Professional review of M9 Monochrome

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Keith

They are good photos but I don't like the processing. The range of tones in them seems limited to me and I agree that they do look like Acros ... but Acros that has been pushed a stop or two! The one photo that I've seen that impressed me the most from this camera was posted in the China thread ... the range of tones in this blows my mind but I'm not seeing that in the photos shown in this review ... they look overly contrasty to me and not representative of what the camera may be capable of!

"... but Acros that has been pushed a stop or two!" Best description of the tonality exhibited in these examples....

My first impressions with them "Looks great, sharpness in MF quality but where are the tones? Where are the long gradation of mid-grays?".. As if the pictures transformed into graphite pencil drawings where blacks and charcoal grays happened to be the dominant tones.. I checked indoor as well as outdoor shots; the same "short" tonality, almost the same gray pattern. The cat on the stairs is "gloomy", the "Cityscape" (daylight!), how many zones can you detect? Eight? Nine? Try to count the same on a well exposed Acros shot for example.

Ming Thein, undoubtedly is a talented professional and I love to read his reviews as a working professional, not like some other desktop reviewers. However note what he says there about the issues of landing on with proper exposure for proper rendering/depiction of tones.

In my former posts I have been pointing to the increase of resolution & sharpness obtained through the elimination of the CFA together with my doubts about the possibility of dynamic range change at the end. With some reservation I would still be waiting for some insightful b&w comparison tests between the Monochrom and the regular M9.. For I think I have sufficient idea of how the regular M9 turn out b&w; and in my eyes they were mostly "different" than the samples of Mr. Thein. Even some M9 users may confirm what I am trying to point to.

[Benjamin Marks]

I thought the images were extraordinary for their tonal range. If I were able to get those results out of TMAX 100, I would be thrilled. Whether the subject matter is your cup of tea is another question, but not one, I think, that should take away from the tonal gradations and detail that Ming was able to render in his shots. In fact, I had safely placed all lust for this camera away in a deep dark place based on the rather flat tonal range that all of the Day 1 images posted to the web evinced. Not these though. Wow.

[Keith]

Sorry but I'm not seeing that tonal range! These examples remind me a lot of the work of RFFer Mitch Alland and his excellent black and images from Thailand courtesy of a GRD where the limited range of the GRD's sensor is not really an issue because it's not pretending to be the holy grail of digital black and white.

[MCTuomey]

It's way too early to make judgments of the kind Bob is suggesting, certainly without the benefit of seeing good prints or, at minimum, viewing the files on a high-end B&W monitor.

Here's a M9M v M9 comparison from getdpi, though many prolly have seen it already:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/leica-...ed-m9-dng.html

[MikeL]

Dang, I sure like what I see. The tonal range, across the range of photos and light conditions, even potentially masked by his personal processing decisions, looks pretty nice on my monitor.

I like what I'm seeing in the bright transition zones, and from my armchair it looks like a fine camera for those who know how to expose and process (like those do as evident in the BW digital thread).

Originally Posted by MCTuomey

It's way too early to make judgments of the kind Bob is suggesting, certainly without the benefit of seeing good prints or, at minimum, viewing the files on a high-end B&W monitor.

Mike, are you trying to bring reason to RFF, the nerve!

[victoriapio]

tantalizing revew and i agree with Keith: the processing of the images is very nice but does not demonstrate the range of f-stops available with the MM and 50 APO. Even in compressed jpgs the detail looks amazing to me, although judging image qualty on the internet is pure folly. Still , we are getting closer to the digital grail here. I wonder if Harry Lime has seen this review?

[BobYIL]

A fine media for B&W, be it film, photographic paper or digital output or LCD display, should be able to reproduce the luminance tonalities of the "recorded" close to what they are perceived by human eye. There can not be a more important criteria for B&W than the gray-scala of a reproduction; that's why almost all prominent landscape photographers worked with large-format cameras: Sharpness as well as tonality.

