Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica Monochrom - All M Models

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 11-23-2016   #41
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post

For me I shoot as if I am a large format shooter and try to make the best at image capture. Rescuing images with post processing is not the way to go, and the best images really only need tweaking in Lightroom. I never add sharpness. Think of how large format shooters make negatives for contact printing.

Cal

Agree with all of that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #42
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Important note: I think shooting the Monochrom (original) is likely the most unforgiving digital camera ever made, because when you blow the highlights there is no way to recover. Gone forever. In this regard is totally unforgiving, kinda like driving a Porshe too fast in a curve, but if you nail the exposure you will be highly rewarded.

The M-246 seems to have more/wider dynamic range and is more forgiving in regard to the highlights.

Anyways shooting the MM will make you a better shooter.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #43
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Important note: I think shooting the Monochrom (original) is likely the most unforgiving digital camera ever made, because when you blow the highlights there is no way to recover. Gone forever. In this regard is totally unforgiving, kinda like driving a Porshe too fast in a curve, but if you nail the exposure you will be highly rewarded.

The M-246 seems to have more/wider dynamic range and is more forgiving in regard to the highlights.

Anyways shooting the MM will make you a better shooter.

Cal
You got me thinking... Is the use of color filters with digital camera even warranted? Not just an MM but any camera. i know that you can get everything in post-process but I wonder if in post you are tweaking something at the expense of something else... Maybe this deserves a separate thread.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #44
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,657
Blown highlights happen when the sensor signal capacity is exceeded, or when the sensor is not clipped but instead ISO amplification exceeds the maximum signal capacity of the analog-digital converter. The former occurs at base ISO and the latter happens above base ISO. In extreme overexposure, both happen.

This is the case for all digital cameras (except a few Nikon DSLRs that don't use electronic amplification to increase ISO).

Clipping highlights at the sensor is an analog phenomenon. It is difficult to describe exactly when information is irreversibly lost. The opposite is true for the anaog-digital converter. Once the incoming DC signal level exceeds the ADC's design maximum all information is lost.

Another difference involves how the camera data stream designers define 0 EV for the raw data file. While the total usable EV range (dynamic range) can't be increased or decreased, shifting where 0 EV falls can make either highlights or shadows appear easier to recover.

I have seen similar differences (apparant ease of highlight recovery) between different brand of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. The difference between the default renderings of Nikon raw and Fujifilm raw in LR are significant. For Nikon raw I always started with selectively pulling highlights while I always start selectively pushing shadows with Fujifilm raw. Neither increases the DR... they just make full use of the DR defined by the original shutter and aperture settings (exposure).

None of this means the data stream and, or meter response of the original MM doesn't behave differently than the M-246. It doesn't mean learning to expose the original MM properly won't make one better at exposure. It just means there are technical differences and you have to work differently with the two cameras.
__________________
To see what is in front of ones nose needs a constant struggle. George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #45
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Use Heliopan 2X yellow filters marked "Digital" that have additional IR and UV filtering for lower noise, higher signal to noise ratio, and less clipping. Basically speciffically with the Heliopan filter it seems to hit the sweet spot of the sensor.
Cal
agree with everything you said in this post, and especially liked your Moby Dick histogram comment. Such a good visual.

Regarding the heliopan "digital" benefits, I did some testing, admittedly pretty crude, but did it in high sun with materials that I know are UV and IR reflective. I tested the "light yellow 2x digital" heliopan versus both 022 yellow & 040 orange and then again with all 3 filters stacked with a bw uv/ir cut stacked ontop. Also tested with no filter and just the uv/ir cut to get a baseline. To boil it down, I couldnt detect any significant improvements in the colored filters based on their uv/ir capabilities and felt that certainly at least 90-95% of the differences on my screen were due to the color of the filter itself. Maybe the colored filters are by their nature uv/ir filters as well, but the spectrographs Ive seen from B+W dont seem to indicate that. I mean to revisit this when summer comes back around and there's more UV/IR in the sky.

