Impact of "M Monochrom(e)" on B&W Film Photography

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Antonio<br />I am sorry if I sent a wrong message that I already do have the camera. No. It is not out there. I am first in line in B&H to get one, though. I will let you know, then.</p>

<p>Yuki<br />My conclusion regarding impact on film, through MM, is due to two things: 1) MM brings more attention to B&W, and 2) relatively (to color) higher percentage of B&W photographers shoot film.<br />And, I agree with you, fully, that, film's strength is in what may seem to others as weakness, i.e., "limitations".</p>

[rgerraty]

Yuki, your second paragraph is actually a good argument for the M Monochrom.

[sebastianmoran]

<p>I, too, have been looking at the M9M from afar. Doesn't ring my chimes. I have had very good results with the B&W conversion options in software. I can apply whatever "filter" I want at PP time, including some filters that don't exist in glass. </p>

<p>If the aim of the M9M is to produce higher resolution, no thanks. I already have plenty of pixels. </p>

<p>If the aim of the M9M is higher ISO's, sorry, I'll bet on the mainline manufacturers for high ISO performance.</p>

<p>There is a tremendous amount of innovation going on in Cameras. The next decade should be very exciting. I don't think the M9M is going to be among the largest impact-makers.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Although I think the MM is a logical thing and it does offer a good number of benefits. It's not an invovation. The technique I can bet was available before the Bayer invention to make color sensor.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>@Sebastian<br />In ordinary color digital sensors, for every four pixels there are two green (to pick up light information) and one red and one blue (to pick up color information). The information from each group goes through a software to tell the picture. here, while pixel 1 has its light information, its color info comes from the pixel next to it, not itself. Aside from increase in resolution, in MM you can see the true pixel information from where it is picked, to where it is shown.<br />Another is that, now in MM, for every four pixels, two can take the light info, and the others can take the plus and minus exposure (like braketting). This way, you have information for the whole 11 zones of grey.<br />it is not only resolution and ISO, as you said, but the quality that is changed.</p>

[bob_yildiran]

<p>First about the resolution increase:</p>

<br /> Anything, including transparent ones, standing on the path of light reaching the “wells” on the sensor cause a loss in resolution besides sensitivity (quantum efficiency) of the sensor as a whole. An IR filter, a Color Filter Array, an antialiasing filter, a wave plate or any optical glass mean a certain loss of resolution as well as a certain drop in sensitivity (for most of us the number of photons collected in the “well” in a given time.) <br /> <br /> The red, green and blue color filters cause up to 30% drop in the intensity of light passing through them, which corresponds to up to 4-stop less ISO sensitivity in conventional terms. (Trick here: Green is located around the mid portion of the visible spectrum so our eyes see sharper with green than what they do with the “side” colors like red and blue. That’s why Dr. Bayer has employed two green with one blue and one red in his pattern; do not mind about luminance or chrominance sensitivities.)<br /> <br /> Assuming we employed the usual demosaicing algorithms, the elimination of the antialiasing filter is generally known as improving the resolving power of a sensor by around 10%. This is the increase in actual resolution power; increase in contrast, crispness, acuity, etc. are different subjects. As you note, the use of the AA filter can be likened to closing down a lens further when diffraction starts to appear. <br /> <br /> The elimination of the CFA, while helping the sensitivity to raise considerably can also assist the resolution power of the sensor to reach its “native” value. What we do here is actually nothing but trying to “retrieve” back the original resolution power as well as its original sensitivity by trying to eliminate the losses for what we placed on it to get color pictures and to stay away from moire. <br /> <br /> How far the elimination of the CFA can help a sensor’s resolution? It’s usually around 25% depending on the algorithm used. To have an idea about it, check first the sample comparisons between the D800 and D800E; they are about 10% apart from each other due to the elimination of the AA filter (as some Nikonians admit of not being able to see or being able to compensate by the PP sharpness slider only.) With crude calculations one can state that the resolution of the M9M could be equivalent of a 28MP color sensor.

 

Finally elimination of the CFA has nothing to do on the dynamic range of a sensor; for some cases the version with CFA sometimes can exhibit up two 2 EVs more DR. Let's wait until some measurements are performed on the M9M.

