The New Monochrom - a fine report

[scott kirkpatrick]

If I had multiple, identical cameras, I might do that kind of thing. Normally, though, I'm pretty uninterested in which camera produced what image, and only marginally interested in what lens or exposure was used most of the time. It's useful when testing equipment and tracking usage, but I don't need to do that any more.

G

I keep files by date and general type. I have the Leicas sorted by first number of the file. They go L1xxyyyy for the M8 (it's still alive) up to L7xxyyyy for the second M240. Olympus files don't let me do this, but at least i store the different models in different folders. It is annoying that the Olympus files start with the month and day (no year), so I will have a chance of same filename occurring in two folders. I keep galleries around by trip or event to find old stuff by inspection. Too lazy to keyword, so what good would catalogs do me?

scott

 

[Vivek]

Going back to the new Monochrom, I'm reading that it produces 12 bit files, which severely limits the information available in the white areas. This could be a major show stopper for many. Anyone know more about this? Link to what I'm referring to is here:
Monochrom M246 DNG technical analysis - Leica M9 / M-E / Leica M Monochrom - Leica Forum

Thanks,
Bob

Not surprised. I look forward to more info on this.

 

[Godfrey]

I keep files by date and general type. I have the Leicas sorted by first number of the file. They go L1xxyyyy for the M8 (it's still alive) up to L7xxyyyy for the second M240. Olympus files don't let me do this, but at least i store the different models in different folders. It is annoying that the Olympus files start with the month and day (no year), so I will have a chance of same filename occurring in two folders. I keep galleries around by trip or event to find old stuff by inspection. Too lazy to keyword, so what good would catalogs do me?

scott

Saying "I'm too lazy to keyword" points to where a catalog system with some automation would do you a lot of good.

- I have LR do the transfer of files to computer for me, and have it rename the files with one of two patterns: YYMMDD-{original file number} or YYMMDD-{tag}-{original file number} where {original file number} is the numeric portion of whatever the camera assigned and {tag} is any mnemonic I would like a set of files to carry.

- During import, I tell LR location information for the shooting session via a set of presets I defined long ago. So all the files imported have basic information in IPTC as to where they were made.

- I also have LR apply keywords when importing, so if I want to track specific camera body in the case where I have multiple bodies of the same type, I just type whatever I want to call the different body into the keyword field. It's applied to every file in that import session.

- I created a couple of presets which combine default keywords, copyright, and location information into one for the major shooting themes I've been working on. The majority choice is incorporated into an import preset that also sets all the other import details and the correct location to put the files. That way I pick one preset for about 90% of all my shooting and all three of the above things are automatically taken care of, and they're stored in the right place in my computer without me having to think about it.

With LR's automation, I can be very lazy and still have image files with at least basic IPTC annotation, keywords, and the file naming schema of my choice, stored in the correct file system location on my working file system, taken care of.

This has little to do with the MM246, however.
Update on that: I've contacted my favorite Leica specialist and ordered one. I wonder how long it will take to arrive.

onwards!
G

Leica M-P + Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM)
ISO 320 @ f/3.4 @ 1/1500​

 

[herrbarnack]

I want one - just gotta find a way to afford one...

 

[thompsonkirk]

Just sell/trade other stuff? With such high ISOs available, I wouldn't need Summiluxes; f2 bokeh is just fine with me.

Kirk

PS / BTW: Perhaps I've missed something that everyone else knows: When does Leica plan to release the 246s?

 

[jonoslack]

Going back to the new Monochrom, I'm reading that it produces 12 bit files, which severely limits the information available in the white areas. This could be a major show stopper for many. Anyone know more about this? Link to what I'm referring to is here:
Monochrom M246 DNG technical analysis - Leica M9 / M-E / Leica M Monochrom - Leica Forum

Thanks,
Bob

Hi There Bob
That's right - although you'll see that the information in the white areas is actually better than the previous MM.

This was discussed a long time ago - and Leica did lots of tests to see whether it was better to go one way or another. Unfortunately I'm not technically qualified to discuss it further (but I think they will).

In the meantime - the new camera has better dynamic range and better high ISO than the previous camera - and it seems fine for extensive post processing. . .

All the best

 

[jonoslack]

Saying "I'm too lazy to keyword" points to where a catalog system with some automation would do you a lot of good.

- I have LR do the transfer of files to computer for me, and have it rename the files with one of two patterns: YYMMDD-{original file number} or YYMMDD-{tag}-{original file number} where {original file number} is the numeric portion of whatever the camera assigned and {tag} is any mnemonic I would like a set of files to carry.

- During import, I tell LR location information for the shooting session via a set of presets I defined long ago. So all the files imported have basic information in IPTC as to where they were made.

- I also have LR apply keywords when importing, so if I want to track specific camera body in the case where I have multiple bodies of the same type, I just type whatever I want to call the different body into the keyword field. It's applied to every file in that import session.

