Monochrom: First pics from Melbourne

[Tina Manley]

I have had my MM a few days now and have posted some of my initial experiments and comparisons:
http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/leicamm&page=all
I'm still just playing and learning how to expose, very different from the M9! So far, I'm very impressed with the amount of detail in the shadows and highlights and the quality at high ISOs. I'm not sure how much you can tell from the jpegs on pBase, but the DNG files are amazing. I'm happy!

Tina

[ricnak]

Thanks for the link Tina. Great to see some side by side comparisons with the M9.

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Tina Manley

I have had my MM a few days now and have posted some of my initial experiments and comparisons:
http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/leicamm&page=all
I'm still just playing and learning how to expose, very different from the M9! So far, I'm very impressed with the amount of detail in the shadows and highlights and the quality at high ISOs. I'm not sure how much you can tell from the jpegs on pBase, but the DNG files are amazing. I'm happy!

Tina

Yeah cheers Tina, please feel free to post some pictures here...it's a open thread, not just about my own pictures....lets see some variety!

[Pirate]

I just read a review that said the JPG files have a different look than the DNG files. Can anyone comment on that?

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Pirate

I just read a review that said the JPG files have a different look than the DNG files. Can anyone comment on that?

Yes the jpeg files come out more contrasty with less shadow detail, but noise is very well controlled and detail is still there...quite impressive. I now shoot both and just use the jpeg if I can't be bothered editing.

These examples are unedited, straight from camera....please don't comment on blown highlights as the exposure difference between the model's face and the mirror lights is very large, and not even the mighty film could capture that much information. This is as good as it gets.

[Keith]

I love the gentleness of this image! ^

Onya Kristian for being so tolerant of the people in this thread who just seem to want to jam their fingers up your nose!

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Keith

I love the gentleness of this image! ^

Onya Kristian for being so tolerant of the people in this thread who just seem to want to jam their fingers up your nose!

It's ok. Film lovers are passionate people and don't want to see their passion fade. If cameras like the Monochrom keep gaining more attention, use and sales, film will probably die a faster death. That I understand, and as much as I love film, I don't want to see it go. If it wasn't a workflow issue, I'd be using it still.

As for the Monochrom, I'm not trying to justify my purchase by praising it without very good and deserved reason. It deserves the credit it's been recieveing because it delivers on Leica's promises, and I haven't come across one Monochrom 'user' who thinks otherwise. Trust me, if I wasted $8k on this, you'd know about it!

[Pirate]

Never mind, I'm just an idiot. It was from Tina's pictures linked above, but she was showing the difference between the M9 and MM. The MM shots were darker than the M9 shots. After seeing those I read there's a difference between the JPG and DNG's and my brain wrongfully linked the two. Sorry about that.

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Pirate

leicashot, that's strange... Your image is the exact opposite of the one I saw. The DNG was darker and the JPG lighter in the one I saw. I'll have to find it again and link to it.

Hmm,not my experience. To me, the jpeg having more contrast makes more sense, almost like selecting sRGB vs Adobe RGB in colour. Here are two more untouched examples....

[D&A]

Kristian,

Regarding my lengthy post of a few hours ago (posted on the previous page this thread), only very high contrast lighting situations are somewhat in question when shooting with the MM, even if initially the written DNG's out of the camera are "flat" This is the only real area of concern on my part. Aside from that, each image you continue to post, reinforce the lovely nature of this camera's images. I love this last posted image of yours...even though its straight out of the camera, I can already see the richness in tones, especially the lush blacks.

I too can understand the passion in using film, having done so for more years than I can to recall and although some very valid arguments can and will be made with regards to how well this camera emulates that medium, I can only say it has for the most part convinced me of its potential.

Oh by the way Kristian, when shooting with the M9, I've always converted a DNG to B&W and never worked with its jpeg B&W option. Just curious, in oyur opinion, how does the B&W M9 jpeg llook and is it simply a simple conversion algorithum or was some thought put into it?


Dave (D&A)

[thirtyfivefifty]

Lovely shots. I really miss living in Melbourne.

[Sylvester]

The thing is... I see no differences between my D5100 and those Digital M shot on flickr... RAW files could be nice to see, no?

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Never mind, I'm just an idiot. It was from Tina's pictures linked above, but she was showing the difference between the M9 and MM. The MM shots were darker than the M9 shots. After seeing those I read there's a difference between the JPG and DNG's and my brain wrongfully linked the two. Sorry about that.

ah now I see ok, no probs

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Sylvester

The thing is... I see no differences between my D5100 and those Digital M shot on flickr... RAW files could be nice to see, no?

Let me put it this way....the Monochrom is not the be all end all in B&W. Unless you see side by side comparisons or RAW files you wouldn't know so it's understandable. Also, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about perceived dynamic range vs exposure, especially in contrasty scenes. Some scenes have more tones and some don't. You can only compare side by side to fully understand why the Monochrom is unique in it's abilities at recording such tonal range.

I'm sorry but I'm not prepared to give out my RAW files. If I was providing these as a review then I would, but instead I am providing samples of my 'work' so can't be giving out my livelihood.

[Pirate]

"unique in it's abilities at recording such tonal range."

I think this is the key statement. The MM uses every pixel to capture a tonal range, not every third pixel as in an RGB chip. The RAW image gathers so much more information than a D5100 could ever hope to capture that it gives you that much more information to edit with. Seeing comparable images in full size prints would surely show that. On the computer screens, yes they all look the same, but I believe we should keep our eyes on what these cameras were truly made for= making prints. And that's where you will see the difference.

