Each morning, a sound with the ironic name of “silk” punctuates the dawn and snatches me cruelly from a blissful slumber. I fumble for the iPad, shut off its alarm and immediately launch my email app. Nothing jolts me back into a state of consciousness quite like staring into the cold, hard reality of an inbox full of fresh new problems — each vying for my immediate attention.
A couple months ago, one of these wake-up emails bounced across whatever sequence of satellites connects Wetzlar Germany with Vancouver Canada. It was, of course, from Leica. They don’t email me often, but when they do, I know it’s because they want something.
Normally, receiving email from anyone who wants something qualifies as “undesirable.” But when Leica wants something, it usually falls into one of two categories: Either 1) they want me to speak at a Leica Akademie, or 2) they want me to test some new piece of gear. Both scenarios require an extensive amount of work, yet both are actually quite enjoyable.
This day’s email fell squarely into Category #2. “Do you have time to test a prototype of the new Monochrom?” it asked.
Truth is, I didn’t. I’d gotten embroiled in way too many projects and was already burning the candle at both ends.
“Absolutely, I have time,” I lied. “Send it to me.” Hey, I could always buy more candles to burn, but how many opportunities do I get to test a brand new Monochrom prototype?
Leica’s request was that I compare and contrast the image quality between three cameras: the original M9-based Monochrom (MM9); the latest Type 240 color M (M240); and this new M Monochrom, designated as Type 246 (M246).
Anyone who’s aware of my current photographic leanings will probably think I’m a curious choice for such a task. After all, I’m not exactly Mr. High Fidelity when it comes to photography. My photos are often grainy and/or noisy, haphazardly focused, dubiously exposed and unorthodoxly framed. But here’s the thing — the look of my photos is actually a conscious and creative choice, and not (as internet forums might suggest) one born of incompetence. As an engineer, I’m actually quite adroit at testing and analyzing products both clinically and objectively. But as a photographer, I’m free to ignore whatever the logical half of my brain suggests. I’m also free to appropriate left-brain logic and apply it creatively with the right-brain. And it’s this latter function that will dictate the direction of this article — I will first analyze the clinical performance of the M246, then use that analysis to suggest how I might be able to use it creatively.
Shades of Grey (Literal Version)
Any time I work with a new monochromatic imaging surface (film or digital), I like to see how it maps colors to tonality. Such knowledge was particularly important for this series of tests, since I would be pixel-peeping and comparing the outputs from both color and monochromatic cameras. In order to do this, I needed to make sure that any M240 color conversions would closely match the tonality of the M246 and MM9. I did this same thing back in 2012, when I wrote A Fetishist’s Guide to the Monochrom. At that time, I had to create a custom Lightroom profile to make the M9’s BW conversion match the output of the original Monochrom. Would I need to do the same here?
I shot the same X-Rite Color Checker chart under the same lighting conditions (and using the same lens) with the three cameras I’d be comparing: The MM9 and the M246 had very similar tonality. For kicks, I decided to see how the M240 file would look if I simply applied Lightoom’s default BW conversion, as shown below. Note that I was not evenly remotely concerned with focus, resolution or noise in this test, so the “softer” M246 image is indicative of nothing other than my carefree technique.
Surprisingly (and unlike the old M9), Lightroom’s default conversion of an M240 color file matches the tonality of the M246 quite closely. Sure, there are minor differences, but no wholesale zone shifts. Certainly, there’s nothing that should impact my ability to compare images from a BW-converted M240 file with those from either an M246 or an MM9. So, for the remainder of this article, all M240 files have been converted to black & white using Lightroom’s default BW conversion.
The Setup
In order to carefully compare images from three different cameras, I knew that my usual modus operandi of hand-holding and scale-focussing would not suffice. In order to perform these tests, I had to remove as much human variable from the process as possible — particularly considering that the human was me. So every comparison involved the following method:
1) Each camera photographed the same scene, under the same lighting conditions, using the same exposure.
2) Each camera photographed that scene using the same lens, which I rotated between all three cameras. In order to deliver maximum fidelity to each sensor, I used Leica’s stellar APO-SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2 ASPH lens.
3) To reduce the possibility of external vibration, each camera was mounted to the same Gitzo tripod (a relic from a past career in landscape photography, if you can believe it).
Needless to say, such rigidity means this article’s accompanying photos look nothing like the quirky, grungy, exposure-guesstimated product that usually populates the ULTRAsomething site. Because of this, I’ve decided to divide my Monochrom test article into two parts. This first part will compare camera images from a purely clinical standpoint. By analyzing these differences, I’ll be able to predict how best to employ the new Monochrom M246 in the field. A follow up article will then take a look at my field-analysis of the M246, and whether or not my theoretical findings proved valid.