Once it's reproduced in close-to-real tones then it's up to the photographer to "play" with the contrast, brightness, saturation, burning-in, dodging, etc., i.e. the "correct information" has to be available on the recording. In other words, the recording device should not realize it with compromises or by compressing the gradation; it's prime function should be to "reproduce" as true-to-nature as possible. (Similar to hi-fi in music...)

The above sample is from another professional, yo_tuco, who works with film, to demonstrate how tones are to be recorded close to what is perceived by eye.

(Once my D800E arrives I will test it B&W and side-by-side against my M3 with HP5 and Acros, to see how the highest dynamic range measured so far in camera industry would stand for tonality against a well processed 35mm film.)

[noimmunity]

Based on what I've seen, I would not want to use the MM with 50 AA for human faces at close distances. I'm not manic about avoiding high fidelity etching of skin blemishes and wrinkles--in fact, I used to love the 75 AA summicron for portraits. The new 50 used on the new MM, however, is a different story. In fact, it's not just photos of the experienced that worry me. Used on very young people, it would produce an effect that seems unreal to me. On the other hand, the combination of the MM with legacy lenses might be a real winner.

[Speedfreak]

Finally someone who knows how to properly process black and white. Not the dull, low contrast shots we´ve seen here before.

[jasonhumor]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

A fine media for B&W, be it film, photographic paper or digital output or LCD display, should be able to reproduce the luminance tonalities of the "recorded" close to what they are perceived by human eye. There can not be a more important criteria for B&W than the gray-scala of a reproduction; that's why almost all prominent landscape photographers worked with large-format cameras: Sharpness as well as tonality.

Once it's reproduced in close-to-real tones then it's up to the photographer to "play" with the contrast, brightness, saturation, burning-in, dodging, etc., i.e. the "correct information" has to be available on the recording. In other words, the recording device should not realize it with compromises or by compressing the gradation; it's prime function should be to "reproduce" as true-to-nature as possible. (Similar to hi-fi in music...)

The above sample is from another professional, yo_tuco, who works with film, to demonstrate how tones are to be recorded close to what is perceived by eye.

(Once my D800E arrives I will test it B&W and side-by-side against my M3 with HP5 and Acros, to see how the highest dynamic range measured so far in camera industry would stand for tonality against a well processed 35mm film.)

When I see the photo which produce the near perfect tonality, just Beauty comes to my mind. very pleasing photo - actually amazing gradual tone change.

[bigeye]

A lot more useful information than found here on fujifinderforum.com:

The MM has a level of clarity and acuity at the pixel level that so far has only been seen on Foveon sensors; however, even those start to become a weak at ISO 800 and above. The MM maintains its acuity all the way through the maximum ISO, though above ISO 5000 noise dominates the microcontrast structure of the image.

...the MM’s high ISO capabilities encourage you to stop down a little more to get the most out of the lens; there’s little noise penalty associated with shooting a stop or two down from your normal aperture. In fact, the camera encourages you to see and think about your images in a very different way: aside from the increased depth of field available, there’s also more dynamic range on tap. The overall look of the images is redolent of medium format – from the tonality to the microcontrast structure.

The decision to release the 50 AA with the MM left me scratching my head – but having seen the resolving power of this sensor, it makes complete sense. None of the lenses were capable of delivering the same cross-frame performance on the MM as the 50 AA, though the Zeiss 2/50 ran very close especially at smaller apertures.

The next obvious difference is a 1-1.5 stop noise advantage in favor of the MM; however, the difference isn’t quite as clear cut as that, because the MM retains detail much better than the M9.

...In practical terms, this means the MM is probably more like 2-2.5 stops more useable than the M9.

The MM, on the other hand, can be set to ISO 2500 with little noise penalty – at 100% magnification it appears as very, very fine grain; perhaps comparable to an ISO 400 B&W film. Better yet, there doesn’t appear to be much loss of dynamic range, either.

Looking at luminance only... greatly improved the impact of my output.

...the camera forces you to recalibrate the way you see the world.

