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!

View Poll Results: Would you buy a B&W only M9 ?
Yes, absolutely. 70 14.23%
Yes, but only if it performs like B&W film. 59 11.99%
Yes, but only if it costs 15-20% less than the standard M9. 60 12.20%
No. 303 61.59%
Voters: 492. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 01-24-2010   #51
downstairs
downstairs
 
downstairs is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: europe
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
...Has anyone else on this forum actually used or owned a Monochrome Digital camera? ...
I've got though four DCS's since the monochrome 420 in 1993. I did mostly B&W portraits with a 50mm Nikkor. For products, I got round the small format thing by stitching 3 verticals most of the time. Two odd-ball Proneas did web animation. The last full-frame DCS billed about 100k euro doing watches; either mounted upside-down with a pcNikkor (the lever won't fit over the tummy) or with a 60mm macro nikkor, vertical stitched.

Last edited by downstairs : 01-24-2010 at 06:24. Reason: detai
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #52
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,976
Downstairs- very nice use, would love to see some of the images posted.

Biggambi- it is not possible to substitute a different CCD for the one in the M8 as the KAF-10500 is not available without the color Mosaic Filter. The cover glass is cemented in place, and it is not possible to remove. Removing the cover glass would be required to bleach the Mosaic Filter. The CCD would be destroyed.

A semi-custom run of the CCD would be required to skip a step. Kodak did a custom run of 50 CCD's to leave off the IR blocking filter for the KAF-1600 to create the DCS200ir. I talked to them about it, and a little while later they called back and said they would do it. They had a second request for the same modification and told me they were doing a custom run of 50 CCD's.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #53
downstairs
downstairs
 
downstairs is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: europe
Posts: 152
3-Stitch monochrome Kodak DCS 420.



DCS 14N converted to monochrome. Not the same tone range!

Last edited by downstairs : 01-24-2010 at 06:54.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #54
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,976
That is really nice.

The only Image stitching that I've seen was a custom sensor using multiple 25Mpixel CCD's. Four were used, for 100MPixel monochrome images. One of my mechanical engineers assisted on the project, loaned to another group.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #55
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Brian: If I am following you, it is possible to retrofit a new sensor. But, it would require a custom run by Kodak. Is this correct? Would the current electronic architecture support a custom CCD? Would you expect to see results that would make such a conversion a worthwhile endeavor? Let's set aside the cost for now and look just from the perspective of benefits gained.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #56
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,976
The current electronics of the camera would support a custom run of the KAF-10500 that left the color dye out of the Bayer filter. I think that the easiest "hack", just use a Mosaic Filter layer that does not have any color dye in it.

Again, I'm an engineer. When we needed something made for a procject, we approached the company, stated the need, and got a quote. Often, we paid the NRE.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-24-2010 at 09:31.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #57
Frank Dernie
Registered User
 
Frank Dernie is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 20
I have only sporadically used B&W since I could afford colour in the 1970s. I do not have the eye for it somehow.
Electronics are inherently much more reliable than mechanical devices, but microelectronic parts may become no-longer-available, whilst some unavailable mechanical parts can be made by a good technician.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #58
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Brian: This still begs the question, would you expect the M8x converted to produce an image that would be worth the endeavor? Again, setting aside the cost, and looking just at the quality of the image.

Regards,
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #59
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,049
For b/w, the M9 will never achieve the quality of the M8.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #60
ashrafazlan
Registered User
 
ashrafazlan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
For b/w, the M9 will never achieve the quality of the M8.
could you explain why?
__________________
Click HERE to view my pathetic attempts at photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #61
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,976
In terms of "pure quality", a Monochrome sensor picks up 1 F-Stop of sensitivity, as it gets rid of the color filter in front of the sensor. It picks up 4x the resolution for red and blue objects, and twice the resolution for green objects. Subjective difference? It's just better, but if people are comfortable with desaturating the image from the color sensor, hard to say. If I were going to buy an M9 for professional B&W work, I'd spend the extra money on it for work. For home use, probably not.

The M9 will never achieve the quality for Infrared Work of the M8. And if you get into the IR range, the M8 is essentially a Monochrome camera. All three color dyes used for the Mosaic Filter fail to absorb IR. So in the IR region, the M8 is a good Monochrome camera. Take that DAMNED IR absorbing glass off the Sensor, it would be a GREAT IR monochrome camera.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-24-2010 at 11:36.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #62
downstairs
downstairs
 
downstairs is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: europe
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
In terms of "pure quality", a Monochrome sensor picks up 1 F-Stop of sensitivity, as it gets rid of the color filter in front of the sensor. It picks up 4x the resolution for red and blue objects, and twice the resolution for green objects. Subjective difference? It's just better, but if people are comfortable with desaturating the image from the color sensor, hard to say. If I were going to buy an M9 for professional B&W work, I'd spend the extra money on it for work. For home use, probably not.

The M9 will never achieve the quality for Infrared Work of the M8. And if you get into the IR range, the M8 is essentially a Monochrome camera. All three color dyes used for the Mosaic Filter fail to absorb IR. So in the IR region, the M8 is a good Monochrome camera. Take that DAMNED IR absorbing glass off the Sensor, it would be a GREAT IR monochrome camera.
Thanks Brian, I now understand a bit better. BetterLight was on the same track last year.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #63
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
In terms of "pure quality", a Monochrome sensor picks up 1 F-Stop of sensitivity, as it gets rid of the color filter in front of the sensor. It picks up 4x the resolution for red and blue objects, and twice the resolution for green objects. Subjective difference? It's just better, but if people are comfortable with desaturating the image from the color sensor, hard to say. If I were going to buy an M9 for professional B&W work, I'd spend the extra money on it for work. For home use, probably not.

The M9 will never achieve the quality for Infrared Work of the M8. And if you get into the IR range, the M8 is essentially a Monochrome camera. All three color dyes used for the Mosaic Filter fail to absorb IR. So in the IR region, the M8 is a good Monochrome camera. Take that DAMNED IR absorbing glass off the Sensor, it would be a GREAT IR monochrome camera.
O.K. Brian,

Let's get into the actual spec we would want to approach Kodak to create the optimum B&W system via the M8x. What are the chances that Leica would give us the source code in a co-operative engineering program? So, that the system may be optimized as you have pointed out in another thread. I am thinking that the M8x is the target camera. They are going to be attainable at a greatly reduced price, and people see them as an inferior product to the M9. Leica has moved on and they are not going to be looking back.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #64
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,976
The "DNG" file format should not have to change. It would be nice to have true 16-bit values stored rather than the 8-bit "square-root-of-whatever" algorithm that cuts storage in half. You also recover about 12 columns and rows of the edges of the frame as the color-interpolation scheme is not required.

Leica could modify the source code easily. I've been in the position of getting source code delivered with systems in order to implement custom features.

Optimal CCD would leave off the entire layer for the Bayer Filter, rather than just having a layer without Dye. But then the sensor geometry changes.

SO: if Kodak were to make a run of CCD's without Dye on the layer, and you use DNG, not much else changes. Leica would have to calibrate the Meter for 1 Stop, or you would use -1ev all the time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #65
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
For b/w, the M9 will never achieve the quality of the M8.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #66
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
but if people are comfortable with desaturating the image from the color sensor, hard to say.
I'm sure you are aware that desaturating is just about the very worst way of converting an image to B&W. If that is your yardstick, I can understand the need for a dedicated B&W camera - it cuts out pilot error....
If you simply desaturate you throw away everything but the luminance channel and you lose 67% of the image. However, if you convert properly, you actually use the colour infomation and can tweak the curves per colour, giving you better tonal separation than any monochrome sensor could ever hope to produce. A B&W sensor would be a step backwards and I would never buy a camera with one because it would impair the results I get from a full colour system.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 01-24-2010 at 15:32.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #67
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,976
The proper way to convert from color to monochrome is to add the values of the elements from the 2x2 Bayer site and divide by 4. You also get 1/4th the resolution. That is the correct way to do it.

Now- as an engineer, if you want better monochrome performance, you get rid of the Mosaic Filter. If you want something that looks like monochrome, there are a lot of ways to do it. The results look nice, even if they cannot be used for radiometric and other technical applications. But they "look okay" to the eye, and it alright for some people.

> it cuts out pilot error....

Yes, it cuts out user errors that are made by just "eyeballing" it, rather than capturing the image as it should appear.

Has anyone else on this forum done conversions to watts/steradian using their digital cameras?

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-24-2010 at 16:38.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #68
ruslan
Registered User
 
ruslan is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 173
Definitely, especially if camera will be with 36x36 sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2010   #69
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruslan View Post
Definitely, especially if camera will be with 36x36 sensor.
How are you going to handle the vignetting? The square that fits into a circle defined by a 24x36 rectangle measures 28x28 mm
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 01-24-2010 at 23:50.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #70
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
The proper way to convert from color to monochrome is to add the values of the elements from the 2x2 Bayer site and divide by 4. You also get 1/4th the resolution. That is the correct way to do it.

