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!

the monochrom - CCD vs CMOS

SrMphoto

Well-known member
very interesting comparison
Hmm, that “non-scientific” study was done by the company that does the conversions on Sony A7r cameras, there may be an inherent conflict of interest.

As an an owner and now only occasional user of Sony A7rII, I would strongly advise you against buying it. The lens QC issues and horrible ergonomics tend to suck the joy out of photography. Of course, YMMV, and you may not care about the mentioned issues.

Back to your original question, the following articles compare the monochrom CCD and CMOS:
https://www.reddotforum.com/content...chrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/

http://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/1/2/monochrome-comparison-3

From what I have gathered the CMOS version is the one to get.
 

trioderob

Member
Hmm, that “non-scientific” study was done by the company that does the conversions on Sony A7r cameras, there may be an inherent conflict of interest.

As an an owner and now only occasional user of Sony A7rII, I would strongly advise you against buying it. The lens QC issues and horrible ergonomics tend to suck the joy out of photography. Of course, YMMV, and you may not care about the mentioned issues.

Back to your original question, the following articles compare the monochrom CCD and CMOS:
https://www.reddotforum.com/content...chrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/

Monochromatic Rendering - Comparing the Leica M10, Leica M240, Leica M246, Leica M9, Leica MM, Leica SL, and the Leica M6 + Agfa APX 400 ? STREET SILHOUETTES

From what I have gathered the CMOS version is the one to get.
ya - I hate the ergos of the Sony and as such have never purchased one.

as a ref - I have a Ricoh GR II and love the ergos

maybe a converted Ricoh ?????

I have heard that the CCD version has better tonality - is that hogwash ?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
" M9M is a little more film-like than that of the M240 and has less image smearing."

per the review stated above - all I care about is that it is film like
Who reviewed it?

Is that with the old exfoliating sensor cover or the new one which is identical to that of the MM2’s?

FWIW, I still own the MM and a mono converted A7rII (unlike the opinionated poster above)
 
Like Vivek, I've owned both simultaneously, but no longer have a Leica body. Here's the whole story – including a suggestion that an A7r2 for landscapes pairs marvelously with an RX1rII for street photography.

Initially I checked the original MM against the Sony A7r2 for BW with Leica MATE on both bodies and found that at middle aperture and for 15x22.5" prints on 17x25" paper, the results were for all practical purposes identical in image quality. 18MP in monochrome didn't offer better resolution or tonality than a 42MP BW conversion.

For me, a compellingly important difference for BW work was that the Sony color files allow use of the LR/ACR sliders to rebalance the tones of an image in conversion to BW. This is equivalent to being able to use, after exposure, any filter you might have chosen to use on the the Leica (or with PS to use different filters in different areas of the image).

I then purchased an A7r2 with the Kolari modification, which replaces the Sony sensor cover with one that's the same thickness as Leica's – thus improving corner resolution and reducing tinting with Leica lenses.

For a while I alternated between the OEM and Kolari Sony bodies, because I'd heard that the Kolari mod might have a negative effect when using Sony or other non-Leica lenses. But when I tested Sony and Zeiss C/Y lenses on the Kolari body, I found no degradation of the images – for some lenses, actually the contrary.

I consequently sold both my MM and the OEM A7r2, and for almost two years used the Kolari A7rII with MATE and WATE for BW landscape photography – and added a TAP adapter so I could autofocus with a Noctilux. I still keep the modified A7r2 and some Leica lenses as a backup for GFX.

I've demonstrated to my own satisfaction that MM and A7rI2 BW image quality are interchangeable – images from both appear in this portfolio, and prints of the size I mentioned show no inconsistency in rendering: SHADOWSCAPES - Kirk Thompson Photography

If, for landscape photography, BW IQ is virtually interchangeable and A7r2 allows use of color sliders in post-processing, then the only/big/remaining Leica advantage is ergonomics. Here there are two main trade-offs – whether or not you want a rangefinder, or autofocus, for 'people pictures'; and whether or not it bothers you to hold the A7r2 in your hands. It's just not as gratifying as holding a Leica. But I nevertheless found myself tending to leave the M-E that I used for street photography at home, instead picking up the Sony with inexpensive 28mm AF lens, because the larger sensor allowed cropping that was equivalent to using both 28 and 35 on Leica.