Shades of Grey (Figurative Version)
For my first round of tests, I chose to compare images at each camera’s base ISO. This means ISO 320 on both the MM9 and M246, and ISO 200 on the M240. Though this theoretically gives the M240 a 2/3 stop imaging advantage, it represents the “best case” scenario for any photographer trying to extract maximum image quality from each camera.
As part of the test process, I always took a second shot with the M240 — this time at ISO 320, which put the camera on equal ISO footing with the two dedicated monochromatic cameras.
I spent two days lugging three cameras and a tripod all over Vancouver, shooting hundreds of “test” frames illustrating various scenes. Upon analyzing all these shots, I came to the conclusion that they essentially all illustrate an identical set of similarities and differences. For this reason, I’ll use just one representative scene, and take various 100% crops from within that scene to demonstrate my discoveries.
Below is the scene as photographed by all three cameras (with the M246 version being the one displayed here).
What follows is a series of comparisons between cameras, using different crops from the above scene.
Comparison 1: Try as I might, after examining hundreds of frames — all shot with each camera at its base ISO, I could see very little resolution difference between them. Sure, the MM9 has only 76% as many pixels as the other two cameras, but it seemed no less adept at resolving detail. Comparisons between the M246 and M240 yielded results that I would consider “inconclusive.” Sometimes, the M246 seemed to resolve slightly more detail, and sometimes the M240 did. In reality, most differences boil down to the influence of “outside variables,” such as atmospheric conditions, wind, or even the subtle contrast differences inherent in the tonal variations between the way each camera mapped color to luminosity.
Comparison 2: This next comparison attempts to remove another pair of variables from the process. Specifically, the M240’s ISO has been increased to 320 in order to match that of the two Monochrom’s. Also, the MM9 file has been upsized by 15% using Photoshop’s Bicubic Smoothing algorithm, so as to match the overall pixel count of the two newer cameras.
Upsizing the MM9 files make them appear a tiny bit “softer” than either the M240 or M246 files. This is to be expected. The 2/3 stop increase in the M240’s ISO has also had a subtle effect on resolution. It’s not always immediately apparent, and is something that will very likely never be seen in a print (much less on a massively downsized web image). As such, it’s only likely to concern pixel-peepers and nerds who write camera reviews (cough).
Comparison 3: This is simply another crop, taken from a section near the center of the frame. Here, the softness of the up-sampled MM9 image is a bit more apparent, while the resolution differences between the M246 (at ISO 320) and the M240 (at ISO 200) continue to appear essentially non-existent.
Comparison 4: Same crop as above. Only now, the M240 frame has been shot at ISO 320, matching the ISO of the other two cameras. In this case (and at 100%), the slightly degraded resolution of the M240 file is apparent.
It’s important to keep in mind that the images I’m showing have had no sharpening and no noise reduction. In other words, they may be somewhat representative of how the sensor performs, but they’re not that representative of how people actually work. The following comparison shows how the resolution differences appear to be minimized significantly when a tiny bit of sharpening is applied using the Pixel Genius PK Sharpener plugin. Note that default, automatic values were used, and that the differences could be narrowed ever more by optimizing the sharpening in each file.
Comparison 5: The next comparison again uses the same image, and again selects a different crop region. The goal for this comparison was not to see which camera had the highest resolution, but to see which camera had the nicest gradation between shades of grey. On first glance, the MM9 appears to give the smoothest gradations at base ISO. However, it’s important to remember that the file’s overall micro-contrast has been softened by the upsizing process, which has the effect of greatly minimizing the visible noise. In reality, files from the MM9 (that have not been upsized) have a nearly identical noise floor as the M240 and M246 cameras.
The M246 at ISO 320 and the M240 at ISO 200 appear nearly identical. Noise levels are incredibly low in both cameras, though I can perceive a tiny bit more noise in the M240. Don’t worry if you can’t — I’ve had the benefit of looking at hundreds of images and doing blind comparison tests. I would guess that, at base ISO (200 on the M240, 320 on the M246), I’ve been able to correctly identify which file came from which camera 75% of the time — and the way I can do this is to look at the noise levels. It can be subtle, but it is perceptible under certain conditions.
Comparison 6: This is the same crop as displayed previously, only the M240 has now been shot at ISO 320 to match the two Monochrom cameras. Here, we can definitely see more noise in the M240 image. Whether or not this matters to you is entirely your decision. Frankly, to me, it doesn’t matter. Nor am I sure I’d be able to see it in an actual print. Some might even prefer the noisier file because it gives the illusion of increased detail. For example, one could easily fool themselves (and others) into believing that the noise seen on the distant mountain is actually a more detailed representation of its “trees”.
