The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

New M Monochrom (Type 230) Coming

Double Negative

Not Available
Looks like we might be getting a new M Monochrom (Typ 230) at Photokina in September!

New M Monochrom (Type 230) Coming

Digicame-info is reporting that Leica has registered a new camera called the M Monochrom (Typ 230) with the radio government agency of Korea RRA (Korea Radio Research Laboratory). This means that the new M Monochrom camera will have built-in Wi-Fi capabilities and will be announced at Photokina in September, most likely. Best guess - it'll be based on the current Leica M (CMOS) sensor."
 

chmilar

New member
I hope Leica implements a user removable UV / IR filter so that it can be used as a "achromatic" monochrome camera, when desired. (Like the Phase One Achromatic back.)

Live view will help with focusing correctly in the IR range.
 

bradhusick

Active member
If they switch to a version of the CMOS sensor in the M240 without a bayer filter the results will be quite good I imagine, but they will have that CMOS look and many people like the CCD look of the current MM.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
I love my current MM. It does literally everything that I'd want such a camera to do. I presume the CMOS version will push the ISO envelope higher and preserve some dynamic range, and have the features of the M240 shutter. For me, the MM in its CCD incarnation is all that I could ever want or need.

I have come to the conclusion that there's a difference in look between CCD and CMOS, and I prefer CCD. I am trying to get by with the M240 now, but keep gravitating to the MM ...
 

MPK2010

New member
I love my current MM. It does literally everything that I'd want such a camera to do. I presume the CMOS version will push the ISO envelope higher and preserve some dynamic range, and have the features of the M240 shutter. For me, the MM in its CCD incarnation is all that I could ever want or need.

I have come to the conclusion that there's a difference in look between CCD and CMOS, and I prefer CCD. I am trying to get by with the M240 now, but keep gravitating to the MM ...
After about a year with the M240 and about four with the M9, I would say there is definitely a difference in look. While I think some of the Mandler lenses benefit from the richer look of the M240, many of the newer designs like the 50 APO simply look better on the M9, at least for color shooting in good light. A subtle but clear difference.
 
After about a year with the M240 and about four with the M9, I would say there is definitely a difference in look. While I think some of the Mandler lenses benefit from the richer look of the M240, many of the newer designs like the 50 APO simply look better on the M9, at least for color shooting in good light. A subtle but clear difference.
Sorry to say this, but whilst understanding your point of view this M240 vs. M9 thing always popping up in every thread by someone, is starting to feel like beating a dead horse :deadhorse:

Different cameras produce different look. While clearly many prefer the look produced by the M9, so what? It's a different camera.

And the same thing will most certainly apply between MM and future typ 230. Different cameras will render different look.

That's all there's to it.

Now for the mandler lenses, I'll be the first one to be completely thrilled about it if you're correct. I'm a mandler fan. Haven't got any at the moment, but will have some in the future for sure.. starting from elmarit-m 90.

//Juha
 

Shashin

Well-known member
What is the monochrome CCD look? And how does that differ from the monochrome CMOS look?
 

MPK2010

New member
Sorry to say this, but whilst understanding your point of view this M240 vs. M9 thing always popping up in every thread by someone, is starting to feel like beating a dead horse

Different cameras produce different look. While clearly many prefer the look produced by the M9, so what? It's a different camera.

And the same thing will most certainly apply between MM and future typ 230. Different cameras will render different look.

That's all there's to it.

Now for the mandler lenses, I'll be the first one to be completely thrilled about it if you're correct. I'm a mandler fan. Haven't got any at the moment, but will have some in the future for sure.. starting from elmarit-m 90.

//Juha
Sure, but in fairness CCD-CMOS is under discussion here, and I'm not sure my conclusion on Mandlers vs. e.g. 50 APO on respective sensor systems has been debated to death quite yet. The old horse still has life in it...

But definitely check it out. I am favoring the 35v4, Rigid and 50v5 on the M240 these days. The 50 APO is great on both, but I think better on the CCD M cameras.
 

MCTuomey

New member
as an old guy, all the talk about cmos v ccd v AA filter v AA filter-less and so forth is like arguing about the merits of different films. a personal preference, nothing more. buy what you like, and that's it.

what obviously hurts now is, as sensor tech moves on earlier sensors are no longer manufactured, so the camera containing the obsolete sensor is un-useable if the sensor fails. with analog, the cameras always retained full functionality despite the loss of a favored film, obviously one moved on to another film. wouldn't it be a fine thing if sensors themselves were interchangeable within a particular model of camera?
 

mmbma

Active member
I cannot tell the ccd / CMOS difference in black and white. I certainly see the difference in color. But not in black and white
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I can see differences between cameras. I have yet to see an actual CCD or CMOS look and I use both CCD and CMOS cameras. Yes, my cameras produce different color images, but not in any uniform way. Yes, my favorite camera has a CCD. Simply saying X camera has a CCD and the images from that camera is different from another camera with a CMOS is not very meaningful. Especially since it is hard to attribute it to simply CCD or CMOS architecture--both are simply photon counters.

I have also heard the criticism that all modern CMOS sensor look alike. I have not found this, but if you think about it, they should. If a sensor is supposed to reproduce color and tone as accurately as possible, then as we get better at making cameras, then everything should get closer and closer to appearance, at least in terms of unprocessed files. But there are still very much subjective attributes for color that manufacturers need to deal with, so I doubt we will end up with uniform color. And there are pros and cons to that.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I cannot tell the ccd / CMOS difference in black and white. I certainly see the difference in color. But not in black and white
Does a CMOS based B&W camera even exist? Not a color conversion, but a true dedicated B&W camera like the M Monochrome?

- Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I can see differences between cameras. I have yet to see an actual CCD or CMOS look and I use both CCD and CMOS cameras. Yes, my cameras produce different color images, but not in any uniform way. Yes, my favorite camera has a CCD. Simply saying X camera has a CCD and the images from that camera is different from another camera with a CMOS is not very meaningful. Especially since it is hard to attribute it to simply CCD or CMOS architecture--both are simply photon counters.

I have also heard the criticism that all modern CMOS sensor look alike. I have not found this, but if you think about it, they should. If a sensor is supposed to reproduce color and tone as accurately as possible, then as we get better at making cameras, then everything should get closer and closer to appearance, at least in terms of unprocessed files. But there are still very much subjective attributes for color that manufacturers need to deal with, so I doubt we will end up with uniform color. And there are pros and cons to that.
I think people are speaking in the aggregate of their experiences. At least I am.

For example, you mention that your favorite camera happens to be CCD based. Currently, that is true for me also (Leica S2-P).

However, as I scan the aggregate of my past experiences, before I owned my current favorite S2-P, all past "favorite cameras" happened to be CCD based at any given time. Favorite as defined by image characteristics, not features. Some CCD cameras I've owned were a big PITA to use compared to their CMOS contemporaries I also owned. Didn't matter, because the image characteristics were paramount is deciding which I liked most.

Contax N Digital verses its' Canon/Nikon counterpart.

Contax 645 and Kodak Proback 645C verses anything available at the time.

Hasselblad H and V backs, Leaf Aptus backs, and current Leica S2-P verses any CMOS based camera, past or present (not resolution, image qualities).

Leica M8 verses any 35mm DSLR of the time (FF or not).

Leica DMR verses any 35mm DSLR of the time.

Leica M9 verses any 35mm DSLR at the time.

Leica M9 verses the Leica M240.

Leica M Monochrome verses any CMOS B&W conversion.

I've never owned a "favorite camera" that was CMOS, and still don't.

Whether that is quantifiable proof of producing a differing look due to sensor type is irrelevant. Whatever combination of image chain variables existed between each type camera, I have consistently favored CCD based cameras, and will until I don't.:)

Still waiting and hoping. If I could get the look I favor with a CMOS camera it'd make life a bit easier because CMOS does open up a lot of nice features in terms of the camera operation itself … but conveniences are a far second place consideration compared to image qualities.

IMHO.

- Marc
 

chrism

Well-known member
Good question. The CCD M Monochrome exists, the CMOS M Monochrome doesn't … yet. So, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

- Marc
No doubt this non-existent camera is already in the capable hands of Mr Slack, but we will all have to pretend we don't know that when we meet him going for a walk!

Chris
 

D&A

Well-known member
I think people are speaking in the aggregate of their experiences. At least I am.

For example, you mention that your favorite camera happens to be CCD based. Currently, that is true for me also (Leica S2-P).

However, as I scan the aggregate of my past experiences, before I owned my current favorite S2-P, all past "favorite cameras" happened to be CCD based at any given time. Favorite as defined by image characteristics, not features. Some CCD cameras I've owned were a big PITA to use compared to their CMOS contemporaries I also owned. Didn't matter, because the image characteristics were paramount is deciding which I liked most.

Contax N Digital verses its' Canon/Nikon counterpart.

Contax 645 and Kodak Proback 645C verses anything available at the time.

Hasselblad H and V backs, Leaf Aptus backs, and current Leica S2-P verses any CMOS based camera, past or present (not resolution, image qualities).

Leica M8 verses any 35mm DSLR of the time (FF or not).

Leica DMR verses any 35mm DSLR of the time.

Leica M9 verses any 35mm DSLR at the time.

Leica M9 verses the Leica M240.

Leica M Monochrome verses any CMOS B&W conversion.

I've never owned a "favorite camera" that was CMOS, and still don't.

Whether that is quantifiable proof of producing a differing look due to sensor type is irrelevant. Whatever combination of image chain variables existed between each type camera, I have consistently favored CCD based cameras, and will until I don't.:)

Still waiting and hoping. If I could get the look I favor with a CMOS camera it'd make life a bit easier because CMOS does open up a lot of nice features in terms of the camera operation itself … but conveniences are a far second place consideration compared to image qualities.

IMHO.

- Marc
Very well said Marc and many of the examples you cite, I too have had a similar experience with when comparing them to other manufacturers counterparts.

I think its safe to say that when one favors output from CCD sensor based cameras, it implies all associated components that contribute to that particular camera's output and not strictly the sensor itself. I assume that these associated components are designed in many cases to work with the particular characteristics/electronics and readout of a CCD sensor and thus what one observes with it's files is at the very least an indirect result of the camera using a CCD sensor and possible often times as a direct result.

Like Marc, the output from all my favorite digital cameras happens to be CCD based, so in a more than casual sense, I can safely say for my own interpretation, that I favor these cameras mainly due to their having incorporated a CCD sensor.

Ahhh, the Contax N Digital...Lovely camera to hold and use and I had high hopes when I first examined it's files. Alas like like a long lost love, it was but a fleeting moment of "image" bliss :)

Dave (D&A)
 

asiafish

Member
No doubt this non-existent camera is already in the capable hands of Mr Slack, but we will all have to pretend we don't know that when we meet him going for a walk!

Chris
Not an issue. Even if you confront him on it, I doubt he'd say anything.
 
Top