And there's one more chapter to all this! So that my street camera would match images from my more formal work, I tried the RX1rII, with same sensor as A7r2 – and this was sort of a Goldilocks moment. Fitted with a Metro grip, a ThumbsUp, a Fotodiox hood, and a large shutter release button, and used on a wrist strap, this darned thing felt more like my old M4 than anything, including any Leica, that I'd handled in the digital era. Its 35mm Zeiss lens renders a lot like a Summicron (except for distortion, which is autocorrected with software). The little viewfinder is of course an EVF, as on the Q – which means drawbacks in visibility, but plusses in framing accuracy. Though I don't do it, some choose to shoot on the street from waist level, using the articulated LCD.

So my conclusion is that Leica offers no advantage over Sony for BW work, either for landscapes or for street photography – though for the two I've used different Sonys.

Lest I come across as a trolling Sony fanboy, I'll add that I was religiously loyal to Leica, never mind the expense, from 1973 until just a few years ago. I started using Sony only because of terrible experiences with Leica quality control and USA service: two lenses delivered out-of-adjustment, a new body whose shutter release mechanism came loose, a four-month service trip for a Frankenfinder, and then a five-month wait for an M9 sensor replacement – not corrosion, but my second experience with a Leica sensor that cracked of its own accord in a corner. I use Leica, not Sony, lenses (and sometimes Zeiss C/Y lenses) on Sony and will probably never part with my 35 Cron, my MATE, or my WATE. But I an find no reason at all – IQ, reliability, even ergonomics – to suggest the OP should choose the original MM over Sony.

I can't advise re: the newer version of Monochrom – I've had ony the briefest experience with it.

Kirk
 
Last edited:

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Very nice landscapes Kirk.

Perhaps it does come down to ergonomics for some ... willing to put up with the Leica QC and repair
foibles. Personally I prefer the monochrom output but do admit that with newer software and
a bit of work color to bw conversions can be compelling.

Of note to the OP battery life and EVF functionality is way better with the M246.

However the default responsiveness of the original MM to highlights is preferred by some.

So many good choices these days ....

Bob
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Stunning work, Kirk.

Is some of the tonal sophistication due to the filtering you mentioned? If so, a good case for conversions from color.
 

airfrogusmc

Well-known member
One thing to consider that a B&W sensor like the original MM 18MP has the sharpness of a 36MP color sensor because the sensor it doesn't have RGB so the new 24mp MM is a lot like a 48 MP sensor sharpness speaking. I have the original and if the M 10 MM comes out I might think about upgrading but that would be because of how responsive the M 10 is but as of now I have no desire to upgrade.

Color vs. Monochrome Sensors

https://www.azooptics.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=1122

Difference between Color Sensor and Monochrome Sensor | Color Sensor Vs Monochrome Sensor
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
The CFA on a color camera basically have the three color separation filters on it. So, that give a lot of control in post to mix channels. But if you simply want the look of a Wratten Red 25, the color of the red CFA pixels, you will do a lot better with a monochrome sensor and red filter on your camera in terms of rendering and resolution. Channel mixing to narrow spectra leads to artifacts as well. Since your pixels are unfiltered, there is an exposure/noise benefit to monochrome, even when using filters. Since post production b&w conversion happens to a color file, the tonality will be different as colors like blue are darker from a color file than a monochrome one. So you might actually need to filter your monochrome camera to give more contrast to your scene. Naturally, with a monochrome camera, you can filter to a narrower spectra than the CFSs on a color camera.

Personally, if I was buying this for the first time (I have not used either), I would go for the CMOS over the CCD as it would have a greater DR and less noise. However, if you think a narrower DR and noise results in more film-like qualities, then the CCD could be better, but you can always push the ISO on the CMOS and play with contrast in post to match the CCD. And while CMOS can have dead pixels, CCDs can have a dead line of pixels, which could be a really pain.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I am happy with any discussion on monochrome imaging. I am very fortunate to own the original MM (the first affordable monochrome camera), a monochrome converted NEX-5N and a monochrome converted A7rII. Results from all three are, for me, delightful.

The monochrome converted cameras allow for imaging in UV, Visible and IR with appropriate choice of filters and lenses. This is one great advantage over the others.

If you are averse to Sony (I can understand though I do not agree with it from my own experience), I would save up for the rumored M10 monochrome. No doubt, it willl be more refined over the earlier ones.

I would ask those of you with interest in monochrome Leicas to lobby Astronomik and STC to make dro in filters for Leica cameras as well as lobby Leica to make “full spectrum” monochrome cameras.

Drop in filters (I use them in my A7rII(m) ) are incredibly useful in that they allow the use of many lenses with varying filter dimensions.
 
Top