Descent Into Darkness
Once I’d seen how a mere 2/3 stop increase in ISO speed began to make M240 and M246 files start to diverge in appearance, the next step was obvious: test the cameras at steadily increasing ISO speeds. So, one evening, I set up a tripod in a safe location and watched night descend upon Vancouver. As the sun set, turning first to dusk and then to night, I photographed the scene each time the required ISO speed increased: First to ISO 800; then 1600; 3200; and finally 6400.
Here is how the scene looked at the beginning of the evening:
And here’s how the scene looked as shown in the final ISO 6400 test:
(Note: Both overview images courtesy of the M246).
As before, a single LEICA APO-SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2 ASPH lens was shared between all three cameras — Each set of 3 photos also used the identical aperture, shutter and ISO speeds.
The first crop, shown below, is from the upper right section of the frame. Each column corresponds to a particular camera: MM9 on the left; the new M246 in the middle; and the M240 file on the right. Each row correlates with an ISO: 800 on top; then 1600 and 3200 in the middle; and ISO 6400 on the bottom. Note that, for this particular comparison, I kept the MM9 file at its native resolution, and did not up-sample it to match the M246 or M240.
At ISO 800, noise is present though not overly problematic — though it does display a mild impact on the overall resolution, particularly in the shadow regions. This is most apparent in the M240 file, and slightly apparent in the MM9. As the ISO speed rises, so do the differences between cameras.
The second crop, shown below, is from a section located nearly in the center of the frame. Again, the MM9 is on the left, the M246 is in the middle, and the M240 is on the right. Also as before, ISO values range from 800 on the top row to ISO 6400 on the bottom.
Crop 2 depicts an area with more micro detail but less subtle gradation than Crop 1. The results, however, are identical. The new Monochrom M (Type 246) is nothing short of astounding at high ISO.
Again, it’s important to point out that the images displayed in the previous two examples have had no noise reduction or sharpening applied. The M240 files benefit substantially from the application of color noise reduction, and the result of that noise reduction (coupled with some optimized sharpening) is indicated in the file below. With proper processing, the fidelity of the M240 file can be brought mostly in-line with the M9-based Monochrom — though the quality and evenness of the MM9 noise remains (to my eye) superior. Neither file comes close to matching the fidelity of the M246.
Generalities
Basically, what these files (and hundreds more like them) have shown me is this:
- With each camera at its base ISO (meaning ISO 320 for the M246 and MM9, and ISO 200 for the M240), there is very little difference in image quality between these three cameras. Resolution, noise and contrast are extremely similar, and all three cameras deliver outstanding image quality. And yet, when I make a blind comparison between two images — one shot with the M240 and the other with the M246 — there is enough of a difference that I can still select a favourite image. And 75% of the time, my favorite file comes from the M246. Obviously, subtle differences in focusing accuracy and other variables will affect my preference, but 75% is not insignificant.
- Since files from the original Monochrom are 24% smaller, it might not necessarily be the best choice if you need to make extremely large prints. Though as previously shown, at low ISO’s, the original Monochrom certainly holds its own against the two newer cameras.
- That said, there’s a certain indefinable “something” that I like about the MM9 files — particularly when shot near base ISO. I’ve not yet figured out what this is, but it appears the MM9 files have slightly more out-of-camera contrast than the M240 or M246 files, which seems to give them a tiny bit more initial “punch.” Of course, post-processing will easily level any playing field, so I suspect my quasi-preference for the look of MM9 files at low ISO is something that would fail to find its way into a final print.
- With the M240 set to the same ISO (320) as the M246, it’s quite easy to tell the images apart. The M240 is noticeably (though not offensively) noisier and, as such, has slightly less detail. In general, this difference is only visible when a file is viewed at 100%, and without any noise reduction or sharpening applied.
- Files from the M240, when converted to B&W, get rather noisy and rather blotchy at higher ISO values. Files from the MM9 also get noisier, but the MM9 noise is like a fine dusting of static, rather than clumps of de-mosaicing blotches. Noise from the M246 is extremely fine-grained and totally unintrusive. ISO 6400 from the M246 remains wonderfully clear and imminently usable (at least for my photography).
So which camera is “better?”
You don’t really expect me to answer that, do you? “Better” is a subjective term. What’s better for one photographer might not be better for another. I will, however, tell you what these results mean to me, and how I plan to exploit them in the coming weeks.
