Leica Monochrom: example for those considering

<p>Tony, I started using the B&W mode with an R72 filter to obtain black and white infrared images, given that the M8 has only a very thin IR blocking filter over its sensor. The Quebec City building in the photo has metal roof shingles the form of which were apparently developed from an initial similar application by local "habitants" that involved cutting up empty British tea containers to make roof coverings, after shipments of the imported product was diverted to Canada following the alternative destiny of tea at the Boston Tea Party. </p>

<p>I think you make a very good point about a key advantage of the Monochrom. ISO range has been the Achille's heel of my M8 and (to a slightly lesser extent) M9. I don't fully understand how Leica got so much better ISO performance with the Monochrom (although some of that is likely related to more available pixels), but that is a really significant advantage for low light level and street photography and extending the zone focussing range you mention. </p>

I'm guessing that the actual level of noise is deceiving. There is probably as much noise with the Monochrom at a given ISO as there is with the M9, it's just that the Monochrom's noise is so much easier to deal with in good programs that handle noise reduction well, like Dfine and Lightroom. It truly is like film grain, even at high ISO.

 

For the Monochrom, even without the use of the color channel sliders, I'm loving Lightroom more and more each time I use it.

Good pics and discussion, but guys, it's nothing a good roll of Tri-X can't do... even better. :)

Ray, I actually agree with you. Quite frankly, the Monochrom is a ridiculous overkill. In my view, the majority of the finest/most interesting photographs ever made with a "35mm" camera lack the majority of the Monochrom's characteristics, resolution, noise, blah blah. Don't get me wrong, it is a great camera and it's really interesting to use, but the ability to pixel peep the scratches of a bolt-head or lug nut on the tire of a truck 100 yards away is ... unnecessary!

 

Funny thing, too, is I get all worked up about working in black-and-white for awhile as an experiment, when, at the same time, I see in influx of some of the most wonderful street photography taken in color which made me second-guess myself.... is that some karma or what? :-) Some of the sites that I have been looking at:

 

http://www.mattstuart.com/

 

http://nickturpin.com/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiogonzalezphoto/

The Monochrom is an indulgence - but it gives me ridiculous high useful iso, Medium format digi type

dynamic range , panchromatic type tonality, better micro contrast and significantly better resolution and

low noise if you care..personally I think that this straight (bayer filter and associated fussing less) B&W

delivers a better result than B&W conversion of colour files eg from my M9.

 

You shoot luminance with this camera in order to maximise teh benefit of what it can do - otherwise it is a waste. Just for tonality illustration purposes...

 

<img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8353/8413234383_172bc64a3f_z.jpg">

<p>Peter, it may not be something you care to do or have time for, but is it possible to make two images at low ISO (160 or 320) with same wide tonality subject, same lighting and same lens at near optimum f stop, with each camera on tripod, and post large file results (link)? I for one would dearly like to directly see the differences in regard to dynamic range, micro contrast, resolution, noise, etc, at least at the lower ISO values.</p>

<p>It may not be possible to see distinctions in regard to each of these parameters by such a test, but it would be worthwhile to know how much quality those who produce monochrome images with M9s may miss by not upgrading to a Monochrom. </p>

<p><em>Of course, the new M camera or a Nikon D800e fitted with a Leica lens (not sure it can be done, but it was with fine results at the time of the Canon 5D Mark I) may change all that, but I guess that in some ways would be just muddying the issue (especially as a DSLR is a very different type of instrument). </em></p>

 

<i>"Peter, it may not be something you care to do or have time for, but is it possible to make two images at low ISO

(160 or 320) with same wide tonality subject, same lighting and same lens at near optimum f stop, with each camera

on tripod, and post large file results (link)? I for one would dearly like to directly see the differences in regard to

dynamic range, micro contrast, resolution, noise, etc, at least at the lower ISO values.

 

It may not be possible to see distinctions in regard to each of these parameters by such a test, but it would be

worthwhile to know how much quality those who produce monochrome images with M9s may miss by not upgrading

to a Monochrom.