Now- as an engineer, if you want better monochrome performance, you get rid of the Mosaic Filter. If you want something that looks like monochrome, there are a lot of ways to do it. The results look nice, even if they cannot be used for radiometric and other technical applications. But they "look okay" to the eye, and it alright for some people.

> it cuts out pilot error....

Yes, it cuts out user errors that are made by just "eyeballing" it, rather than capturing the image as it should appear.

Has anyone else on this forum done conversions to watts/steradian using their digital cameras?
Dear Brian,

I'm not sure about 'should'. There's too much of the psychology and indeed physiology of vision involved. 'Eyeballing' is almost certainly a better solution than physics, when it comes down to what we see/ think we see/ want to see.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #71
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
How are you going to handle the vignetting? The square that fits into a circle defined by a 24x36 rectangle measures 28x28 mm
Dear Jaap,

Wasn't that the format of 126 Instamatic?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #72
larmarv916
Registered User
 
larmarv916 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 401
Roger...the fatal flaw, as I see it in the M9. Goes to the very root of rangfinder concept. That is rangefinders are instruments..in all areas of industry. To measure a distance with the utmost accuracy. The M9 Fails....period. it has an inferior rangefinder system. It goes directly against the idea that a step forward means...better results. The results must start with a focusing device that give greater accuracy that the previous model....not less. You can not get better accuracy with M9. The rangefinder base is less accurate.

Now here we have a full frame camera that does not have the ability to out perform an original M3 !! That is not progress.

As for the sensor...why do we need the million dollar solution for the same problem that Nikon & Canon have deliver for less. Is the Nikon sensor inferior? No.

A special BW sensor...is again proving that they blew it when they delivered the original concept for a better product over the M8.2

So you really have to come back to an even greater problem..the people who decide what is best for us! M9 is flawed from the "clean sheet" of paper is was born. Sad but true...remember. All Inferior M3, 4 , 5, 6, and 7..with even a .72 , 85 or 92 can deliver a better image by virtue of superior focus accuracy. So while would have wished they had actually gotten it right on the M9....a miss is as good as a mile.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #73
tom.w.bn
Former RF User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by larmarv916 View Post
So you really have to come back to an even greater problem..the people who decide what is best for us!
Why "us". You can't speak for me. But I don't have a problem with it, that you don't like the M9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by larmarv916 View Post
All Inferior M3, 4 , 5, 6, and 7..with even a .72 , 85 or 92 can deliver a better image by virtue of superior focus accuracy. So while would have wished they had actually gotten it right on the M9....a miss is as good as a mile.
How is it possible that people are able to get sharp photos with M8/M9 even wide open when it's so inferior?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #74
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,860
The M9 is the best full frame digital rangefinder in the world. There is no real way to declare it "good" or "bad." There is nothing to compare it to. It's not the camera of choice for 99.9 percent of the people who use cameras. But there is no debating what it is.
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #75
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,976



Well Shoot, I had this nice response just waiting but no one has queued me.

So I'll just post it anyway.

I'm bringing in Digital Sensor Fabrication Expert Jack Nicholson to explain the issues with fabricating a Monochrome Sensor.

Take it, Jack.

Well, I used to like my Digital cameras to be Monochrome and without that damned IR cut filter. I want it all back, and will filter when I want. Don't want some weenee cutting in on my light. It's just like a Tomato and Lettuce sandwich, no bacon. But today, nobody leaves off the Bacon. At first I got mad, but then took a peek-sy into the Kitchen. A whole line of cooks making that BLT- yumm, yumm. First guy takes a plate, next cook puts the first piece of bread, next cook puts on Bacon, next guy lettuce, next cook puts on the annealing Mayo, next cook pops a few slices of tomato so the annealing Mayo will not seep into the bread, next guy puts on the top piece of bread and pushes down. Finally the taste tester takes a bite, and if it ain't a BLT out it goes. I SAW what happened to the Lettuce and tomato sandwich- stopped after the slice of bread was put on the plate and had no way to get to the lettuce cook.

Oh well, BLT for ME! Whenever I want monochrome images, I just learn to ignore the taste of bacon.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-25-2010 at 02:10.
  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 17:52.


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.