A Master Plan
I suspect that the M246’s low-light capabilities are going to fundamentally alter the way I use a digital camera. The reason for this is likely not what you expect — I don’t intend to alter my balance between daytime and nighttime photos, nor do I expect to start taking more photos in dimly lit interiors. In fact, I’ll still use this camera for the purpose of taking photographs outdoors and in broad daylight. So why am I saying its low light capabilities will alter the way I use a digital camera? Bear with me…
When I’m out shooting candid, “found” photos in public places, I have absolutely no control of my environment. My subjects are in motion. I’m in motion. A photo opportunity might appear 1 meter to my left, quickly disperse, and a new opportunity might suddenly present itself 5 meters to my right. I have precious little time to worry about composition, and almost no time to worry about background. Lighting conditions? They are what they are, and they change frequently between deep shadow and bright sunlight.
Because of these constraints and conditions (and because of my own personal preferences), the last few years have seen me gravitate back to film for shooting on the streets. Film (particularly black & white film) is forgiving. I can miss focus and miss exposure, and the picture still succeeds. The same isn’t always the case with a digital sensor — where errors from my hasty, reactionary shooting technique get magnified by digital’s clinical precision.
One of film’s most useful attributes is, for me, the way it gently rolls off the highlights in an overexposed area. Consider the following scenario: I’m shooting on a shady section of the street, and my subject is in that shade with me. Behind my subject, and all around it, there is brightness — sky; reflective buildings; the sunny side of the street. If I were to take this photo using a camera’s built-in light meter, my subject would appear in silhouette — mercilessly darkened, so that the rest of the scene didn’t overexpose. But my subject is the subject, and I want it to be properly exposed, and not necessarily the background. Because of the way BW film rolls off the highlights, I’m free to overexpose a scene (thus properly exposing my backlit subject). Enough highlight detail remains to prevent the image from clipping to pure white. But with digital, this hasn’t necessarily been possible. Digital cameras do not gently roll off the highlights. They clip them — and all the more so on a monochromatic camera. If I use a digital camera and want a backlit subject exposed properly, the resulting photograph will possess a plethora of blown highlights. If I want to protect against blowing the highlights, then digital cameras require I do the opposite of what I do with film: Instead of exposing for my backlit subject and overexposing the background (as I would do with film), digital cameras require that I expose for the background and underexpose my subject, which I then must try to brighten in post-processing.
You see where this is going now, don’t you? Cameras with poor low light performance have noisy shadows and very little shadow detail. If my subject actually resides in those shadows (as is often the case “on the streets,”) then I need to brighten that subject in post-processing. But bringing up the shadows brings up any noise that resided within those shadows. Also, shadow noise tends to seriously obfuscate actual image details. The result? With most digital cameras, I have to choose between one of two evils: huge expanses of blown highlights, or a gritty, blurry, low-res subject. Take a look at my photo oevre for the last few years, and you’ll see which evil I’ve partnered with.
But the M246 is likely going to change all of this. Its stellar low light performance means I’ll be able to play digital contrarian, and “expose to the left.” This will keep my highlights in check. And because of the M246’s low-light capabilities, I know there will be enough clean and meaningful shadow detail that I’ll be able to pull up the brightness of my subjects in post.
But there’s more: Even in the absence of strong backlighting and high contrast, I’ll still be able to take advantage of the M246’s low light performance in ways that might not necessarily be intuitive. Remember when I mentioned how both I and my subjects are usually in motion? Better low light capabilities mean I’ll be able to shoot at higher ISO’s, thus using a shutter speed that will be fast enough to counter any motion blur. And remember when I said subjects can instantly appear at unexpected distances? This is precisely why I often scale focus a camera — quickly guessing my subject’s distance and rotating the lens to match. Alas, my guesses are not always accurate. So to improve the likelihood that my subject will actually fall within the lens’ depth-of-field, it would help if I could use a smaller aperture. Smaller apertures generally mean shooting at higher ISO speeds — not a problem with the M246.
Conclusion
As this is only stage 1 of my Monochrom M246 investigation, it’s still too early to draw any definitive conclusions. But I’ve seen enough to know that I want to take the M246 out onto the streets, implement my master plan, and see if it really does become the “game changing” camera I expect it to be for my brand of candid, observational photography.
So, until I check back in with that report, here’s a fun little photo to ponder: I was working in my studio late one night, and had just quickly patched up a sound designed to drone away in the background while I got some work done. The only external light source in the room came from a pair of IKEA book lights — each with only a single LED. They provided enough light for me to see the synth’s jacks, knobs and wires; but not enough light that I could actually read much of the text imprinted on its panels.
“I wonder what those cameras would do with this scene?” I thought. Ten minutes later I had my answer.