Having said all that, I've also found that the heliopan light yellow is a great match to the 246 sensor which is already pretty contrasty. I feel it adds just enough separation to the midtones to make them malleable in post (so things dont just look like a mess of gray) without lightening or darkening the highs or lows too much. Also has the benefit (or not) of having the lowest filter factor. The BW 022 is good too sometimes, certainly with a bit more risk in blowing some highlights more I think, and the 040 I feel is a special use only, and should be treated similar to a red filter on film. It can have a very strong impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
You got me thinking... Is the use of color filters with digital camera even warranted? Not just an MM but any camera. i know that you can get everything in post-process but I wonder if in post you are tweaking something at the expense of something else... Maybe this deserves a separate thread.
Traditional colored filters really only have a serious use on black and white (digi or film) imo. Certainly there were color filters to adjust for light temperature on film, but that's no longer an issue with raw shooting. If you consider a 720nm IR filter a color filter, then that's about the only "color" filter I can think of to use on color sensors.

For the 246, I really think that leaving a filter on all the time is reasonable. Take it off at night for sure tho as you'll probably get some reflections from incident light sources you wish you didnt have. In the case of the heliopan, the use of a filter is of course at the expense of a few things, but with the lower filter factor, it's honestly minimized. Unless you want a higher filter factor to shoot close to max ap in bright sun. Tangible compromises are generally slower shutter/higher ISO, increased chance of flare\reflection, and potentially a change in contrast you didnt anticipate (e.g. shooting in the mountains and creating a haze). Tangible benefits are generally more mallebale files (imo), a little protection of the front lens element if you shoot in dirty environments (beaches, snowy mountains, deserts), and potentially a little extra sharpness by reducing\eliminating chromatic aberrations (lens only has to focus one color of light now).



Regarding tonality; Books, shows, studying the masters' photos, etc. Also, I would suggest silver efex, but only as an easy analysis tool. Open up a photo and use the histogram tool to see what zones your tones are measured at. Certainly zones arent the end all be all and this is probably a rough approximation/conversion for the digital world, but I've always felt it helps calibrate my eye to what I'm looking for. Used in combination with a REAL calibration tool I think there's a lot of value in this.
AND EDIT: And the other obvious thing here is that you also need to print your work. Sorry I did not mention that before.
__________________
Phil
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #46
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman View Post

Traditional colored filters really only have a serious use on black and white (digi or film) imo. Certainly there were color filters to adjust for light temperature on film, but that's no longer an issue with raw shooting. If you consider a 720nm IR filter a color filter, then that's about the only "color" filter I can think of to use on color sensors.

For the 246, I really think that leaving a filter on all the time is reasonable. Take it off at night for sure tho as you'll probably get some reflections from incident light sources you wish you didnt have. In the case of the heliopan, the use of a filter is of course at the expense of a few things, but with the lower filter factor, it's honestly minimized. Unless you want a higher filter factor to shoot close to max ap in bright sun. Tangible compromises are generally slower shutter/higher ISO, increased chance of flare\reflection, and potentially a change in contrast you didnt anticipate (e.g. shooting in the mountains and creating a haze). Tangible benefits are generally more mallebale files (imo), a little protection of the front lens element if you shoot in dirty environments (beaches, snowy mountains, deserts), and potentially a little extra sharpness by reducing\eliminating chromatic aberrations (lens only has to focus one color of light now).
That's understandable.
I was thinking of any ways to possibly decrease the contrast of digital color files intended for further conversion to black and while.
This is in order to avoid that terrible "b/w HDR effect" which I shown earlier in this thread... maybe.
Than again, it is probably not worth it, correct exposure and correct post-processing should take care of things.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #47
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
You got me thinking... Is the use of color filters with digital camera even warranted? Not just an MM but any camera. i know that you can get everything in post-process but I wonder if in post you are tweaking something at the expense of something else... Maybe this deserves a separate thread.
MIKhail,

I happen to like shooting SLRs because I think using a Polarizer to control contrast and saturation is best. Perhaps again this is borrowed from landscape photographer's and large format shooters.

I think with any digital manipulation rounding off and signal errors get accumulated and compounded the more one relies on digital manipulation. My approach to minimize post and to do as much as possible at image capture is maybe a more "organic" way that is more pure.

I know that Heliopan filters marked "Digital" have both IR and UV filters built in that go unmentioned and unnoticed. I use Heliopan Digital filters on all of my digital cameras because it cuts down on both clipping and noise.

My use of yellow filters on my Monochrom I attribute to Michael Reichman's reporting in a preliminary review that Leica engineers stated that for apromatic response on the Monochrom sensor a slight yellow filter should be used. This is how I discovered the Monochrom's "Sweet-Spot." Separately when comparing Heliopan filters against B&W filters I stumble upon and discovered that the Heliopan filters marked "Digital" removed the IR and UV signals that contributed to noise and clipping.

