus

Less is more - as they say.

 

[douglasf13]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

It seems to me that, if you're someone that the MM is geared towards, there probably isn't any question in your mind on whether you should buy the MM, because it is aimed towards the shooters out there that are already shooting B&W 100% of the time.

If you're not sure, the M probably makes more sense, because it gives you flexibility...unless, of course, you can afford both, and then you can have the ultimate in both B&W and color options.

 

[fotografz]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

I sort of answered that question decades ago.

My relationship with the rangefinder M began as quest for B&W only. I never thought about color and rarely ran a roll of color film through a M camera. I associated color with other cameras.

Not until the digital M did I shoot color, and even then mostly did B&W conversions ... especially with the M8

However, I have come to appreciate color M images and the ability to use the Leica lenses. My issue with high ISO color is color temps, color noise, and shortening of the tonal scale ... which when combined can get ghastly.

My MM arrives tomorrow and I have a job on Oct. 27 that was made for this camera.

I will keep my M9P since I need two Ms for the work I do anyway ... then sort out the new M issue once the IQ is a better known and the camera available ... which is probably at least 4 or 5 months away ... so a decision for another day.

Marc

 

[ghoonk]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Just throwing in my 2 cents -

If you're a B&W shooter, MM = Coke, MT240 = Diet Coke

The MT240 would be useful for those who have problems visualizing the color scene in B&W, but for me, that's one of the things I'm learning along my journey with photography.

 

[D&A]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Hi All,

I'm not sure (at least to some extent) that my original question was fully understood. It's obvious that for a strictly B&W shooter, of course the MM is the logical choice. Not only due to the fact that it only shoots in B&W and has all the advantages it offers to the B&W shooter as expressed by some, but of possible advantages in the quality of its files vs. those color files from the current M9 that are then converted to B&W. At present, the MM is the superior camera for B&W, on a number of fronts. That though wasn't the premise of my question.

Permit me to elaborate a little. It's been demonstrated that the MM can often blow out highlights if one is not careful with how they choose to expose their scene or subjects. Assuming for the moment that the new M and MM have similar noise structure (abeit with some color noise with the M) at ISO's up to 6400 and therefore the MM has approx a one stop advantage in low light....would a camera like the new M, which say does a better job at exposing without clipping highlights be an acceptable tradeoff for the one stop high ISO advantage of the MM? Are most confident that the MM will still produce superior B&W files at ISO's 6400 and lower vs. the new M when it's files are converted to B&W? Is it possible that the new M besides preserving highlights better than the MM, might also possibly have better DR and of course the option to shoot color if so desired?

Again this is all conjecture and we won't know anything for sure till files from the new M are converted....but except for the one f-stop advantage of the MM....would a new M possibly be a more desirable choice if it's shown that for that disadvantage of 1 f stop, one gains preservation of highlights and a possible increase in DR?

Does the new M have to be the equal of the MM in every way, with regards to B&W, to be chosen over the M, especially for B&W work? Could there be an acceptable tradeoff for some to choose the new M and still expect it to be somewhat close to the level of B&W performance of the MM? Again, just food for thought. I think the world of the MM, especially from what I have seen from working with its files.

Dave (D&A)

 

[douglasf13]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Clipping highlights is simply a matter of not understanding how your camera meters and where it places middle gray, so that sounds like a red herring.

 

[fotografz]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Hi All,

I'm not sure (at least to some extent) that my original question was fully understood. It's obvious that for a strictly B&W shooter, of course the MM is the logical choice. Not only due to the fact that it only shoots in B&W and has all the advantages it offers to the B&W shooter as expressed by some, but of possible advantages in the quality of its files vs. those color files from the current M9 that are then converted to B&W. At present, the MM is the superior camera for B&W, on a number of fronts. That though wasn't the premise of my question.

Permit me to elaborate a little. It's been demonstrated that the MM can often blow out highlights if one is not careful with how they choose to expose their scene or subjects. Assuming for the moment that the new M and MM have similar noise structure (abeit with some color noise with the M) at ISO's up to 6400 and therefore the MM has approx a one stop advantage in low light....would a camera like the new M, which say does a better job at exposing without clipping highlights be an acceptable tradeoff for the one stop high ISO advantage of the MM? Are most confident that the MM will still produce superior B&W files at ISO's 6400 and lower vs. the new M when it's files are converted to B&W? Is it possible that the new M besides preserving highlights better than the MM, might also possibly have better DR and of course the option to shoot color if so desired?

Again this is all conjecture and we won't know anything for sure till files from the new M are converted....but except for the one f-stop advantage of the MM....would a new M possibly be a more desirable choice if it's shown that for that disadvantage of 1 f stop, one gains preservation of highlights and a possible increase in DR?

Does the new M have to be the equal of the MM in every way, with regards to B&W, to be chosen over the M, especially for B&W work? Could there be an acceptable tradeoff for some to choose the new M and still expect it to be somewhat close to the level of B&W performance of the MM? Again, just food for thought. I think the world of the MM, especially from what I have seen from working with its files.