As with the “Cityscape : Crop 3” image shown earlier, this one shows a direct comparison between the three cameras with all noise reduction and sharpening disabled. The M240 column shown at the far right represents the “best” I could make that file look — I fine tuned the color noise reduction and the sharpening to get what I believe was the best result. This shows how much image data can still be extracted from such a noisy M240 file, but it also shows how far removed the quality is from an unaltered, unprocessed M246 file. By the way, I consider it a minor miracle I was able to include the MM9 image at all — it was so dark, I couldn’t see enough contrast in the viewfinder to focus accurately. It took a few tries to get the focus right. The M240 and M246, on the other hand, offer Live View, which made it extremely fast and easy to focus on the synth. Score one for modern technology!
So that’s it for now. The next article in this series, Sentences and Sensibility, is far less pedantic and contains photos that seek to determine whether or not the M246 is capable of stooping to my level…
©2015 grEGORy simpson
ABOUT THESE PHOTOS: Usually this section is nearly as verbose as the article, itself. But in this particular case, most everything that needs to be said about the accompanying photos was said in the body of the article. The lone exception is, perhaps, the overview photo of the modular synth. It’s not often that photos make sounds, but this one does. For anyone curious what that tangle of wires and knobs sounds like, the following sound is what spews forth when I push the RUN button on the Intellijel Metropolis sequencer (located in the lower left corner of the synth):
CAVEAT: The Type 246 Monochrom M camera used in this analysis is a protype build, and is running pre-release software. Consequently, it’s possible some differences might ultimately exist between the camera used here, and the one that gets put into production. One important aspect of this, which was discovered and reported by my colleagues during their testing, is an incompatibility between the M246’s DNG files and Apple’s Photos and Aperture apps when running Yosemite 10.10.3. Specifically, these two Apple-branded apps will crash when trying to open an M246 DNG. Leica and Apple are both fully aware of the issue, and Apple has identified the bug in its core RAW software — so a solution is forthcoming.
FURTHER READING: I’m not the only photographer who’s been busy testing an M246 prototype. Jonathan Slack has crafted a thorough and well-rounded article that discusses not only image quality, but also deftly covers the camera’s ergonomic and functional advantages (something I won’t be getting to until the next article). And he does this while simultaneously managing to include actual photos (rather than the silly “test” photos I’ve opted to employ).
And for those who think my approach to discussing equipment is a bit too frivolous and off-the-cuff, might I suggest you visit Sean Reid’s excellent Reid Reviews site? Sean digs deeply into the nitty and burrows in the gritty. And frankly, I’m thrilled that he does so — because knowing that his reviews are so detail-oriented means mine don’t always have to be — I can just point my fact-hungry readers to his site. Sure, it’s a pay site. But for the price of a few licoricemochamellocinnos, you’ll gain access to some of the most complete, detailed and objective camera and lens reviews available. Personally, I’ve been a subscriber since 1974… or maybe it just seems like it.
REMINDER: If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.
Hi egor – this is excellent, clear, and just detailed enough to be interesting, and not to become boring.
It’s also a fine read – congratulations!
Thanks Jonathan. I struggled with finding a balance between my preference to just go shoot “real” pictures vs. going full-blown nerd. I fear this entry might lean rather heavily toward the “nerd” side, which is why there will be a follow-up that more closely resembles what I usually shoot. Of course, what I usually shoot would probably turn people off the idea of the M (246), which would be a huge mistake!
By the way, thank you as well for your fine M 246 analysis. I hope my readers click through to your site for more Monochrom goodness.
Nicely done review. Possibly going to cost me money.
You see your influence?
G
I need oxygen. Much oxygen and nerves and money.
Very interesting behavior. This is brilliant!
Thanks for the insights,
Roman
Great write up!
I have one question though; it seems the exposure is slightly lower in the MM9 files?
Or is it just the dynamics of the sensor?
Morten:
Good question: Fortunately (and shockingly!), it’s one I actually have an answer for. When I was beta testing this camera for Leica, I indeed performed some rather extensive exposure analysis tests between all three cameras — using PS to accurately measure the luminosity values of different zones from within identical scenes. What I discovered was that all three cameras were extremely close in their exposures. In general, I found the MM9 to be ever-so slightly ‘hotter’ (when averaged over an entire scene) than the M246, which was ever-so slightly ‘hotter’ than the M240. The differences were in the “fractions” of a stop. In general, I wouldn’t draw any exposure conclusions based on what’s shown in this article — the subtle differences in the way each camera interprets “blue” or “green” or “red” has more of an effect (and even that’s subtle).