At a PhotoPlusExpo I questioned a Heliopan representative to get the definitive answer of what made Heliopan filters an enhancement.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #48
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
I use Heliopan Digital filters on all of my digital cameras because it cuts down on both clipping and noise.

Cal
Would you possibly have any examples to illustrate this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
At a PhotoPlusExpo I questioned a Heliopan representitive to get the definitive answer of what made Heliopan filters an enhancement.

Cal
What did he say?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #49
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Phil,

My simple testing drew the conclusion about Heliopan "Digital" filters by a simple controlled experiment with only one variable: comparing a Plain 2X yellow Heliopan filter against a Heliopan 2x yellow filter marked "Digital."

In this A-B test I used the histogram on the back of my camera and the clipping indicators set at 1%. The conditions were high contrast summer light where I knew I would have clipping. I was surprised on how different the histograms were. The clipping became less or non existing (repeated testing under different lighting).

Like Willie suggests clipping is the result of overwelming the sensor, but removing non visual signal that can tip the amount of light into being too much signal is kinda shown to either eliminate or curb clipping.

Interesting to hear about your experience with the M-246 with filters.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #50
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
Would you possibly have any examples to illustrate this?



What did he say?
M,

Years ago I had a theory about these "Digital" filters having both IR and IR filtering, and I posted about it here on RFF. Some people challenged my assumptions and pointed out that IR and UV are opposite ends of the light spectum.

The rep manning the booth gave me a pamphlete and we discovered together in writing that in fact "Digital" marked filters have additional UV and IR filtering built in.

When I bought more Heliopan filters I took note that this is also in the instruction booklet that comes inside the packaging.

The histograms don't lie. I did the direct comparision with older 2X yellow Heliopan filters against the newer versions marked "Digital." Single variable and using the histogram and clipping indicators to quantify the result.

Pretty much a straight forward "controled experiment."

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #51
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 287
Thanks, Cal.
Wondering if there's any difference in the cover glass or IR sesnor filter strength on the M9M and M246's that make any screw on filter differences less. I sort of thought there wasnt, but who knows.
Certainly, I did see a clear difference in the histograms and what was in the image on my M240 but those same things were not present on the M246 for me.

Either way, for completeness, I meant to link back to the original post I made a while back about this;
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...postcount=4731
__________________
Phil
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #52
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Important note: I think shooting the Monochrom (original) is likely the most unforgiving digital camera ever made, because when you blow the highlights there is no way to recover. Gone forever. In this regard is totally unforgiving, kinda like driving a Porshe too fast in a curve, but if you nail the exposure you will be highly rewarded.

The M-246 seems to have more/wider dynamic range and is more forgiving in regard to the highlights.

Anyways shooting the MM will make you a better shooter.

Cal
I think this goes for any CCD sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #53
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I think this goes for any CCD sensor.
John,

Is it not more so with a monochrome sensor? My thinking is because with a color sensor one does have an opportunity to recover due to the Bayer Filter Array.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #54
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
Thanks, Cal.
Wondering if there's any difference in the cover glass or IR sensor filter strength on the M9M and M246's that make any screw on filter differences less. I sort of thought there wasn't, but who knows.
Certainly, I did see a clear difference in the histograms and what was in the image on my M240 but those same things were not present on the M246 for me.

Either way, for completeness, I meant to link back to the original post I made a while back about this;
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...postcount=4731
Phil,

Thanks for the link.

You provide some useful data. I noticed the same results when comparing B&W and Heliopan grading. The 2X seems to be the best tailored for my Monochrom.

Perhaps Leica cleaned up the histogram by adding more or better UV and IR filtering to the sensor on the M-246. Clearly the M-246 is a more advanced camera. Maybe that is why you did not notice any difference?

It would be interesting to do the controlled experiment that I performed using just the histogram and clipping indicators with the only variable being a Heliopan filter marked "Digital" verses one not so marked.

All I can say with certainty than my Monochrom responds rather drastically, not only in the shape and level of the histogram, but also in clipping, due to less noise (I consider the non visual information of UV and IR noise). Really the change for me is signal to noise.

Because of a possible advantage I now favor Heliopan filters marked digital on all my digital cameras. There is a possibility the effect I clearly see on my Monochrom might not be relevant say on my SL or your M-246, but out of habit I go Heliopan "Digital" anyway.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2016   #55
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 287
Would be happy to try a non-digital vs digital heliopan comparison one day. Maybe if I'm ever in NYC or if you are in Denver and we have a chance to meet? Unfortunately, I just have no need to buy another filter (of the same color!) and hate to buy something with the sole intent of returning it. Doesnt feel totally right to me.

