The New Monochrom - a fine report

[Shashin]

As I said before, if he doesn't trust me as his paying customer to use his material in the way that I might use ANY review material, available anywhere else, then why should I be bothered to deal with him?

I don't think it is you personally. There have been one or two cases where people on the internet have not respected other people's copyright and so these measures seem to be needed.

Personally, I think I can be a little more forgiving to people worried about others stealing their work than people that find the control of that work a hinderance. When you look at the toll on the incomes of creative workers since the the invention of the WWW, it has been devastating. The only one to seem to make money with photography these days is Kim Kardashian--check out her new photography book--unbelievable!

 

[segedi]

But there isn't really any security anywhere - you can just take a screenshot and there you are. So I still think he should make it iPad friendly.

Yep, coupled with OCR software and his content is easily taken.

My wish is that he would ditch the subscription model and sell each review as an ebook. I found the content very helpful in making purchasing decisions. But the tech and the colours, not so much. And not every review topic appealed to me.

 

[Godfrey]

It's noticeable at iso12500.
Take a look at the DNG files from Thorsten Overgaard, particularly portrait of the lady with a hat (shot with Leica 50mm Noctilux-M ASPH f/0.95 at f/0.95, 12500 ISO)
http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M-Mon...r-page-26-The-Leica-M-246-CMOS-Monochrom.html

Yes, it's noticeable at ISO 12500 ... more so when you've pushed Process 2010 instead of the current raw process version and are looking at the image at 1:1 pixel resolution!

I don't know whether a small amount of pattern noise at stressed-out ISO 12500 is really a problem. I doubt it would ever be visible in any reasonably sized print. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't generally look at photos at 1:1 pixel resolution on display or paper.

I printed an 11x17 of the photo onto Hahnemühle Bamboo paper. There's no pattern evident in the print. The quality is amazing for an ISO 12500 capture at that size.

G

 

[Vivek]

It's noticeable at iso12500.
Take a look at the DNG files from Thorsten Overgaard, particularly portrait of the lady with a hat (shot with Leica 50mm Noctilux-M ASPH f/0.95 at f/0.95, 12500 ISO)
http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M-Mon...r-page-26-The-Leica-M-246-CMOS-Monochrom.html

Not pretty. The Sony A7s is the beast to go to for low light, high ISO shots. Perhaps they should do a comparison shoot out with the A7s/Zhongyi Mitakon 50/0.95 vs MM2/Noctilux 50/0.95.

(FWIW, there are artifacts visible in Jono's first shot of the Cellist at ISO6400. I assumed that it would be from an earlier firmware- or atleast that is what I expected the explanation would be.)

 

[overgaarcom]

Yes, it's noticeable at ISO 12500 ... more so when you've pushed Process 2010 instead of the current raw process version and are looking at the image at 1:1 pixel resolution!

I don't know whether a small amount of pattern noise at stressed-out ISO 12500 is really a problem. I doubt it would ever be visible in any reasonably sized print. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't generally look at photos at 1:1 pixel resolution on display or paper.

I printed an 11x17 of the photo onto Hahnemühle Bamboo paper. There's no pattern evident in the print. The quality is amazing for an ISO 12500 capture at that size.

G

The file is there for download, and if you change to Process 2012 you will see a slight reduction, but when adjusted to the final look of the image it is very close between Proccess 2010 and Process 2012.

(I happen to prefer 2010 because it gives a more classic look and allow much more lifting of shadow details. I find the Process 2012 too artificial looking).

It's the lifting of the shadows and the adjustment of exposure that create the more noise.

I personally don't see it as a problem but many have been stirring at that pattern.

I am more concerned what the actual b&w difference is between M240 and M246.

 

[Godfrey]

The file is there for download, and if you change to Process 2012 you will see a slight reduction, but when adjusted to the final look of the image it is very close between Proccess 2010 and Process 2012.

(I happen to prefer 2010 because it gives a more classic look and allow much more lifting of shadow details. I find the Process 2012 too artificial looking).

It's the lifting of the shadows and the adjustment of exposure that create the more noise.

I personally don't see it as a problem but many have been stirring at that pattern.

I am more concerned what the actual b&w difference is between M240 and M246.

I downloaded it and experimented with it for a bit in LR6 before commenting. I disagree. I feel the image is about a third to half stop underexposed, considering the extremely elevated ISO setting and its reduced dynamic range. I wouldn't shoot at 12500 ISO if I was looking for 1600 ISO tonality. Process 2010 just makes it look worse, IMO. And remember that LR6 does not have an optimized calibration curve for the MM246 yet.

