Leica M10 Monochrom.

I'm sure everyone has seen this but it's supposed to come out tomorrow. $8,500 price tag, 41MP.

Leica M10 Monochrom top view picture reveals a new 12,500 ISO setting (new ISO range: 160-100,000) - Leica Rumors

Almost twice the pixel count as the M10, and no RGB filters means a huge amount of extra detail in the raw image. I would expect the results to be sensational, especially for prints.

Effectively, the new MM has at least twice the pixel count of the M10, because debayering takes away up to 20% of resolution. The old CCD Monochrom was pretty much even with the Nikon D800E, so that should tell you something.

I've heard some silly criticisms of this camera, the worst being that because focusing isn't always accurate, you're wasting all that resolution. As if AF cameras never missed focus!

If anything, monochrome sensors don't need as high a pixel count as Bayer sensors. However, the reality is that sensitivity is compromised due to the Bayer filter. Take away the Bayer filter and you can increase the pixel density.

debayering takes away up to 20% of resolution.

Looks like big Freudian typo.

I am happy to hear about that release. The previous CMOS Mono wasn't selling too well, was it? - This one sounds like a toy ready to tempt lots of folks (hopefully some resolution worshippers, previously shooting only color Ms, too) and sell quite well.

Maybe we'll even get 2 waves of used ones; a 1st after high res color M release and a 2nd with the 4th Monochrom later? - What could Leica pack into that next one, to make it even more tempting? While it is out of my convenient reach, it would be nice to have, some day...

Looks like big Freudian typo.

It's closer to 50% loss, due to color interpolation, as witnessed by Foveon results and pixel-shifting in other cameras.

I've heard some silly criticisms of this camera, the worst being that because focusing isn't always accurate, you're wasting all that resolution. As if AF cameras never missed focus!

The fact that AF is not always accurate does not make rangefinder focusing any better. Focus magnification in an EVF is an order of magnitude more accurate, followed by live view in other cameras, given enough time to set up.

Can anyone really tell the difference between this camera and a color camera that converts to BW? Reminds of the expressions, a fool and his money are soon parted. Or how about there's a sucker born every minute. Maybe the one that goes when you have a lemon, make lemonade. This way to the Big Egress.

There is a difference in resolution between a color and monochrome camera with the same pixel count. There were many reasonable reviews to this effect the first time around. The difference is blurred (pun intended) with high resolution sensors because of the extraordinary care needed to focus accurately and eliminate all sources of camera motion. That includes the use of two seldom-used (for Leica owners) holes - one in the bottom plate (tripod) and the other on the top (shutter release cable).

All cameras are 6 MP if hand held using the reciprocal focal length rule for shutter speed.

Can anyone really tell the difference between this camera and a color camera that converts to BW?

Some great photographers (especially street photographers) only shoot in monochrome. For them, even having a color option is a distraction. For me, the entire reason I bought a Leica M was to get away from the feature overload of other brands. I wanted exactly and only the features that I would use. On my old camera (Canon SLR), I could set it up to shoot the way I wanted, but then all the other buttons, levers and dials were just a distraction. My Canon had many focus "modes", and yet I feel way more in control of focus with the rangefinder. Of course some people probably buy Leica's for the status, but as a working tool for a certain style of photography, Leica M's are (to borrow from Einstein) as simple as possible, but no simpler.

So, to answer your original question: I don't know. But I do know that there are some great photographs taken with Leica monochrome cameras. And if monochrome is all you want, why buy a camera that compromises quality with an unnecessary feature that you are never going to use?

Can anyone really tell the difference between this camera and a color camera that converts to BW? Reminds of the expressions, a fool and his money are soon parted. Or how about there's a sucker born every minute. Maybe the one that goes when you have a lemon, make lemonade. This way to the Big Egress.

Yes, you can. I have the original M Monochrom and the M9. I've shot the same scene, same lens, both cameras. Converted to monochrome, the M9 shows interpolation artifacts not present in the M Monochrom image. I've written my own DNG processing software to optimize monochrome conversions for the M8 and M9 to see how close you can get. Dedicated monochrome sensors have advantages over converting image from color cameras.

35/1.7 Ultron on the M Monochrom and the M9 at F4, 100% crop. M9 converted to monochrome using LR4.

Did this test about 7 years ago.