The only last oddity here is that I would have expected the M240 and M246 to react the same or similar to IR contamination since I would presume they have identical sensors minus the CFA. It was clear as day on the M240 as has been documented everywhere on the web, but really negligible or not present on the 246.

I suppose an additional test I could do is with an old hoya rm72 filter and an IR flash trigger (aimed at the lens) I have laying around. Might be something fun to occupy my time between turkey comas this weekend
__________________
Phil
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2016   #56
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,657
Filters can limit the total light energy reaching the sensor. Many do this with frequency selectively.

However this is just a screw-on exposure compensation tool. In terms of exceeding the full-well capacity of the sensor one could also use the exposure compensation dial or in manual exposure just compensate with the meter. The effect is a constant so nothing changes... i.e. the signal-to-noise ratio is not improved using a filter unless it somehow causes you to maximize exposure (maximize signal) when the shutter is open. When exposure is maximized a filter can not improve the SNR compared to using no filter when exposure is equally maximized.

In terms of information content (tonality in the case of the MM) selective frequency filters do alter the relative sensor pixel photon counts as Sal mentions. This is not a trivial effect and many find it useful. And, as Sal stated, this could also make it less likely to exceed the sensor sites' full-well capacity (just as the EC dial does). But these are two different effects.

When exposure is maximized, the relative SNR at different pixels may be different but the total SNR will always be maximized when exposure is maximized.

Obviously filters are pure analog devices. The term digital filter is an oxymoron. However the term digital filter is a convenient way to indicate the filter was designed to minimize light energy contributions outside of the visible spectrum and, or selectively affect light frequency transmission.

Very few still camera sensors have a significant response to UV light, so the main advantage is at the other end of the spectrum. This is only relevant to exposure. Relative differences in pixel photon counts with selective filters can produce desirable aesthetic results.
__________________
To see what is in front of ones nose needs a constant struggle. George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-25-2016   #57
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Filters can limit the total light energy reaching the sensor. Many do this with frequency selectively.

However this is just a screw-on exposure compensation tool. In terms of exceeding the full-well capacity of the sensor one could also use the exposure compensation dial or in manual exposure just compensate with the meter. The effect is a constant so nothing changes... i.e. the signal-to-noise ratio is not improved using a filter unless it somehow causes you to maximize exposure (maximize signal) when the shutter is open. When exposure is maximized a filter can not improve the SNR compared to using no filter when exposure is equally maximized.

In terms of information content (tonality in the case of the MM) selective frequency filters do alter the relative sensor pixel photon counts as Sal mentions. This is not a trivial effect and many find it useful. And, as Sal stated, this could also make it less likely to exceed the sensor sites' full-well capacity (just as the EC dial does). But these are two different effects.

When exposure is maximized, the relative SNR at different pixels may be different but the total SNR will always be maximized when exposure is maximized.

Obviously filters are pure analog devices. The term digital filter is an oxymoron. However the term digital filter is a convenient way to indicate the filter was designed to minimize light energy contributions outside of the visible spectrum and, or selectively affect light frequency transmission.
Willie,

I am using the word "noise" to define unwanted signal.

The elimination of unwanted signal also allows for maximizing exposure and increasing the signal strength of the visual information. In my framing the SNR is higher because like you suggest exposure is able to be maximized, but only because signal that is non visual is removed vial use of a filter.

This is comparing with and without filter and also adjusting exposure like you suggest.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #58
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Back in July I contacted Leica N.J. to get on a waiting list for sensor replacement. I was told it would be about 4 months wait until I would get contacted to send in my Monochrom.

I contacted them today because more than 4 months has transpired and got a shipping label. The expected turnaround currently is 8-10 weeks. I presume the repair time got extended from 6-8 weeks due to the holidays. It seems that this waiting list works well.

It was explained to me that the real bottleneck is the back-order of sensors that is currently 4-5 months. I was also told that my Monochrom will get a complete overhaul and come back as if like a new camera.

February 2015 my Monochrom will be 4 years old. I'm hoping to get it back by then. Also note that Leica does not want you to send the body with the battery.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #59
johnwolf
Registered User
 
johnwolf's Avatar
 
johnwolf is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,396
That's interesting, Cal. I sent mine to NJ a month ago without getting on a wait list. Yesterday they assured me 10 weeks maximum turnaround. So I question the benefit of the wait list.