Dave (D&A)

I'm not sure I'm buying the MMs clipped highlights issue just yet. With each issue of a new digital camera there are initial adjustments to both shooting and processing techniques that differ from what one is used to from current cameras. While troublesome highlights have been noted in some cases, or "demonstrated" as you say, as the camera gets into more and more hands I'm seeing less and less of that ... in fact the progress has already been nothing short of phenomenal compared to the initial trial explorations of MM RAW files.

The other aspect is not only higher ISO noise, but the nature and look of the noise when shooting in typical ambient lighting requiring higher ISOs. From what I can tell from the MM RAW files that I've been privy to, the noise is consistent in structure and look across tonal areas compared to M9 color files that can exhibit dramatically different and inconsistent noise structure ... so it remains to be seen what that noise looks like in the new M ... however, I'd pleasantly shocked if the noise structure wasn't typically inconsistent like that of any color digital camera. So, I do NOT assume the noise structure will be the same.

The main question I have is exactly how good will the top ISO of the M be? Typically, the top ISO is close to unusable, and there for use only in a pinch with the shooter aware of the penalty. I'm hoping 1600 is very good and 3200 will be acceptable with the M, while retaining the look and feel of the M9 files as closely as possible.

-Marc

 

[Hosermage]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

I think there are two different solutions... one, you can adjust to the camera, or two, you can adjust the camera to you. On the M9, I have a tendency to expose for the shadow and recover the highlight in post, and it seems the MM is the opposite. So if I was to shoot with the MM, I could expose for the highlight instead, since we've seen how much shadow detail can be pull out in post. Or, perhaps I can just set -1 or -2/3 EV on the MM and shoot as I normally do? Either way, I think the blown highlights are not really an issue, once people learn the behavior of the camera, they'll adjust.

 

[D&A]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

I'm not sure I'm buying the MMs clipped highlights issue just yet. With each issue of a new digital camera there are initial adjustments to both shooting and processing techniques that differ from what one is used to from current cameras. While troublesome highlights have been noted in some cases, or "demonstrated" as you say, as the camera gets into more and more hands I'm seeing less and less of that ... in fact the progress has already been nothing short of phenomenal compared to the initial trial explorations of MM RAW files.

The other aspect is not only higher ISO noise, but the nature and look of the noise when shooting in typical ambient lighting requiring higher ISOs. From what I can tell from the MM RAW files that I've been privy to, the noise is consistent in structure and look across tonal areas compared to M9 color files that can exhibit dramatically different and inconsistent noise structure ... so it remains to be seen what that noise looks like in the new M ... however, I'd pleasantly shocked if the noise structure wasn't typically inconsistent like that of any color digital camera. So, I do NOT assume the noise structure will be the same.

The main question I have is exactly how good will the top ISO of the M be? Typically, the top ISO is close to unusable, and there for use only in a pinch with the shooter aware of the penalty. I'm hoping 1600 is very good and 3200 will be acceptable with the M, while retaining the look and feel of the M9 files as closely as possible.

-Marc

Marc,

I agree with almost everything your wrote. As you and others have expressed, with the MM, one can expose for the highlights and then recover the shadow detail. Luckily, in most cases, the MM files are clean enough at most ISO's, so that recoverable shadow detail is relatively clean. The problem would have been if one had to expose for the highlights in the MM and when recovering the shadow detail, lots of noise accompanied this recovery. Thats why I think exposing for highlights works with the MM. If it didn't have such clean files, I think there would be issues, with regards to it's metering.

As for noise structure, again I agree. The pattern of noise seen with the MM, is far more consistant or evenly distributed and in some way resembles higher ISO film grain, then that seen with the M9 or most any other bayer filter containing color digital camera. I assume this will still be the case with the new M and thus the MM is still the choice of purely B&W image photographers, even if the new M has relatively clean ISO 3200 and usable 6400.

Again my theroretical questions regarding these cameras was simply for discussion of the potential for the new M to be an improvement for use of converted B&W files over that seen with the current M9...especially in light of what I suppose will be better high ISO performance (than the M9), and also a possible increase in DR (again vs. the M9) and who knows what other possible advantages of image quality. Of course this will all have to be seen and evaluated. Will the new M have any advantage to B&W conversion and file quality over the M9...maybe enough to have a few evaluate whether the MM is the camera of choice for them vs. going with the new M and compromise to a degree with B&W imagery and also have the abailty to shoot color? Not everyone is able to have one of each and B&W imagery may be a primary consideration but not the only one for some.

Dave (D&A)

 

[douglasf13]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

In order to simplify things, when we talk about dynamic range in our cameras, we're talking about exposing highlights so that all three channels don't clip (in the case of the M 240,) and then bringing up shadows to the point that an acceptable amount of detail remains. Of course, the raw tone curve from various cameras are different, so some cameras my have different highlight roll offs and what not, but, when it comes do dynamic range, it is important to leave all three channels intact on the highlight end by not clipping them.