 

Of course, the new M camera or a Nikon D800e fitted with a Leica lens (not sure it can be done, but it was with fine

results at the time of the Canon 5D Mark I) may change all that, but I guess that in some ways would be just

muddying the issue (especially as a DSLR is a very different type of instrument)."</i><br><br>

 

Hi Arthur - I don't see the monochrom as an 'upgrade' to the M9 - since it doesn't shoot colour! The M9 (and M8) are

both capable of delivering good B&W employing post processing of course, however I do see the monochrom as my

go to B&W shooter though. <br>

 

I could set up tests which show very little difference between the two in B&W versus B&W conversion - however in

deep shadow or dim light or night time- the monochrome shines. A lot of people have difficulties learning to use the

monochrom - because as a digital camera- once a highlight is blown it is blown - in daylight high contrast situations

this can be a serious issue which needs to be thought through - as is the relatively high native ISO of 320. I use #3

and #6 ND filters on my Nocti and luxes for daylight shooting - as I pretty much shoot wide open as much as

possible - since that is where the lux is optimally designed to be used ... ....however I have learned to use -1/3-1 full

stop of EV in order to preserve the highlights - the darks are extremely easy to get detail out of - as in extremely easy

- and that is where one will see the big difference between the M9 and the Mono - one you shoot to preserve the

shadow detail - and the other you shoot to preserve the highlights ( if required)<br>

 

Incidentally I own a D800 - great camera but I am not satisfied with the colour versus the M9 it lacks the

dimensionality you get from CCD. B&W conversions - same comments as apply to M9 above. To be frank the Nikon

represents great value - however unless you are using Zeiss manual focus lenses you have to put up with the Nikon

stuff - again I am used to shooting Leica lenses - Nikon doesn't quite do it for me. It does shine where Leica can't

compete - and that is with macro and telephoto.<br>

 

I am concerned about the move to CMOS in the new M and will wait some time before deciding whether to 'upgrade'

to this body for colour work - at this stage I am not convinced I need to.<br>

 

I will look for suitable opportunity to test the M9 next to the mono as you suggest - please don't hold your breath

waiting though -:)<br>

 

Cheers

Pete

<p>Peter, your reply and experience are much appreciated. Thanks. Despite some advantages (ability to use R optics, etc.), I have the same concern in regard to the M and its CMOS sensor versus that of the Kodak CCD. In regard to what you say about the differences in the Monochrom and the M9 and exposure I have been shooting at -1/3 or -2/3rds compensation and I now think that it may be quite important to be as accurate as possible in using the M9 to get exposure right and not have to shift the histogram later such as not to degrade the dark values. Of course, that may risk sacrificing some highlight textures. I wish I could afford a Monochrom as well, as that would be a fine instrument for low light B&W photography.</p>

I've uploaded an image from the M9 and M Monochrom both at base-ISO.<p>

 

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/876628771/albums/m9-and-monochrom-comparisons

 

<p>

 

The M9 image is converted to monochrome using Silver-Efex 2 that came with the Monochrom. A simulated Red filter is used, all Lightroom sharpening is turned off. Default sharpening made the image look ragged. 100% crops of the "Chimney" of Mt. Vernon shows the biggest difference in edge effects due to interpolation of the M9 mosaic filter.

Brian, many thanks for doing that.

Two weeks using the Monochrom; some shots here:

 

http://www.viniciotassani.it/photogallery/box_novita-128/

 

Thank you for comments

<p>Vinicio, some very nice images of human activity, in Venice, and elsewhere I assume. The low light photos with the Monochrom are fine, at least as far as is distinguishable with small size samples.</p>

<p>Arthur, you're right, my fault. Those photos are for the website. I also uploaded few more shots on my flickr account at largest res.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73569237@N06/sets/72157632852113673/</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Here is one example. I attach the full size picture. Notice the outstanding whites and blacks.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

Large photo attachment: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bJTC-517799584.jpg" target="_blank"> <br />(in Boston -- 5216 x 3472 photo) </a>

</blockquote>

 

That's too sharp - or maybe you applied too much sharpening. Look at the profile of the statue against the white background, for example.

 

<blockquote>

Large photo attachment: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bKJm-518603584.jpg" target="_blank"> <br />(M8 B&W image full size -- 2624 x 3936 photo) </a>

</blockquote>

 

Was that a camera JPEG? Because the rendering is awful.