Look at the left and right edge of the chimney- will see the interpolation artifacts.

Desaturating a color photo offers more options in selectively lightening or darkening various colors once the color is removed.

That's what most people say. But that is a simplistic way to look at the question. Some years ago, Red Digital Cinema released a monochrome version of their then flagship camera, the Epic. Many cinematographers said exactly what you said - at least at first. But Red was vindicated, because one year later their main competitor, ARRI, released a monochrome version of their flagship camera, the Alexa XT.

In fact, many cinematographers who shoot film use a colour negative if they want a b&w deliverable. The reason is not because of 'more options', but because the colour stocks have finer grain (compared to 5222). Why Kodak doesn't have more b&w options for cinema film, I'll never understand. We have T-Max and the XP2, but for some reason I don't think you can buy these for movie cameras.

Some photographers like Portra 400 for b&w printing. There's nothing wrong with that at all! But nobody ever said that we don't need b&w emulsions just because we have good colour ones.

you all don't hold KR in high regard

Newly re-released

The Return of the Hypnoken imdb

:rolleyes:

I visit the Weston Gallery regularly. None of their iconic photographs that have made it to the pinnacle of fine photography and are worthy of being displayed on the walls of Weston Gallery are there because of their high resolution. OK, maybe AA.

And you should ditch your car for a horse and carriage...

And you should ditch your car for a horse and carriage...

Funny coming from the Leica Forum...

I don't think that I am such a good photographer that I need a Leica Monochrom for my B&W photography. My trusty MP with a roll of decent film is at this point good enough. Yeah, that combo also eliminates any issues with "interpolation artifacts" in post-processing and there is no worries about those overly complex shooting modes/menus that clutter digital cameras. Just my $0.02.

The menus on the M9 and M Monochrom are less complex than logging into photo.net and making this post.

Michael: Sorry if

Some great photographers (especially street photographers) only shoot in monochrome. For them, even having a color option is a distraction. For me, the entire reason I bought a Leica M was to get away from the feature overload of other brands. I wanted exactly and only the features that I would use. On my old camera (Canon SLR), I could set it up to shoot the way I wanted, but then all the other buttons, levers and dials were just a distraction. My Canon had many focus "modes", and yet I feel way more in control of focus with the rangefinder. Of course some people probably buy Leica's for the status, but as a working tool for a certain style of photography, Leica M's are (to borrow from Einstein) as simple as possible, but no simpler.

So, to answer your original question: I don't know. But I do know that there are some great photographs taken with Leica monochrome cameras. And if monochrome is all you want, why buy a camera that compromises quality with an unnecessary feature that you are never going to use?

Sorry if I was so churlish. I just bought a 4x5 film camera and have started to shoot Tmax 100 in it. That's BW film. All settings are manual. No menu at all. I couldn't come up with a rationale reason for my wife of why I bought it other then I'll have movements so my landscapes will have better DOF. But it's cheaper than buying a stick shift. Enjoy your Leica. Sounds like a wonderful camera.

Funny coming from the Leica Forum...

Maybe you should be on the Sony, Canon or Nikon forum if you think that we are the Amish of photography. I've used Leica Ms for 20 years for very specific reasons that I find hard to shed (RF, size, silent operation, etc) but with your logic we should still be shooting with M3 cameras because it was good enough. Yet the M6 with TTL was a welcome improvement to the M3/4/5 and Cartier Bresson used one thus embracing new technology like we are now. Then the M7 with Aperture Priority was another welcome addition (God knows I used that feature all the time). Now the M10 is near perfect but yes I could use a little bit more resolution so that I can do bigger prints if I want to. Nothing wrong with that. No I don't need more dynamic range (we had very few stops in the film days and we somehow managed perfectly well).

Maybe you should be on the Sony, Canon or Nikon forum if you think that we are the Amish of photography

Ah, if only. Today I'm using either an 11 year old Panasonic or a 13 year old Nikon, both 12 mp.

My go-to Leica dealer recently told me he has pre-orders for 49 M10 Monochrom cameras, which will take about a year to fill!

I honestly feel that 24 megapixels is about maximum with no image stabilization (an add-on "advantage" for the M11, I suspect). My suspicion is that people will be disappointed to discover that 40 megapixels is simply too much for hand-held shooting.