I’m going to conclude by saying that the MM is not the camera for everybody. It’s not easy to see luminance only; if you can’t, you’re honestly going to get better results by shooting a color camera and then mastering the conversion process afterwards.

.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by dogberryjr

FTA: "The M-Monochrom (MM from here onwards) is essentially the same camera as the M9-P, but with the bayer filter covering the sensor removed, and a rejigged processing algorithm."

So, theoretically, one could send their M9 to Solms to be converted to an M9 Monochrom?

No, firstly he has it wrong, as the Bayer filter is replaced by a clear filter (not that that makes an essential difference), and secondly the price would be prohibitive. Cheaper to sell your M9 on eBay and buy an M Monochrom. Thirdly Leica prefers to sell new cameras. Maybe in the future....

[shadowfox]

Let me get this straight:

1. Here you have a modern camera, with a top notch, relatively up-to-date sensor.
2. You also have optically brilliant lenses to put in front of that camera
3. The camera is customized to produce B&W pictures.
4. It's a digital camera, where you can preview your shots and has zero quality-degrading transition to any good photo-processing software.

If you *still* can't get a good B&W out of the above outfit. The problem is not the camera.

A review that only showcase the *technical* excellence of this camera is darn near useless to me. I'm not bashing this particular review or reviewer (appreciate his effort) but more generally speaking.

[dogberryjr]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Thirdly Leica prefers to sell new cameras. Maybe in the future....

That may just be the case, and if so, it's an unfortunate departure from their old ways. Think of how many Barnacks were upgraded by Leica over the years, or for that matter, how many M8u upgrades they performed.

[Keith]

1. Here you have a modern camera, with a top notch, relatively up-to-date sensor.

... Pardon?

[jaapv]

Lets replace that by " top-notch up-to-date CCD sensor", that should make it more clear. For those that dislike the CMos look, <and they are right imo>, there is no better offering on the market than the M9 / M Monochrom sensor.

[boomguy57]

Whatever. Until Ken Rantwell reviews it, it's nothing to me.

[kshapero]

Well I was able to hold one the other day. Considering that there was no exchange of money (heck all I did was hold it), it was a very good day.

[willie_901]

Does anyone know how important apo-chromatic optics are to get the maximum benefit of the M9M body?

Without RGB microlense filters, wouldn't blue light hit a different sensor site than red light? Could this affect the image quality?

If not, then why did Leice release a 50mm apo-chromatic lens with the M9M?

[Turtle]

Wasn't there a review reposted on GetDpi that said the 50 ZM Planar was darned close to the new Summicron APO asph on the MM?

While everyone seems to be getting really excited by the new 50mm on the MM, I struggle to see why. Personally, the last thing I would do, would be to combine a very clinical, ultra high contrast lens, with a very high resolution digital sensor (for all the reasons Sean Reid was no fan of doing so with the M8 and beyond). Surely you will end up having to underexpose like hell in high contrast conditions to prevent the highlights blowing (as there are no colour channels to recover info from) and then have to hike the shadows like hell? Leica MM + old school glass sounds like a much better idea to tame the sensor and produce files with bags of tonality. IMHO, when shooting more detailed 'scenes' you tend to be able to stop down anyway, so these older lenses still resolve insane amounts a stop or two down.

[Turtle]

I've just done some messing around with the bicycle files knocking around comparing the M9 and MM and here are my conclusions based on a desire to get 'good looking files I like' out of them both. I was using LR3.

It is clear that Leicas claim that the MM has greater green sensitivity is true. The foliage was quite a challenge.