To the casual observer, (which I feel I am, although I’m a bit of a pixel pepper too), it seems that Leica, and to some extent, physics, have reached a point where the revolving power of lenses and sensors are producing infinitesimal differences from a few years ago. It has reached the point where the advancements in image quality have plateauxed and unless there is a huge technological breakthrough then we are going to continue this gradual increase in definition. Personally speaking having purchased the 35mm summilux Fle recently and using it on my M 240 I can see how this can be improved upon in any significant way. The image quality at times seems to be the pinnacle of perfection. I’m intreagued to see where sensor technologies and lens manufacturer goes but I can see how we’re going to improve significantly on where we are today.
Very nice write-up and the comparative shots themselves contain quite a bit of useful information. What I would have liked to have seen, is noise reduction applied to the MM9 higher ISO files, so these could be compared side by side with not only the new M246 but with the M240 files where noise reduction (labeled “detailed”) was applied.
If there is some way to run the MM9 files through noise reduction and repost them along side the others, I think this would be an extremely useful piece of information for current users of the MM9 as well as those on a relative budget and contemplate picking up a used MM9. I was surprised this was omitted since you demonstrated it’s usefulness to M240 files. Thanks again!
David: Thanks for commenting!
Here’s the “deal” regarding the noise comparison. The biggest percentage of (ugly, splotchy) noise in an M240 file is COLOR noise. With a bit of care, it can be significantly reduced without having too big an impact on resolution. The remaining M240 noise (as well as any M246 noise or MM9 noise) is LUMINANCE noise. I have not reduced the luminance noise in any of these files (not even the M240) because I feel that reducing luminance noise simultaneously reduces too much detail. It becomes an aesthetic tradeoff. For me, luminance noise is best applied at the END of the processing stage — before printing or outputting to the web (so you can make the appropriate tradeoffs). Other’s may disagree, which is fine. We’ve all got our own quirks. 😉
The bottom line is, in reality, by removing the COLOR noise from the M240, I’m actually putting the three cameras on the same level, and have not applied any luminance noise reduction to any of the three. Ultimately, sure, you can make an MM9 file look cleaner, but you’re going to rob it of detail by doing so (particularly shadow detail).
After rereading your article, I now understand you only removed color noise from M240 images.
One observation I will make is that although the very high ISO shots you posted with the M9MM look quite noisy compared to either the M246 or M240 with color noise reduced, in actuality on first glance, its quite clean (relatively speaking) and noise is very organic and film like. I’m speaking from actual 24×36″ and larger I have printed from ISO 5000 and higher from the M9MM. To me this look is as important as how noise free a givefile is from a given camera. Whether the M246 at high ISO provides such a look in print is yet to be determined. Clean files yes, you,ve clearly shown that. Again thanks.
Wow, the noise in the M246 just disappears. But as an MM owner who’s not really interested in spending more to upgrade, what would happen in the Synth crop image from the MM9 if you applied some luminance noise reduction and sharpening, similar to what you did for the M240? Would the MM9 and M246 get a lot more comparable?
Hi Tom: Please see my response to David’s comment (who sort of asked the same thing). Perhaps I didn’t make it clear in the article (likely the case), but I didn’t apply any *luminance* noise reduction to any of the three cameras. I applied only *color* NR to the M240 (which will often greatly improve an image without stealing too much resolution). The thing with luminance NR is that — sure you can make a file look smoother, but you’re erasing detail to do it. It’s up to the photographer to achieve a desired aesthetic balance between “enough” detail and “acceptable” noise. The goal of this article was to show the files on a “level” playing surface. From there, it’s all a matter of taste and secret sauce…
Thanks grEgor for this piece. Well, there we go. Perfect, probably.
But the best camera is the one you have, and frankly I am so in love with my ‘real’ Monochrom, that I consider this iteration as something best skipped and postponed to after the MM dies for whatever reason…
The mental anguish was already there a year ago when the 240 came out and blew the M9 away in theory (though frankly, those files ain’t half bad). But really, at least with the M9 you could (I do) complain about the too-loud shutter and the too-soft on/off switch. The MM fixed both issues reasonably, and is the best camera I ever used. Post-processing those files is a true pleasure.
Not that processing MM-246 files would not be a true pleasure and more (esp. darkness shots). But at the end of the day, I am not sure I (me, myself, with my limited technique) would really see that much difference in my output.
Also, I realize that sometimes the convenience of live view comes to the fore. Or the weather sealing (though you know, with old lenses you’re cooked no matter….)
But the price to pay is a heavier, bulkier camera getting ever farther away from the M6 feel… not to mention throwing away spare batteries etc.
So, stick with the MM I will!
Take care
Giovanni
… But the price to pay is a heavier, bulkier camera getting ever farther away from the M6 feel… not to mention throwing away spare batteries etc. …
I upgraded my M9 to an M-P when the M9 sensor needed replacement. By the measurements, the M typ 240 baseplate is 0.8mm larger front to back than the M9, and the battery is about twice the weight (2 oz). However, in my hands, the M/M-P feels tighter, smaller, and handier than the M9 did. Different ergonomics … They work well for my hands.