In any case, it sure seems like a long wait. And I'm not even sure mine is corroded.

John
__________________
tumblr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #60
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwolf View Post
And I'm not even sure mine is corroded.

John
So why exactly did you send in your camera?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #61
rybolt
Registered User
 
rybolt's Avatar
 
rybolt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Yellow Springs, Ohio
Posts: 576
I don't know if the Monochrom wait time is longer than that for the M9 but I sent my M9 to NJ on 9/22 without contacting them in advance. I received it from them on 11/18. Very close to the eight week estimate that they gave me in the initial acknowledgement.
__________________
Fuji X Pro 1,XT 1and XF1 cameras and lenses.
Sony RX1
Leica M6 with black Wetzlar 50mm
A pair of Barnack Anniversary cameras
Who knows how many others

http://www.ryboltcox.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #62
johnwolf
Registered User
 
johnwolf's Avatar
 
johnwolf is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
So why exactly did you send in your camera?
Tom, the sensor developed occasional spots with white rings. They always cleaned off, but I figured, why not get it checked?

My shooting drops off a lot in winter, so this is an OK time to part with it. I'm actually hoping it's corrosion so they update it. If not, that's good too. In the meantime, I've got other cameras I enjoy.

John
__________________
tumblr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2016   #63
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
On my Monochrom I have a few spots that might be corrosion. Mervyn from the NYC Meet-Up sent in his Monochrom and waited 6 months to have his sensor replaced just recently.

Perhaps for some the bottleneck is the 4-5 month wait for backordered sensors. Maybe some experienced good timing and got lucky with a fast turnaround. Anyways I'm feeling rather lucky.

Like John above I tend to shoot less in the cold weather, and it is the best time for me to do without the camera. In the meantime I mostly shoot my new SL.

I have a Visible Dust cleaning system. It seems the few wet cleanings I performed did not remove the artifacts that sometimes appear in my files in say a clear sky. IMHO very much I think it is corrosion in my case.

My camera gets shipped today.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2016   #64
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Set up the clipping indicators at 1% and chimp the histogram to learn perfect exposure and to gain consistentcy. The histogram does not lie and it also quantifies the exposure, tonal range, and IQ at a glance. It should not take long to get consistent because you get immediate feedback by chimping.

Basically try to make a histogram as far to the right as possible without clipping. Also try to make ten-zone histograms for the broadest tonal range. Try to make histograms with mucho midrange to create medium and large format like results. Look to make/create histograms that resemble a profile of a Sperm Whale (Moby Dick) if you want to resemble large format tonality.

...

Cal
Excellent advice for all digital cameras. Maximize the data's information content. Nothing beats signal-to-noise ratio. The signal represents the light. It is what you want/need. It's not just an abstract technical term.
__________________
To see what is in front of ones nose needs a constant struggle. George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2016   #65
johnwolf
Registered User
 
johnwolf's Avatar
 
johnwolf is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
....My camera gets shipped today.

Cal
Good luck on its journey. I might be naive in expecting mine back in 10 weeks, but Jan/Feb are my least active months, so c'est la vie. Spring would be nice.

I'm trying to picture their repair operation. This fix couldn't take that long, so they must have stacks of faulty gear, too few staff, or both. I get that sensor fixes are only one issue, but months-long waits?! In any case, that's no way to run a service outfit.

John
__________________
tumblr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2016   #66
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Willie,

I am using the word "noise" to define unwanted signal.

Cal
Thanks for the clarification.

I was taught two think about noise in two ways. Noise is the uncertainty of the data. Or, noise determines the the error in parameter estimates from the data (in our case an estimate for the electrical charge accumulated at a given sensor site when the shutter was open). These uncertainties or errors are uncorrelated.

By contrast IR and UV contamination are artifacts. The difference between noise and artifacts is noise contains no information. Artifacts contain information because the uncertainties or errors from artifacts are correlated. Artifacts are unwanted signals or other factors that affect the data in a coherent way. The information content of some artifacts is so high they can be removed from the data without any loss of information. Others can not be removed because we have incomplete information. IR contamination is one of these.

These definitions don't matter until one has to create a mathematical model (Bayer demosaicking for instance) to make the best possible parameter estimates from the data. In this case the estimates would be a set of digital numbers in a defined representing a spatial array... the raw file's contents.
__________________
To see what is in front of ones nose needs a constant struggle. George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2016   #67
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Thanks for the clarification.