Getting the right tonal separation to be pleasing to a silver gelatin lover was much harder with the MM, but when I finally got there, I was marginally happier with the MM than with the M9 file (just). But boy, it was harder. I generally had to pull the highlights in, use a pretty strong S curve to get some real mid tone guts into the image, with the toe and shoulder keeping things in check elsewhere in the scale... mess with contrast much more than I would normally etc etc

With the right curve to introduce mid tone contrast, which appeared entirely lacking in the original MM file, the resolution advantage stood out very clearly. This won't be obvious in an A3 print, sure, but if you are going to make a 40 or 60" print for exhibition, I think the difference will be obvious for anyone who cares. If the scene contains fine details, such as tiny distant buildings, or foliage, the MM will have a clear and visible advantage. The same goes for the more subtle tonal transitions in the MM. I'm used to silver prints and I take for granted the insane greyscale and subtle transitions. The MM is a solid leap from the M9 file in this regard.

I can't say I like the look of the straight files knocking around on the web. In short, they are pretty awful, but in all cases where I have been able to download a DNG, I have been able to make a huge improvement and arrive at files I think are OK fairly quickly. Not as quickly as a colour file, though.

I will be most interested to see how the files look when not shoot on a technically perfect high contrast lens, but on those with lower contrast.

I am not convinced by the MM in the look department... and I was nearly horrified when I opened the files initially in LR3.... but I see some serious potential here, especially if you are prepared to use colour filters (I am).

FWIW that the MM produces images that are like Acros is not good IMO. Unless shooting architecture or shiny stuff, I can't stand films like Acros and were they the only ones available, I would have stopped wet printing five years ago! I think the notion that the MM will produce great B&W files right out the camera is completely the wrong message. it should be that it will 'perhaps' produce the best files you have ever seen out of a FF camera, but you have better be prepared to work for it

In summary, I would say this about the tonal transitions:

The MM transitions are to the M9's what 5x4" is to 6x7cmi.e. a 'format leap, but at the upper end'. It is not the quantum leap you get when going from 35mm TriX to MF.

To my eye, it makes the images look more natural and better photographic depictions of reality. The converted M9 files still have that 'more digital' look i.e. where the MM files give you a sense of 'the scene', the M9 files are give you 'a picture of the scene'.

Since I started this post, I went back and completely reworked the M9 file and I still cannot get it as good as the MM. I got closer, but the sense of natural sharpness/resolution deficit is still there and the tonal richness of the MM really shines. No amount of sharpening can bring the same sense of detail the MM possesses in areas where tiny weeny details exist, but you can get close elsewhere. The end result id that the MM files still seem to have a bit more sparkle and 'naturalness'.

My conclusion after admittedly only messing with these files in LR3 for an hour and a half is that if you are a home printer and make A3+ prints, I cannot imagine the MM will be worth it. In fact, it might be a bad idea because you will have less flexibility and more work to do. If you make very large B&W prints and work only in this medium, it might well be worth it. I'll have to make real prints to be sure (but currently stuck in Kabul).

My second concluson (!!) is that if you like heavily processed images, with added grain, heavily reworked tonal scale etc (i.e. Jacob Sobol look) the MM is a complete waste of time because you are throwing away all the things which (just) set it apart.

[Turtle]

A word I use when I see a really good B&W print is 'juicy' and some of you might understand why.

The MM files, at high mag, look 'juicier.' I suspect it in this case it is a product of more resolution and more subtle tonal relationships.

The question of 'normal viewing distance' will be a good one though. Those who walk up to big prints and really have a look will clearly get more from MM prints, but at NVD I suspect the improvement is well below the threshold of visibility.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I've just done some messing around with the bicycle files knocking around comparing the M9 and MM and here are my conclusions based on a desire to get 'good looking files I like' out of them both. I was using LR3.

It is clear that Leicas claim that the MM has greater green sensitivity is true. The foliage was quite a challenge.

