Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Digital Rangefinder Cameras > Digital Leica M8 / M8.2 / M9 / M-E /Mono / M10 aka "M"

Digital Leica M8 / M8.2 / M9 / M-E /Mono / M10 aka "M" Discussions about the Leica M8 /M 8.2 / M9 / M9-P/ M-E / M Monochrom / M10 aka "M": Leica digital M mount rangefinder cameras. Naming the new digital M the "Leica M" is VERY unfortunate as it will only confuse newbies with other Leica M cameras of the the past. Happily there is room for confusion with only the past 59 years of Leica M production ... since Leica introduced the Leica M system in 1953. All Hail for the Leica Marketing Department learning Leica M history!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 04-23-2012   #101
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Anyone who would shell out $5000 + for a digital camera body with a 36 x 24mm sensor that only produces black and white needs their head examined IMO!

YMMV of course!
Yes, agreed!
__________________
__________________
Yaron
Film for B&W, digital for colour
My flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #102
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by 135format View Post
I thought that pixels as we get them in our image files were a combination of 3 receptors. i.e. Green, Red and Blue receptors. My asumption was that turning them all into luminance receptors would effectively give you three times as many pixels. Obviously I'm wrong on that one.
You're thinking of the Foveon sensor, which has three layers, each devoted to red, blue or green.

My understanding is that normal CMOS and CCD's determine RGB values at each sensor site by way of the Bayer filter. Each pixel measures the red, blue and green levels at that point; there is no separate receptor for each colour.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #103
BobYIL
Registered User
 
BobYIL's Avatar
 
BobYIL is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,278
IMHO, B&W is not the strength of digital... also to shoot digital B&W one should not need to be so picky about the camera as the tonalities, gradations and film simulations will depend on the software together with the mastery employed during PP rather than the camera used. Further lens-sensor deficiencies like CA or color-shift toward corners would not be issue with B&W, so the less spec'd lenses could perform satisfactorily.

I wonder if the B&W version of the M9 would sell half of what the M9 did so far no matter even if it would be priced at $5.000.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #104
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archiver View Post
You're thinking of the Foveon sensor, which has three layers, each devoted to red, blue or green.

My understanding is that normal CMOS and CCD's determine RGB values at each sensor site by way of the Bayer filter. Each pixel measures the red, blue and green levels at that point; there is no separate receptor for each colour.
Very nice presentation on the subject by Rob Hummel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98FZ8C6HneE
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #105
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Anyone who would shell out $5000 + for a digital camera body with a 36 x 24mm sensor that only produces black and white needs their head examined IMO!
May I ask why? I'm a color photographer, but I could not say what you just said as an absolute.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #106
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,376
The point is moot, imo. I would not be surprised if an B&W camera, if it appears at all, would be a limited edition 15000 $ + camera....
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #107
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
May I ask why? I'm a color photographer, but I could not say what you just said as an absolute.


I never stated it as an absolute ... purely as my own opinon hence the IMO at the end of the sentence!

Followed up with a cautious YMMV
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #108
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,489
You're right Keith... didn't notice the IMO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #109
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
You're right Keith... didn't notice the IMO.

I knew you were around and I wasn't about to take any unecessary risks!
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #110
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I knew you were around and I wasn't about to take any unecessary risks!
Oh man, now I feel bad! Just so you know, I'm with you on the B&W only camera... for my needs. However, for some, I can see this camera being very intriguing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #111
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,214
Actually jaapv makes a good point about it being released as a limited edition for a silly price!

It would get snapped up .... as the HCB special maybe?
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #112
ramosa
Registered User
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 928
Interesting. I would never have interest in a limited edition with an inflated price tag. But that's just I. We just have such different wants ... of which, of course, none is better than another.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #113
taxi38
Taxi Driver
 
taxi38's Avatar
 
taxi38 is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Age: 58
Posts: 222
A question.......... if every pixel can be used to create shades of grey,or intensity,surely a black and white sensor must give a much sharper and more accurate image than a black and white image from a colour sensor which would give an average reading to a clump of 3 or 4 pixels.Both images would have the same pixel count but the image from the black and white sensor woulld be MUCH finer,not just 30% or so(this I imagine is connected to the extra green pixels)but a great deal more detail and definition,at least double.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #114
Nomad Z
Registered User
 
Nomad Z is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 389
I would have thought it would be more accurate, since there is no up-sampling due to the bayer reconstruction stuff.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #115
agianelo
Registered User
 
agianelo's Avatar
 
agianelo is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 115
In this article (Copyright Pete Myers):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...dak-760m.shtml


He Says: "Without an anti aliasing filter and no Bayer color matrix, the resolution of a 6 mega pixel monochrome camera is astonishing. In monochrome, 6 mega pixels effectively does what it takes 12-24 mega pixels with a color matrix. "

I think he sure would buy one of these B/W cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #116
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,244
I could imagine a B/W-only sensor with a higher bit sampling rate, say 24 bits or more, perhaps upwards of 28 to 32 bits, giving finer tonal gradations, especially in the highlight areas. Such a sensor would have to be designed as such from inception, not merely adapting a color sensor by removing the Bayer array.