- I created a couple of presets which combine default keywords, copyright, and location information into one for the major shooting themes I've been working on. The majority choice is incorporated into an import preset that also sets all the other import details and the correct location to put the files. That way I pick one preset for about 90% of all my shooting and all three of the above things are automatically taken care of, and they're stored in the right place in my computer without me having to think about it.

With LR's automation, I can be very lazy and still have image files with at least basic IPTC annotation, keywords, and the file naming schema of my choice, stored in the correct file system location on my working file system, taken care of.

This has little to do with the MM246, however.
Update on that: I've contacted my favorite Leica specialist and ordered one. I wonder how long it will take to arrive.

onwards!
G

Thank you Godfrey
it may not be relevant to this post - but it's excellently valuable information and I for one (as a new LR user) am very grateful for the 'prod'.

best

 

[rga]

Hi There Bob
That's right - although you'll see that the information in the white areas is actually better than the previous MM.

This was discussed a long time ago - and Leica did lots of tests to see whether it was better to go one way or another. Unfortunately I'm not technically qualified to discuss it further (but I think they will).

In the meantime - the new camera has better dynamic range and better high ISO than the previous camera - and it seems fine for extensive post processing. . .

All the best

Thanks Jono. I'll have to noodle that around for a bit: seems counter-physics.

Was it discussed on this forum? Elsewhere I can read about it? Or just in the "dark lab" at Leica HQ? Any pointers you can provide would really be helpful.

Again many thanks,
Bob

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Was it discussed on this forum? Elsewhere I can read about it? Or just in the "dark lab" at Leica HQ? Any pointers you can provide would really be helpful.

Sean Reid's review (subscription site) is pretty convincing. He doesn't know how many bits there are but he provides dynamic range test that are well thought out.

scott

 

[rga]

Sean Reid's review (subscription site) is pretty convincing. He doesn't know how many bits there are but he provides dynamic range test that are well thought out.

scott

Thanks Scott. I did not read that and, because I don't have a subscription, probably won't be able to.

Does Sean answer the question of why Leica moved DOWN in the bit depth of the files we get? And I believe there is a real difference, a very large difference as I understand it, in the amount of information available. That has much more to do with tonality than dynamic range. Could the new M260 perform even better with 14bit outputs? Though marketing says the elves see no difference, I'd like to understand that better.

Just by having 4 pixels dedicated to gray scale rather than interpreting 4RGGB pixels will give you greater dynamic (point in fact the difference in dynamic range/ISO between the Monochrom and the M9). Same pixels and increase in resolution and DR. (see Erwin Puts' discussion at Monochrom analysis | LEICAgraphy )

So now we see the same with the M240 vs the M260. Increase DR and resolution. So is the increase in DR and ISO simply do to increasing the pixel count between the Monochrom and the M260 and removing the filters on the sensor? Why did Leica dumb down the bit count? Bit depth increases exponentially, as I understand it, so it is a HUGE difference between 12 & 14bit depth.

Just wondering why Leica didn't go full boat here. Was it a rush to market and they didn't want to spend on developing a new processor that could handle the much large amount of gray scale info? It may effect tonality within the whites more than we (I) want. It's not dynamic range nor detail: it's available information which I think may significantly impact tonality.

I would just like to hear the reason why... It's a lot of $ to spend without knowing the facts (which really haven't been released) and just knowing the marketing.

I hope this all makes sense. I'm not all that technical, but I do know a little (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing comes to mind). And I'd just like all the information laid out there...

Thanks,
Bob

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Thanks Scott. I did not read that and, because I don't have a subscription, probably won't be able to.
....

Just by having 4 pixels dedicated to gray scale rather than interpreting 4RGGB pixels will give you greater dynamic (point in fact the difference in dynamic range/ISO between the Monochrom and the M9). Same pixels and increase in resolution and DR. (see Erwin Puts' discussion at Monochrom analysis | LEICAgraphy )

So now we see the same with the M240 vs the M260. Increase DR and resolution. So is the increase in DR and ISO simply do to increasing the pixel count between the Monochrom and the M260 and removing the filters on the sensor? Why did Leica dumb down the bit count? Bit depth increases exponentially, as I understand it, so it is a HUGE difference between 12 & 14bit depth.

I hope this all makes sense. I'm not all that technical, but I do know a little (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing comes to mind). And I'd just like all the information laid out there...