Getting the right tonal separation to be pleasing to a silver gelatin lover was much harder with the MM, but when I finally got there, I was marginally happier with the MM than with the M9 file (just). But boy, it was harder. I generally had to pull the highlights in, use a pretty strong S curve to get some real mid tone guts into the image, with the toe and shoulder keeping things in check elsewhere in the scale... mess with contrast much more than I would normally etc etc

With the right curve to introduce mid tone contrast, which appeared entirely lacking in the original MM file, the resolution advantage stood out very clearly. This won't be obvious in an A3 print, sure, but if you are going to make a 40 or 60" print for exhibition, I think the difference will be obvious for anyone who cares. If the scene contains fine details, such as tiny distant buildings, or foliage, the MM will have a clear and visible advantage. The same goes for the more subtle tonal transitions in the MM. I'm used to silver prints and I take for granted the insane greyscale and subtle transitions. The MM is a solid leap from the M9 file in this regard.

I can't say I like the look of the straight files knocking around on the web. In short, they are pretty awful, but in all cases where I have been able to download a DNG, I have been able to make a huge improvement and arrive at files I think are OK fairly quickly. Not as quickly as a colour file, though.

I will be most interested to see how the files look when not shoot on a technically perfect high contrast lens, but on those with lower contrast.

I am not convinced by the MM in the look department... and I was nearly horrified when I opened the files initially in LR3.... but I see some serious potential here, especially if you are prepared to use colour filters (I am).

FWIW that the MM produces images that are like Acros is not good IMO. Unless shooting architecture or shiny stuff, I can't stand films like Acros and were they the only ones available, I would have stopped wet printing five years ago! I think the notion that the MM will produce great B&W files right out the camera is completely the wrong message. it should be that it will 'perhaps' produce the best files you have ever seen out of a FF camera, but you have better be prepared to work for it

In summary, I would say this about the tonal transitions:

The MM transitions are to the M9's what 5x4" is to 6x7cmi.e. a 'format leap, but at the upper end'. It is not the quantum leap you get when going from 35mm TriX to MF.

To my eye, it makes the images look more natural and better photographic depictions of reality. The converted M9 files still have that 'more digital' look i.e. where the MM files give you a sense of 'the scene', the M9 files are give you 'a picture of the scene'.

Since I started this post, I went back and completely reworked the M9 file and I still cannot get it as good as the MM. I got closer, but the sense of natural sharpness/resolution deficit is still there and the tonal richness of the MM really shines. No amount of sharpening can bring the same sense of detail the MM possesses in areas where tiny weeny details exist, but you can get close elsewhere. The end result id that the MM files still seem to have a bit more sparkle and 'naturalness'.

My conclusion after admittedly only messing with these files in LR3 for an hour and a half is that if you are a home printer and make A3+ prints, I cannot imagine the MM will be worth it. In fact, it might be a bad idea because you will have less flexibility and more work to do. If you make very large B&W prints and work only in this medium, it might well be worth it. I'll have to make real prints to be sure (but currently stuck in Kabul).

My second concluson (!!) is that if you like heavily processed images, with added grain, heavily reworked tonal scale etc (i.e. Jacob Sobol look) the MM is a complete waste of time because you are throwing away all the things which (just) set it apart.

Great write up, and interesting insight. Any images comparing the two files at hand? Would be interesting to see the difference between the two, even though there would obviously be some things you could never judge from a web-size image

[Turtle]

Just to be clear, I have worked on these files to tell me what I need to know and am posting them here in case anyone wants to take them for what they are. I am not going to write 100000 words on my methodology or defend what I have or have not done!

I broadly worked the files to the starting point at which I would bother trying to make the best possible image. I suspect that from a 'photo' perspective, the M9 file would yield a far better bike photo because the MM has rendered the leaves very light and with the colour channels the M9 file will allow for much better separation of the bike and leaves. The only fair comparison would be against filtered MM shots.

The bridge image I just tried to make a pleasant looking photo and left it there. It took about 3 mins from the original.

I used default sharpening on the M9 and MM bike files, because although you can get the M9 files close with sharpening, you can also sharpen the MM files and they steal the lead back comfortably.

The main issue is microcontrast and detail but much more of the difference between cropped images is visible in LR than in these piddling JPEGs. There will be some differences in the images, due to the differences in what I had to do to them, but they could both be heavily reworked from here.

[Turtle]

M9 file first, or on left however they are displayed. I think!