I can also imagine such a sensor with much larger pixel sites, for improved low-light sensitivity.

I can also imagine the price would be extremely affordable, but I'm almost certain I'd be wrong on that count, too.

~Joe
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #117
135format
Registered User
 
135format is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
That is the Foveon story. it s a nice enough sensor, but marketing remains marketing.
Interesting because wikipedia is saying the exact opposite and that the bayer filter has to be de-mosaic'ed from 4 locations to arrive at a single pixel value whereas the foveon is layered so there is only one vertical location for each pixel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

edit:

having read some more it seems that bayer filter is nothing to do with it. It is what the software does with it that counts. So there would be zero increase in pixels by removing a bayer filter. And I don't see how there would be an increase with a foveon either.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #118
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,376
You are right. But one single pixel in the Foveon creates three values in RGB. Thus the marketing claimed a tripling of the resolution. However, geometrically that is nonsense, as the three pixel values are in the same location.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #119
135format
Registered User
 
135format is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 186
I see said the blind man. I've learnt something.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #120
Mephiloco
Registered User
 
Mephiloco is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NOLA
Posts: 486
As far as I know there is only one B&W digital camera that takes M Mount lenses, and it has a tiny sensor.
__________________
Leica M2, IIIc, Ricoh GXR/GXR-M
Collapsible 50/2 Summicron, CV 35/1.7, Elmar 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2012   #121
Shade
Registered User
 
Shade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 439
Is it wierd that somehow I like my M8 results better than my M9? Forget about ISO and full frame, just plain result in sufficient light. I like the M8 better still, really. Am I nuts?
__________________
Www.memorialucis.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2012   #122
taxi38
Taxi Driver
 
taxi38's Avatar
 
taxi38 is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Age: 58
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by agianelo View Post
In this article (Copyright Pete Myers):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...dak-760m.shtml


He Says: "Without an anti aliasing filter and no Bayer color matrix, the resolution of a 6 mega pixel monochrome camera is astonishing. In monochrome, 6 mega pixels effectively does what it takes 12-24 mega pixels with a color matrix. ".
Jaapv,youre obviously very knowledgable on these issues but I remain unsure .Are you saying this gentleman is wrong or at best overly enthusiastic and the differences between sensors in making a bw image are minimal?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2012   #123
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,376
Let's say he does not quantify his statement. Obviously leaving a filter off will result in more sharpness, and that is what he is seeing. However, if he were to count hairs he would find the number/size of detail rendered to be no different from a normal 6Mp sensor. The edge contrast of those details will be a lot better.
Resolution is about the number and size of the detail, not the sharpness.
And note the AA filter, that makes a 30 % difference in resolution.

The Foveon is a nice idea and an excellent sensor, but it never really made the grade. A bit like Betamax video casettes, better than VHS, but it never caught on.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2012   #124
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
 
Ezzie's Avatar
 
Ezzie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,666
B+W only digital sensor? Back to a bucket load of colour filters, adapters, step-up/down rings then. Why sacrifice the possibility of deciding how to filter the shot, and much more acutely I might add, when converting a colour RAW file to B+W in post? The main advantage of shooting B+W as digital colour in my mind. Unless of course the sensor is indeed colour, but only gives B+W output with digital colour filters built into the camera SW. In which case, what's the point?

Stick to silvercoated emulsion.
__________________
Eirik

RF: Leica M4-2 | Royal 35-M | Zorki I| Polaroid 110A/600SE hybrid
VF: DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x17 | Voigtländer Vito CL | Foth Derby | Welta Weltix
SLR: Canon EF | Pentacon SIX | Kiev 6C | Pentax SP1000 | Pentax SV | Exa
TLR: Rolleiflex 2.8E3 | Kalloflex K2 | DUO TLR
CSC: Fuji X-E1
Pinhole: 6x17 Vermeer | ONDU 6x6 | DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x24

My Flickr
Silver Halides - Pictures in B&W
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2012   #125
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shade View Post
Is it wierd that somehow I like my M8 results better than my M9? Forget about ISO and full frame, just plain result in sufficient light. I like the M8 better still, really. Am I nuts?
Yes, kind of.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:20.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.