[leicashot]

Hey Dave, I was concerned about the flatness too but soon saw how easily it is to bring back contrast where needed.

In terms of high contrast lighting situations, all you need to do is underexpose a little further than maybe you would with color. This is an advantage because you retain more dynamic range, and what you thought would be black and dark, is an are where information is very easy to bring back. Let me show you an example.

original



edited



100% zoom on edited



This took me 20 seconds to edit. i'm sure with further processing it can be improved but just showing how far you can push the Monochrom files if needed.

In terms of comparing jpegs from M9, I never used the jpegs cause they were horrible. The Monochrom jpegs are surprisingly excellent.

Originally Posted by D&A

Kristian,

Regarding my lengthy post of a few hours ago (posted on the previous page this thread), only very high contrast lighting situations are somewhat in question when shooting with the MM, even if initially the written DNG's out of the camera are "flat" This is the only real area of concern on my part. Aside from that, each image you continue to post, reinforce the lovely nature of this camera's images. I love this last posted image of yours...even though its straight out of the camera, I can already see the richness in tones, especially the lush blacks.

I too can understand the passion in using film, having done so for more years than I can to recall and although some very valid arguments can and will be made with regards to how well this camera emulates that medium, I can only say it has for the most part convinced me of its potential.

Oh by the way Kristian, when shooting with the M9, I've always converted a DNG to B&W and never worked with its jpeg B&W option. Just curious, in oyur opinion, how does the B&W M9 jpeg llook and is it simply a simple conversion algorithum or was some thought put into it?


Dave (D&A)

[Honus]

Thanks a lot Kristian for putting all these expensive thoughts in my head!!

A very intriguing camera, indeed. I like what you are doing with yours and appreciate you sharing your images and comments.

[D&A]

Originally Posted by leicashot

Hey Dave, I was concerned about the flatness too but soon saw how easily it is to bring back contrast where needed.

In terms of high contrast lighting situations, all you need to do is underexpose a little further than maybe you would with color. This is an advantage because you retain more dynamic range, and what you thought would be black and dark, is an are where information is very easy to bring back. Let me show you an example.

This took me 20 seconds to edit. i'm sure with further processing it can be improved but just showing how far you can push the Monochrom files if needed.

In terms of comparing jpegs from M9, I never used the jpegs cause they were horrible. The Monochrom jpegs are surprisingly excellent.

______________________

Hi Kristian,

An excellent example (and tutorial) of underexposing the high contrast image and then raising the level of shadow detail as part of the recovery for highlights. Very nice results!

I'm familar with the flat DNG's straight out of the camera having encountered many of them when provided with samples straight out of the camera. At first glance I was a bit horified but I soon not only got used to them but saw the advantages in processing the image.

The reason I asked about the M9 B&W generated jpegs, is that I've always felt the jpegs in general out of the M9 were forgetable and therefore I never played with them in B&W mode.

All great stuff you posted and look forward to your further experiences with the camera. Needless to say, many of your posted images are exceptional. Thanks again!

Dave (D&A)

[leicashot]

Another pic I literally took minutes ago....ISO 800, equals the M9 at about ISO 250

Original



Edited



100% zoom edited

[Pirate]

After seeing these pictures, I really think the MM is the closest thing yet to Film. Every pixel is more like grain than with the colour sensors.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by D&A

Unlike other MM images I've worked with, Kristian's, especially his penchant for using a high(er) contrast look in his B&W work (at least in the images recently posted), yeilds a look that reminds me not of 35mm B&W film but of Medium format (MF) film, processed and printed to yild a high contrast look. Why? generally this look is/was very common with many MF film based photographers and often the resulting images would be extremely clean with almost a grain fee look....not unlike what we see here with some of Kritian's images.

Dave (D&A)

L1000441 by Kristian Dowling, on Flickr

[/quote]

Dave,

Your insight above for me is spot on. I am a B&W film only guy and I try to emulate large format even though I may shoot 135, but I also shoot lots of 120.

Cal

[Sylvester]

Originally Posted by leicashot

Let me put it this way....the Monochrom is not the be all end all in B&W. Unless you see side by side comparisons or RAW files you wouldn't know so it's understandable. Also, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about perceived dynamic range vs exposure, especially in contrasty scenes. Some scenes have more tones and some don't. You can only compare side by side to fully understand why the Monochrom is unique in it's abilities at recording such tonal range.

I'm sorry but I'm not prepared to give out my RAW files. If I was providing these as a review then I would, but instead I am providing samples of my 'work' so can't be giving out my livelihood.

I understand
Anyway, if I had the money I'd buy one immediately, but I would be afraid of letting go film... I like your images by the way!

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Sylvester

I understand
Anyway, if I had the money I'd buy one immediately, but I would be afraid of letting go film... I like your images by the way!

Thanks Sylvester. I wouldn't go on record saying the Monochrom is 'better' than film but what film can't do, that I need to do frequently, is change ISO from 320-10,000 with the switch of a dial and feel no fear of poor image quality. That is why I bought this camera.

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Calzone

Dave,

Your insight above for me is spot on. I am a B&W film only guy and I try to emulate large format even though I may shoot 135, but I also shoot lots of 120.

Cal

I have to agree that at low ISO it easily rivals medium format and at high ISO's it looks very much like 35mm.

[Keith]

I have to say the Leiclyhood of me ever getting an M Monochrom are similar to being on the first manned mission to Mars.

But I am Leicing the images you're posting Kristian ... more please!