By contrast IR and UV contamination are artifacts. The difference between noise and artifacts is noise contains no information. Artifacts contain information because the uncertainties or errors from artifacts are correlated.
Willie,

No. It should be me thanking you for the clarification. Artifact definitely is a better term that defines more accurately what I was trying to state. Sometimes a choice of words really makes a big difference to clarity.

Also those "Sperm Whale histograms" are just so loaded with information, and it seems they require the least amount of processing.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #68
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Back in July I contacted Leica N.J. to get on a waiting list for sensor replacement. I was told it would be about 4 months wait until I would get contacted to send in my Monochrom.

I contacted them today because more than 4 months has transpired and got a shipping label. The expected turnaround currently is 8-10 weeks. I presume the repair time got extended from 6-8 weeks due to the holidays. It seems that this waiting list works well.

It was explained to me that the real bottleneck is the back-order of sensors that is currently 4-5 months. I was also told that my Monochrom will get a complete overhaul and come back as if like a new camera.

February 2015 my Monochrom will be 4 years old. I'm hoping to get it back by then. Also note that Leica does not want you to send the body with the battery.

Cal
For those curious about sensor replacement on my Monochrom, I was told 8-10 weeks, but got my camera returned in 12. New firmware, new sensor, and new covering.

I am pleased.

I have come to realize how basic and simple my MM is, that is its charm, and due to its limitations and simplicity lies its elegance. Boy did I miss this camera. Glad it is back home.

BTW when compared to my SL it is mighty retro.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #69
james.liam
Registered User
 
james.liam is offline
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 54
Waiting for mine to return. Was told 8-12 weeks, now about 10. We shall see.

I'm disinclined to go for a 246; was told by one dealer that Leica offers a swap through them for ~$3400. Did not seem meaningful enough. Would rather save my pfennig for an M10.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2017   #70
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.liam View Post
Waiting for mine to return. Was told 8-12 weeks, now about 10. We shall see.

I'm disinclined to go for a 246; was told by one dealer that Leica offers a swap through them for ~$3400. Did not seem meaningful enough. Would rather save my pfennig for an M10.
James,

I was told 8-10 weeks but it was actually 12 weeks. Hang in there. BTW I got delivery a few weeks ago, so my experience is kinda current.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2017   #71
james.liam
Registered User
 
james.liam is offline
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 54
Well, mine was done precisely at 12 weeks.

It appears that the wait as of June 2017 for a sensor swap out of Leica-New Jersey is at 24 weeks. No doubt the mad rush before the 1 August deadline.

In response, Leica has expanded the models available for discounted purchase at swap to include color sensors so if the M246 isn't your taste, the various M240 variants (including the M262) as well as the SL are offered.

See https://leicarumors.com/2017/06/16/m...px/#more-47240 for the prices.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2017   #72
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,785
Mines there now (again) Have not got any time frame from NJ.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2017   #73
ramosa
Registered User
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
Mines there now (again) Have not got any time frame from NJ.


Ditto ... mine has been in for a couple months--and (arg!) I purchased it NEW late last year. The day it returns will be a good one.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2017   #74
dof
Fiat Lux
 
dof's Avatar
 
dof is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.liam View Post

In response, Leica has expanded the models available for discounted purchase at swap to include color sensors so if the M246 isn't your taste, the various M240 variants (including the M262) as well as the SL are offered.
My Monochrom is at Leica now having its sensor replaced too. I did take them up on trading my M9, but not the Monochrom - that one's a keeper. Glad its working life is about to be prolonged.
__________________
-J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #75
Chemophilic
Registered User
 
Chemophilic's Avatar
 
Chemophilic is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CA, US
Posts: 94
Just an update that is long overdue; my MM was received by Leica on 1/12 and I got it back on 3/29; so roughly 10 weeks turnaround time.
__________________
Olympus E-M1
My Flickr Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #76
DwF
Registered User
 
DwF's Avatar
 
DwF is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 716
Leica NJ received my camera on May 23rd. I am hoping that without phoning again, and according to my last communication with them, I should receive word this week that the new sensor installation work will be complete. Reading back on this thread and regarding filtration and finding that sweet spot with the MM, I am really anxious to have my camera back so I can continue to push the rock up the hill. When the MM sings it really sings

David
__________________
DwF DwFs Gallery
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 16:30.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.