It's impossible to say if the M 240 will outperform the MM in B&W, because we've yet to see a single test of the camera. In fact, there aren't than many technical MM tests, either. Either way, the MM not having a CFA and being a different sensor design will certainly have a different look than the M 240 in B&W.

 

[Paratom]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

When I decided for the MM some weeks ago I was asking myself: "Would I regreat it when the new "M" appears?"
I think I will not. However-since I am not a 100% b&w photographer I will allways also own a color M.

Personally I dont see blowing highlights a problem with the MM.
I feel the MM is a very "honest" camera.
As far as I understand highlight recovery (for a color sensor) means at least one channel is blown out but the software calculates "something" out of the other color channels. A little bit like sharpening...software enhances contrast at edges...this all feels (in my mind) like adding artificial things to an image.
The MM sensor just shows you what has been there (or not been there).

And then doing color filters for the M9/M in software...works great and easy, but I feel like this would "delete" the information of certain color channel/pixel and therefore reduce resolution compared to the MM?

This is what is going on in my mind (most of it I probably can not see so more a mental thing (problem?? )

Do I believe the MM allows better quality b&W? I think yes, but I also thing the M9 and also the M are delivering soo good b&w that I would never miss something in regards to IQ.

I admit that for me the biggest advantage of the MM is that it forces me to consequently think/learnb&w photography. (Plus I love the simplicity)

Yes, you can allways set the M to b&W, but I know I would cheat sometimes.
Maybe my self discipline is not strong enough.

 

[Vivek]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Just throwing in my 2 cents -

If you're a B&W shooter, MM = Coke, MT240 = Diet Coke

The MT240 would be useful for those who have problems visualizing the color scene in B&W, but for me, that's one of the things I'm learning along my journey with photography.

Odd comparison. I don't drink either (in fact, do not like Cola related drinks at all. Too much phosphoric acid to imbibe.).

I think the MM will not depreciate appreciably in value while all others (M9, M-E, and M) certainly will.

Unless a true monochrome live view cam comes along, the MM is going to rule!

 

[Chris C]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

For the many years I shot B&W-only negative film for [primarily] gallery exhibition work, I had to trust that the film manufacturer's rendition of my colour world into a B&W version would be acceptable for me. I've recently been pondering working with roll-film again, but I really don't want to go back to the dark-ages by using B&W film; I need all the colour information from a photographed subject to determine my B&W tonal interpretation for a B&W print. With that in mind, I'm considering how much better colour neg. film would be for my my future B&W roll-film prints.

My B&W renditions of the colour world are better for me than what Ilford, Kodak, Agfa, used to give me, and this is an important lesson I've learnt from digital work. Yes, I can see that working with B&W files which have had all their useful colour palette dumped by Leica is easier than having to make the additional, important, colour-to-B&W rendition decisions of conversions; but I can't help thinking it's a limiting, backward step.

It seems I'm out of step with this forum again.

................ Chris

 

[Anders_HK]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

I do not shoot any M since I sold off my M8 the other year, but... the more pictures I see made with the Monochrom, the more the character and tonal values impress my eye. It is something very pleasing about the rendering of pictures made using the Monochrom.

The new M may have a similar DR and noise performance to the Mono, but at a stop lower ISO levels. Sure, the lack of color filters helps to fill the sensor buckets with more info in the Mono... but is that what makes the image characteristics and tonal values from the Mono?

I wonder how much the coding and profiling of the Monochrom has to do with the tonal values and rendering... Could this perhaps be something that Leica may build into the M, also for color?

Best
Anders

 

[D&A]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and I wasn't expecting total agreement when comparing the MM output regardless of ISO used vs. the possible improvement we might obtain in converted color files from the new MM over that previously seen from the M9.

Don't get me wrong, the M9 is a phenominal camera and is capable of some incredable B&W imagey, espcially with both effective conversions and use of the camera at lower ISO's. It's simply conjcture on my part, that with both improvement in higher ISO performance of the new M over that seen with the M9, and additionally possible improvemnt in image quality in other areas, that the new M might take an additional step forward towards good B&W imagery as compared to its predecessor.

I don't exepct the new M to equal or replace the MM for B&W photography, but thought with its improvement in a number of key areas, might be an alternative chice for those that are serious about their B&W photography but also wat the option (possibly occasional) for color files.

I think Chris's comments about wanting the color information from a photographed subject for his tonal interpretation for a B&W print interesting. When I was strictly a B&W photographer, I too used to think along those terms and often chose my use of B&W filters (with B&W film) based on the tonality of the scene seen with my own eyes...so having a color image of the photographed subject as a guide to my B&W conversion of a color file, often times help and this is where the M9 or possibly even more so, the MM, might be an advantage for such a workflow. Again for ultimate B&W imagery, I have little doubt the MM is the prefered choice, at least at this time. There is no arguing that in my opinion, but investigating alternatives, that might afforf a few advantages of their own, may be of interest.

Dave (D&A)

 

[GrahamWelland]

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

With the understanding that this is GetDPI the obvious answer is to have a Monochrom hanging from the left shoulder and a new M across the body from the right shoulder.

Problem solved. :grin: