Professional review of M9 Monochrome

[giellaleafapmu]

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?

More than this (which is still very costly) I wonder how far would one go from the look of the Monochrom by removing the Bayer filter (and maybe UV and IR filters) from a camera with a modern sensor and converting the images later in whatever way they please. The Sony A65 and the Nikon D3200 with their 24Mpx sensors and low price sound like reasonable cameras to try this way. The files in Thein's page are gorgeous...

GLF

[Turtle]

same again

[Turtle]

thats it folks.

In LR, at 1:2 you cannot tell them apart. At 1:1 you can, clearly. I'd expect the same off big prints.

In summary, perhaps I would say that aside from high ISO etc, from a purely final image, like for like perspective:

MM = great for ultimate quality and natural results
M9 = Better for ultimate flexibility and quicker to work with

[Turtle]

and I can see that by resizing the images for this site, you lose the ability to see what is clear on my screen. Oh, well!

[semilog]

Originally Posted by 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.

CMOS look?

Both CMOS and CCD sensors are solid-state devices that accumulate an analog voltage with an amplitude that's (almost exactly) linearly proportional to the integrated photon dose impinging on the photosite. The analog voltage is amplified, filtered, and sent to a D-A converter. Which spits out a number.

Both types of sensors are usually overlaid with microlenses and filter masks (e.g., Beyer, IR-cut etc.).

I don't doubt that sensors differ (mainly due to microlenses and filter overlays). But what technical attrubutes could possibly account for a generalized CCD or CMOS "look"?

Other than the presence of a Leica badge, I mean.

[Turtle]

still messing about with sharpening and seem to find this:

You can sharpen the M9 files to look almost as sharp as the MM files.
You cannot sharpen the MM files much before they start looking 'orrible.
When you sharpen the M9 files to approach the MM files, there is a loss of tonal quality i.e. you start to see image degredation.

Therefore....

The MM maintains quite a good lead if you are not prepared to flush a lot of the M9s subtle qualities down the toilet in a quest to bridge the aparent sharpness gap with the MM.

Sure you can mess the M9 files around and get them looking super punchy and in many respects 'better' than the MM files in the bike example, but that quality only seems to hold with smaller images, because you end up with that digital look which I cannot stand in B&W. The MM files are just... erm... more 'diginified' I figure Leicaphiles would like that stately expression.

I'm still not sold, but it is interesting. Its not film either. I suspect in the right hands this camera will be dynamite, but it wil take experimenting with filtration and image processing to get the best from it. I wonder how many of these files would have been improved just by whacking a yellow #11 on the front... so if Leica could kindly send me one by Fed Ex, I will gladly assist

[segedi]

Originally Posted by giellaleafapmu

More than this (which is still very costly) I wonder how far would one go from the look of the Monochrom by removing the Bayer filter (and maybe UV and IR filters) from a camera with a modern sensor and converting the images later in whatever way they please.
GLF

There's a company that sells converted cameras by doing what you asked. But, the process is not easy at all as sensors have the color layer afixed directly to the sensor. Removing the layer is no easy task and it's not cheap. And I also wasn't entirely impressed with some of the results.

[Viktor Sebastian]

Originally Posted by Turtle

still messing about with sharpening and seem to find this:

You can sharpen the M9 files to look almost as sharp as the MM files.
You cannot sharpen the MM files much before they start looking 'orrible.
When you sharpen the M9 files to approach the MM files, there is a loss of tonal quality i.e. you start to see image degredation.

Therefore....

The MM maintains quite a good lead if you are not prepared to flush a lot of the M9s subtle qualities down the toilet in a quest to bridge the aparent sharpness gap with the MM.

Have you tried taking the M9 file into photoshop and removing the blue and red channels and then sharpening the remaining green channel and comparing it to the MM?

[giellaleafapmu]

Originally Posted by segedi

There's a company that sells converted cameras by doing what you asked. But, the process is not easy at all as sensors have the color layer afixed directly to the sensor. Removing the layer is no easy task and it's not cheap. And I also wasn't entirely impressed with some of the results.

Mmmh, I imagine, the good thing is that it should not be too difficult to get it done cheaper than the price of the Monochrom. There are also cameras (Fuji IS Pro for example) which come without UV and IR filters and can now be had for a few hundred Bucks, I don't know how this would compare when used in BW.