It's a subjective thing, however—like one person might prefer Rodinal 1:100 vs another person's HC-110 dilution F. As I said, however, printed to an 11x17, no noise is evident when I look at the image as a photograph rather than with a magnifying glass. Fixating more on what the 1:1 pixel display looks like than on what a sensibly sized print (or realistically sized monitor display for web use) looks like is, to me, counter-productive. It's getting lost in the technology rather than enjoying the photography.

The difference between M240 rendered to BW and MM246 is the interesting thing, I agree. At/near base ISO, the differences are small; at these insane sensitivities, they're two very different animals from what I've seen so far.

I eagerly await the arrival of my MM246.

G

 

[jonoslack]

(FWIW, there are artifacts visible in Jono's first shot of the Cellist at ISO6400. I assumed that it would be from an earlier firmware- or atleast that is what I expected the explanation would be.)

Hi there Vivek - that wasn't just an early version of the firmware, it was also a very early prototype camera (an exciting and unpredictable beast ) - added to which there was some pretty heavy processing of that shot (I still like it though)

 

[algrove]

Such is the life of a reviewer. I do not envy you Jono.

 

[Vivek]

Hi there Vivek - that wasn't just an early version of the firmware, it was also a very early prototype camera (an exciting and unpredictable beast ) - added to which there was some pretty heavy processing of that shot (I still like it though)

I like it too, Jono!

Very film like, complete with fine scratches and such (although it does not attest to the high ISO performance of the MM2).

 

[jonoslack]

I like it too, Jono!

Very film like, complete with fine scratches and such (although it does not attest to the high ISO performance of the MM2).

It certainly doesn't . .. but I thought it was good enough to put it in there. Must clean that sensor and report back :lecture:

 

[jonoslack]

Such is the life of a reviewer. I do not envy you Jono.

Thanks Lou - but mostly I enjoy it, and dealing with the rubbish is therapeutic . . . not that there's any rubbish here!

 

[Amin]

Thanks Lou - but mostly I enjoy it, and dealing with the rubbish is therapeutic . . . not that there's any rubbish here!

:chug:

 

[rga]

Part II of Erwin Puts' tests on the new Monochrom (MM-II):
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-50/

Quite telling...

 

[Vivek]

BTW, the good news is that according to Jono (via PMs), the rubbish does get cleaned up on the MM2's sensor and it appears that the cover plate is more robust than that of the MM.

 

[algrove]

BTW, the good news is that according to Jono (via PMs), the rubbish does get cleaned up on the MM2's sensor and it appears that the cover plate is more robust than that of the MM.

Vivek
Time for an upgrade next year?

 

[Vivek]

Lou, No. I am not quite convinced that the MM2 would do anything for me other than being a drain on my cash. Will use the MM until it dies and continue to update the M lenses. I am very happy with the A7s and would like to get another.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Reading Puts' review I got the impression that IQ-wise nothing is really gained by the MM2.

 

[Godfrey]

Reading Puts' review I got the impression that IQ-wise nothing is really gained by the MM2 [MM246 gdg].

That may be true, but the rest of the camera is so much better that it's well worth buying the MM246 over the MM9, since I have neither.

Of course, Erwin's report is at odds to what Egor's test photos suggest... I suspect I'll learn what I'd really like to know once mine is delivered. ;-)

G

 

[thompsonkirk]

I just read Puts Pt. II – thanks for the link above. He's nearly persuaded me to forego the M246, since I never use very high ISOs. But there's one thing I'm concerned about, and that's whether or not 246 can improve noticeably on what my MM does worst: separation of upper-upper midrange and highlights, or what we used to call Zones VII – VIII. Here's a bad example (if not a very interesting photograph):

This is just a test by Kirk Thompson, on Flickr

Wanting to show the remarkable lightness/brightness of youthful ferns, I photographed this with a light yellow filter. This is what the image looks like with a moderate dose of PS processing. If I were actually to print it (I won't), I'd use Tony Kuyper's Zone System masks to get more differentiated highlights; but the point is that this is the best the sensor can do all-by-itself. And it's just not very subtle, is it?

From the few examples I've seen – and as well as one can judge from Internet JPGs – the M246 might have an edge over MM in delivering shimmering highlights?

Kirk

PS, I bracketed several frames/files to be sure there were no clipped highlights. MM, MATE @ 28mm. This is two overlapping exposures, stitched, so the square image is larger than a FF file. Stitching doesn't alter tonalities.

 

[Vivek]

Kirk, i believe that it comes down to better metering. The MM2 has a better metering protocol than the rather primitive metering in the MM. Why not underexposed and PP to your taste later?

Edit. I see your addendum.