Thanks,
Bob

I haven't read an imaging chip spec since Kodak made the chips for Leica (and only the M8's chip was public information), but they usually say that there is noise from dark current leakage and the handling that the signal goes through while being extracted from the chip (more of that in CMOS than in CCD, BTW) amounting to at least 3-4 bits. So if you keep all 14 bits of possible signal, the last 3-4 bits of any pixel's value are only an accurate image of the light coming to the pixels if you average over several adjacent pixels. (Averaging over 16 pixels brings the noise down by 2 bits.) DeBayering does some of that, but we don't want to do that in a monochrome camera. So what I presume is happening, dividing the output signal of each pixel by four before converting it to digital, makes sense to me. Sure, there are now one fourth as many values available to us in the middle of the image tones, but the actual placing of those values was always random, not real.

Puts article is a little confused, I think. The man knows a lot more than us about lenses, but not about digital signal processing. He talks about the files having three colors of equal intensity, which might happen in a JPEG, but the raw files have no need to do that.

scott

 

[jonoslack]

Thanks Scott. I did not read that and, because I don't have a subscription, probably won't be able to.


I would just like to hear the reason why... It's a lot of $ to spend without knowing the facts (which really haven't been released) and just knowing the marketing.
Thanks,
Bob

Hi There Bob
My problem is that I'm really NOT technical, but I think Scott is very close to what I'm hearing. Brian (lenshacker) at LUF has had a proper look at the DNG files, and is talking the same kind of language as Scott.

egor - at ultrasomething.com was also sure that there would be a visible problem . . . and searched for it . . . and failed to find it.

I've had permission to post a dng comparison

Comparison of MM and MM246 files

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Thanks Scott. I did not read that and, because I don't have a subscription, probably won't be able to.

You know, Sean does excruciatingly careful studio tests so that the rest of us do not have to do them. I get interested in these questions sometimes, but I know I can't make myself be as thorough as he is. And he comes up with new tests from time to time - as recently he has been shooting bizarre, twisted frames that let you see exactly how sharp or unsharp corners of wide angle shots of distant objects will be, and what sort of DR and shadow noise you'll see in an MM or an M246 outdoors in harsh light. Sometimes his pictures are amusing (but not always).

Send the man his $30! You'll learn stuff, and it will only make it take one day longer to save up for your APO 50 Summicron.

scott

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've had permission to post a dng comparison

Comparison of MM and MM246 files

That's a fun image to scan around in. I spotted the Noctilux, the WATE, the Olympus 75, and what looks like Scarlett dealing Baccarat.

Comparing the two files with ISO 10,000, the differences are great. But which is the MM9 and which the M246?

scott

 

[Godfrey]

....

Send the man his $30! You'll learn stuff, and it will only make it take one day longer to save up for your APO 50 Summicron.

I'm not sending him any more money until he comes up with some way to read his content that doesn't suck rocks. No matter how wonderful his reviews are, they do me no good if I can't read them and use them in a reasonable manner, like maybe a PDF file that I can read, annotate, or print. And if he doesn't trust me to respect his copyright as his customer, well, why should I want to do business with him?

G

 

[Godfrey]

That's a fun image to scan around in. I spotted the Noctilux, the WATE, the Olympus 75, and what looks like Scarlett dealing Baccarat.

Comparing the two files with ISO 10,000, the differences are great. But which is the MM9 and which the M246?

scott

It's in the metadata ... But the file names that start with L are the MM9.

G

 

[rga]

You know, Sean does excruciatingly careful studio tests so that the rest of us do not have to do them. I get interested in these questions sometimes, but I know I can't make myself be as thorough as he is. And he comes up with new tests from time to time - as recently he has been shooting bizarre, twisted frames that let you see exactly how sharp or unsharp corners of wide angle shots of distant objects will be, and what sort of DR and shadow noise you'll see in an MM or an M246 outdoors in harsh light. Sometimes his pictures are amusing (but not always).

Send the man his $30! You'll learn stuff, and it will only make it take one day longer to save up for your APO 50 Summicron.

scott

Hi Scott,
I certainly did not mean to imply that it was wrong that he charges for his hard work. And in re-reading my post, I still don't see that inference.
I apologize if you thought otherwise. However, as Godfrey said, his model on how to read his postings does not work for me... So that puts my one day closer to the 50 than if I had paid...
Best,
Bob

 

[Vivek]

Send the man his $30! You'll learn stuff, and it will only make it take one day longer to save up for your APO 50 Summicron.

scott

Learn what? How to waste time and pay a Leica pusher for it?

I would rather buy a good book and/or attend a workshop to learn a thing or two.

 

[asiafish]

I'm not sending him any more money until he comes up with some way to read his content that doesn't suck rocks. No matter how wonderful his reviews are, they do me no good if I can't read them and use them in a reasonable manner, like maybe a PDF file that I can read, annotate, or print. And if he doesn't trust me to respect his copyright as his customer, well, why should I want to do business with him?

G

I subscribe and his content worth the cost. That said, I really hate not being able to read it on my iPad.

 

[algrove]

Just thought I would mention that there is a new FW update for the M246 and this is even before one has been delivered.