GLF

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by semilog

CMOS look?

Both CMOS and CCD sensors are solid-state devices that accumulate an analog voltage with an amplitude that's (almost exactly) linearly proportional to the integrated photon dose impinging on the photosite. The analog voltage is amplified, filtered, and sent to a D-A converter. Which spits out a number.

Both types of sensors are usually overlaid with microlenses and filter masks (e.g., Beyer, IR-cut etc.).

I don't doubt that sensors differ (mainly due to microlenses and filter overlays). But what technical attrubutes could possibly account for a generalized CCD or CMOS "look"?

Other than the presence of a Leica badge, I mean.

The on-sensor processing of CMos sensors, needed because of the higher native noiselevels.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Viktor Sebastian

Have you tried taking the M9 file into photoshop and removing the blue and red channels and then sharpening the remaining green channel and comparing it to the MM?

Why should you? throwing away half the data will not do your file any good

[fotomeow]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Why should you? throwing away half the data will not do your file any good

Ya, and why would we do all this work to optimize the foto from $8k camera?
Not to be a curmudgeon, but I thought the fotos were pretty lackluster.
Sharp and contrasty in daylight, so what?

[icebear]

For me going digital with the M9 is perfect. For my purpose I am happy with it and the files look just gorgeous to me but when I desaturate these files, they do look like just that:
Color images w/o the color. I have not tried to a lot of conversions as I was put off right away. Maybe if you are good in Photoshop or LR4x, you can actually achieve decent results. I#m not there yet.

It's the same if you have an original Japanese bonsai and see and exhibition somewhere in the West at a local bonsai club. Nice try but sorry these are just little trees ... I'm not sure if someone can relate to the example.

Since I moved years ago and lost the option to use a friends pro lab and darkroom for my own film processing and printing, I never enjoyed using b/w film as all labs turned out mediocre quality. I was lucky to get the negatives w/o scratches and fingerprints... I have hopes on the Monochrom and signed up for their NYC workshop in October to give it a try. Have to buy lottery tickets...

[C_R]

Originally Posted by Turtle

... I suspect in the right hands this camera will be dynamite, but it wil take experimenting with filtration and image processing to get the best from it. I wonder how many of these files would have been improved just by whacking a yellow #11 on the front... so if Leica could kindly send me one by Fed Ex, I will gladly assist

You hit the nail, this camera is a tool. In the hand of a pro, with good light you will see stellar results, IMO

Example: this week the first Monochrom cameras were delivered in Germany.
My jaw dropped when I saw this Monochrom shot from a german pro, Robert Brembeck:
http://www.brembeck.de/work/new

He stated "That was a snapshot in a cafe. Beautiful light from a window left. 1.4 / 320 iso / DNG / Lightroom little darker more contrast and some clarity."

The proof is in the print, sure. But this shot convinced me, really.

Carsten
http://www.carstenranke.com

[redisburning]

Ive been really impressed with some of the files I've seen lately.

If I were selling enough b&w pictures to pay for it, I would do it. They just look a lot better than the Caninikon b&w conversions I see around and I just assume I can't do it better than those guys.

[fstops]

Open any RAW file in photoshop, convert the color mode to LAB, select the lightness channel.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by C_R

You hit the nail, this camera is a tool. In the hand of a pro, with good light you will see stellar results, IMO

Example: this week the first Monochrom cameras were delivered in Germany.
My jaw dropped when I saw this Monochrom shot from a german pro, Robert Brembeck:
http://www.brembeck.de/work/new

He stated "That was a snapshot in a cafe. Beautiful light from a window left. 1.4 / 320 iso / DNG / Lightroom little darker more contrast and some clarity."

The proof is in the print, sure. But this shot convinced me, really.

Carsten
http://www.carstenranke.com

Just out of curiosity: What really made your "jaw dropped"? Was it a nicely lit, well composed, finely depicted picture that was hard to capture under those conditions or was it not possible with an M9 for example? Or such a picture was impossible to shoot with any other camera? Or does it seem to you something better than what could be achieved with film?

It undoubtedly is a beautiful picture, nicely depicted, well processed however when it comes to "jaw dropping" we have seen better ones than this one taken with an M8, for instance, or even with a Digilux 2 in Thorsten Overgaard's site. BTW, maybe some of your own pictures seem better to others' eyes than this one.