I’m very glad I spent the money for the upgrade. I was never “at one” with the M9, nearly sold it a few times; the M-P excites me to use it more and more. It is what I’d hoped the M9 would be.
Now that the M Monochrom typ 246 has come out, the only question for me is “do I want this, or do I want to wait and see whether a production version of the M Edition 60 comes to market?” Because I’d surely love an ME60—especially if it were a Monochrom!—without the limited edition tax and the lens (I already have all the lenses I want).
G
Hi Giovanni. Hi Godfrey:
Your duelling proclivities are *exactly* why I never recommend a camera to anyone. There’s just too much human variable and preference involved. And for this, I’m glad — otherwise we’d all be forced to shoot SLRs… 😉
I’ll have an article that dives into all this sort of “tactile” stuff in a few weeks. Suffice to say that I can see both sides of this debate with equal clarity. I’m going through the whole “do I upgrade or don’t I?” question myself. Of course, for me the decision is a little less muddled, since A) I only shoot BW, and B) the camera I would be upgrading is a 7 year-old M9…
But even then, there’s always that nagging voice inside my head that says “Hey, your 1958 Leica M2 is better at being a camera than you’ll ever be at being a photographer…”
… “Hey, your 1958 Leica M2 is better at being a camera than you’ll ever be at being a photographer…”
Hey, is your nagging voice talking to mine? I hear the same thing… 🙂
Yes, perhaps it wasn’t clear in what I said, but I believed the M240 was going to be a larger lump to carry than the M9 for a long time, even through handling it at the store. It was only after shooting with the M-P, walking with it, that I realized it seemed to feel almost as tidy as my M4-2 in my hands. I only notice the difference now when I take the two out together.
I’d love a Monochrom …. the question is when, and whether they’ll make me jump for joy and make it in an ME60 type production body. I go B&W about 80% of the time anyway: the added resolution, DR, and sensitivity of the typ 246 is very appealing.
G
Great read, many thanks.
Nice review, exactly what I was hoping the new MM would be.
And a very nice surprise to see some Eurocrack at the end there, I see a Metropolis, Atlantis, Wogglebug…..I’m assuming you’re on MW?
Jim
Hi Jim:
Actually, I find Muff Wiggler too dangerous a site to visit. While photo forums fail to inspire any gear lust in me whatsoever (maybe it’s all the bickering, or maybe it’s just that I know what I want from my cameras), reading about the latest eurorack modules is just so… tempting!
Good job on the module spotting — though I am about to put the Atlantis up for sale. It’s a wonderful module, but I seem to have embraced a more avant-garde approach (like that Cylonix Shapeshifter above it), and unless I want to expand to 12U (which I don’t), then I need the space that the Atlantis is currently occupying.
I now return this blog to its standard Monochrom discussion, previously in progress..
Hi Egor,
Thank you for this clear review. I really helps me resolving my dilemma: upgrading my MM9 .. or not.
Cheers,
Barend Jan
I’m so glad you got the toy to play with. I’m currently not in GAS mode, and look with embarrassment at my under-played with dry box of goodies. But I’m sure I will get the craving for this at some point. I didn’t like the clunkiness of the MM9 having gotten used to the M240 first, so I sold that one. But when I look back at what I did with it – many of my favourite images came from it.
What I really want to see though is this camera “stooped to your level”, as you put it. 😉
Because, that’s the rub, isn’t it? As Kennedy famously said at the launch of the M2, “ask not what this camera can do for photography, but what this camera can do for YOU.” (His later refinement of that is more widely known).
Linden:
Comments like this remind me why I keep writing this site. Thanks for the history lesson.
Do the MM246 has the same time lag between sleep mode or off like the M240. Because it is pretty annoying to wait 4 seconds before you can shoot after in sleep mode.
I documented this time lag comparing to vetween M-P 240 to M9Monochrom in my Video:
https://youtu.be/0KBObKzZKS0
I bought a “new” monochrome camera this week too! Its got a 6x6cm sensor and can shoot up to 3200 ISO pretty easily. The lens is fixed, but is as sharp as my Hasselblad. It can also deliver 30+MP without much effort . And it’s super compact (I can fit it into the back pocket of my jeans) and costs about 4% of Leica’s version.
It’s called an Agfa Isolette. Only downside? No built-in meter.
Which goes to prove you can’t have everything. Like a Leica Monochrome. Says my wife…
Thanks for posting. I enjoyed reading it. The new camera looks fantastic.