[C_R]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Just out of curiosity: What really made your "jaw dropped"? Was it a nicely lit, well composed, finely depicted picture that was hard to capture under those conditions or was it not possible with an M9 for example? Or such a picture was impossible to shoot with any other camera? Or does it seem to you something better than what could be achieved with film?

It undoubtedly is a beautiful picture, nicely depicted, well processed however when it comes to "jaw dropping" we have seen better ones than this one taken with an M8, for instance, or even with a Digilux 2 in Thorsten Overgaard's site. BTW, maybe some of your own pictures seem better to others' eyes than this one.

As I said already: the proof is in the print.
Unfortunately, we cannot discuss here our prints hanging on the wall, we compare tiny, downsized web pictures.
BUT- even in this small web size you can see (not regularly, but often) subtle tonal difference, in a downsized MF versus 24x36, for example.

I have looked into some Monochrom DNG samples, from Jono Slack and others. I would suggest that you do this for yourself, before you claim that this could have been shot with an M8 or Digilux2.
Of course, when you are happy with a small websize shot or a small print, then you are right. I remember how happy I have been with my good old Sigma DP1 / DP2. Great tonal quality, but no large prints.

So, what made my jaw drop here ? When you have seen a Monochrom file in original size, and see this photo then you can anticipate really excellent tonal quality in the print.
BTW, I find it pointless to ask for a comparison of film and digital. If you are happy with film go for film. If you can live with the cost and need for digital postprocessing, this camera is just great for B&W photography, IMO.

[Viktor Sebastian]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Why should you? throwing away half the data will not do your file any good

Hey don't be snarky.

The green channel is the most sensitive to light, therefore it is the cleanest. So when you sharpen only the green channel and discarding the other two channels your black and white details are cleaner.

Have a look at the individual channels in photoshop and see for yourself before being rude.

[JoeV]

Unless you manually adjust the exposure compensation in-camera before the shot, the green channel-only image will be under-exposed. Advise bumping up the exposure +1/3 - +1/2 or until the histogram looks properly exposed to the right.

~Joe

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Viktor Sebastian

Hey don't be snarky.

The green channel is the most sensitive to light, therefore it is the cleanest. So when you sharpen only the green channel and discarding the other two channels your black and white details are cleaner.

Have a look at the individual channels in photoshop and see for yourself before being rude.

Yes - and you are still losing data, whereas the MM has a vast advantage, as it has no color channels at all. On top of that if you only use the green channel the tonal response curve is all over the place.

[leicashot]

I'd love to compare the MM and 35/1.4 FLE to my D800E with the Zeiss ZF.2 35/1.4. The D800E is very hard to beat. Here with the Zeiss ZF.2 25/2


KJD_2447b by Kristian Dowling, on Flickr

[Turtle]

There is no doubt the D800 is amazing, but sadly it is a relatively large and heavy SLR without dedicated MF screen options (at the moment).

The MM is a different beast: inferior in many ways, but arguably better in others.

For those who say it is outdates 2009 technology, they are right, but where is the competition? Outdated at 2009 perhaps, but without the bayer array it is apparently capable of quite astonishing things in 2012 as long as you shoot only B&W. Time will tell.

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Turtle

There is no doubt the D800 is amazing, but sadly it is a relatively large and heavy SLR without dedicated MF screen options (at the moment).

The MM is a different beast: inferior in many ways, but arguably better in others.

For those who say it is outdates 2009 technology, they are right, but where is the competition? Outdated at 2009 perhaps, but without the bayer array it is apparently capable of quite astonishing things in 2012 as long as you shoot only B&W. Time will tell.

Good point. I couldn't care less about dating or technology as long as I have the right camera in my hands. Maybe it's the MM, but I won't know until I try it myself. You interested Turtle?

[bobbyrab]

Originally Posted by leicashot

I'd love to compare the MM and 35/1.4 FLE to my D800E with the Zeiss ZF.2 35/1.4. The D800E is very hard to beat. Here with the Zeiss ZF.2 25/2


KJD_2447b by Kristian Dowling, on Flickr

Not really an appropriate image to be discussing the technical aspects of thousands of pounds worth of camera equipment.