Very nice, Egor.
The start of this series is as excellent as the entire MM9 series was.
BTW, I love my MM9 and since I got it I only use the M240 when I’d like to take advantage of the live view (e.g. tripod work). But that’s history now. It’s time to go back to just one camera (I don’t do color work anymore): the M246!
Looking forward to your next post.
Axel
Hello,
nice review !
Is it possible for you to give us access to DNG ?
Just to try to “develop them in LR ?
Have a nice day.
Really grateful for this review, even if acquisition would take a new mortgage! I’ve understood AA filters before, but I’ve never seen the effect on resolution of the Bayer filter and demosaicing put so clearly before. Now the MM makes complete sense. One can only be puzzled that other manufacturers don’t do the same: there are plenty of 2+ camera owners or B&W enthusiasts to make that realistic. In fact, if Leica brought out a monochrome X Vario (rather than phasing that excellent camera out as seems likely), then I might begin selling a few things………
Oh how I would love an X Vario Monochrom.
Hi Egor
I wonder how it’s gonna do: too much in focus and too frozen – it’s not too egorian, right?
Hi Wojtek:
Much to my surprise, I’m still able to take plenty of pleasingly flawed photos. But then, I have a talent for it…
Thank your for this exceptionally well-written article. I’ve been so torn between the MM9 and the M240 that I bought both (not a the same time) and have never been able to decide between them. I shoot 95% B/W so the MM9 seemed like the natural winner, but I actually like (and use) Live-View, the EVF and the M240’s LCD is a blessing compared to the crude screen on the MM9. And I could never warm up to the clattery shutter of the M8/M9 bodies.
The M246 seems like the perfect combination for me. I’d rate the base-ISO performance too-close-to-call among the three cameras, but at high ISO’s, it seems there is an undisputed champ. I can’t wait to shoot the M246 with a Noct.
I put my name on the dealer’s list already. I just hope supply catches up with demand. These should not be difficult camera’s to keep production pace due to the similarities with the M240/M-P.
I’m surprised that in the deluge of comments, no one has yet congratulated you on the captivating sounds that you have attached to this article. I have no idea how you caused this to happen, but you should know that I will be circulating a petition amongst the ultrasomething faithful to ask you to attach similar soundtracks to future articles. As you have disclosed in previous epistles that you see in sounds and hear in pictures, I am of the view that we, your audience, cannot gain a full appreciation of your artistry without being given audio-visual cues.
Thank for the most excellent review. On announcement day I poured over this review, as well as Sean Reed’s and Jono Slack’s. All I can say is that Leica really nailed it on the camera, and you guys really nailed it on the review.
While the reviews are universally positive and the new model is clearly better than the old one, all of the positive reviews actually helped convince me to NOT upgrade. The general consensus seems to be an improvement of about 1 to 1.5 stops in the shadows, and the feature-improvements of the M240 platform. Since my M9M is paid for, my post-processing routine down to about 15 seconds and my M9 ecosystem largely complete (5 batteries, 2 chargers, M-E as color backup) I have decided to sit out the entire M24x generation (barring irreparable sensor-corrosion and/or an extremely generous upgrade offer) and perhaps even whatever comes next.
What these reviews reminded me and clearly demonstrated is that the M9 generation still has incredible image quality, still does everything I want it to do, and of course, both of my current cameras are paid for.
Could not have said it better myself.
Dave (D&A)
Really good review particularly helpful as I have an M240, have just sold my M9 Monochrom and have an M246 reserved.
By way of clarification for me as a complete non techie, why did you not simply set the M240 to shoot in moochrome rather than convert the colour shots to monchrome in editing?
Apologies if my quetion is naive and ill informed but I am relatively new to this stuff.
I just take pictures!
KInd regards
Rob
M246 ISO 100, ISO 200 ?
Great review, i love this camera. But on to something different, that soundclip.. I just loved it, it is this kind of music i usualy listen to while shooting. Any albums availible?
Kind regards Mattis
Pardon my bad english, it is not my native.
Mattis:
Thanks for the kind comment regarding the short audio snippet. I must admit I’m rather surprised by the positive response to this little “musical” snippet. I had no idea my increasingly esoteric music composition path would actually appeal to anyone! Although I helmed a few “pop” albums in the 1990’s under the umbrella of various band names, I haven’t released any recordings since. Curiously, now that I’ve rediscovered “pure” electronic music and have re-engaged with the avant-garde, I have a renewed sense of musical purpose and might well begin releasing new material in the future. For now, the best I can offer is the occasional soundtracks that I’ve composed to accompany some of my various vBook (slideshows) the past few years, such as 47 Photos of Rain, Masquerade and Whenevergram.