<br /> <br /> The following chart illustrates a typical example of the same sensors resolution power, with and without the CFA. <br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7211/7181416656_c6b4a09eed_b.jpg" alt="" border="0" />

<p><br /> <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/report.php?p=1878539" rel="nofollow"><img title="Report Post" src="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/themes/graphite/buttons/report.gif" alt="Report Post" border="0" /></a> <a name="vB::QuickEdit::1878539" href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1878539"></a><img title="Edit/Delete Message" src="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/themes/graphite/buttons/edit.gif" alt="Edit/Delete Message" border="0" /></p>

 

[rossb]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Yuki, your second paragraph is actually a good argument for the M Monochrom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I don't see it that way. </p>

 

[rgerraty]

What I mean is, Ross, the next 36 shots with Tri-X are going to be black and white, and the next 36 and the 1036 after

that on an M9-M are also going to be black and white and that constraint is one of the advantages.

[ray .]

Some pretty good samples here:<p>

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_monochrom/download-192_5.html<p>

 

From these and other quality photos I've seen the M Monochrom has needle sharp resolution, a very rich

tonal range (possibly unsurpassed for a digital camera), and higher ISO capability than the M9.

[zml]

<p>A dedicated B&W camera might have a far greater impact on color photography (= no color) than on black and white photography, which is perfectly doable with a standard digital camera and some know how. Black and white was a necessity (=the only thing, some labor intensive and experimental color stuff notwithstanding) until commercially feasible color processes were developed, and like any use, or lack of use, of the color/tone palette, is a legitimate method of pictorial expression, but somehow it got elevated to the pinnacle of artistic expression. Bizarre but true.</p>

<p>I was never a fan of Leica (I grew up with a little SLR, Exa II, the Exacta’s little sister, and could never get used to rangefinders) so I don’t follow their ins and outs but the recent rumor hoopla of “M10 on May 10th“ made me stand up and pay attention. OK, upon cursory reading of the news in my naiveté I thought that the good people from Solms were releasing yet another “commemorative” Leica, this time clad in a black and white hide of yet another endangered animal but, come to think of it, a monochrome output camera makes sense for Leica: they already had a model (M8) shooting with a glorious magenta/purple tint and from what I’m hearing they are working on two Leica models that will shoot only in primary colors, one using an additive, and the other one subtractive method. (Sorry, could not resist…)</p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>Sure, this camera will appeal to some B&W film shooters, but the folks who still shoot film do so for many reason, and a lot of them just don't like the digital image. I see the camera selling, at least initially, and most of the buyers are going to be current M8/M9 users. Leica will continue doing little tweaks to the M9 to generate sales before they come up with something substantially different (e.g., M10 or whatever).</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Thanks Ray.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>How can you write an entire paragraph in one sentence? (Sorry, couldn't resist...)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marcel Proust..?<br>

Although technically it is one big parenthetical expression (and one sentence fragment in paranthesis...)</p>

[tom_higgins3]

Kind of reminds me of a Hasselblad SWC- capable of great results in the right hands/circumstances, but way too specialised for the price

they're asking.

[rossb]

 

<blockquote>

<p>What I mean is, Ross, the next 36 shots with Tri-X are going to be black and white, and the next 36 and the 1036 after that on an M9-M are also going to be black and white and that constraint is one of the advantages.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see what you mean. </p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00aPER"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5994753">BeBu Lamar</a>, May 19, 2012; 09:54 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>capture no color information makes the camera less capable of mimic film (and yes I mean B&W film) so it's not the purpose of the M monochrom. It makes little impact on the photographic world. Few people will buy it just like few were buying the M9. But I feel that they might be able to sell up to 70% to M9 owners. Because if you already own the M9 and a bunch of Leica lenses buying the monochrom makes a lot of sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. Black and white film does register all colours (at least panchromatic film does), and it is true that most films 'see' colours a little brighter or darker than they are based on their wavelength, which is why a digital camera (which registers all colours more-or-less equally) doesn't look the same when you click the monochrome button.</p>

<p>However, Leica has said that they expect users to be using colour filters with this camera. If the camera is used the way it is intended to be used, it will provide the same effects as film, aside from the inherent exposure/printing differences between pixels/grain and ink/silver.</p>

<p>Also as mentioned by others, the design's claim is that the all-monochrome pixels increase ISO performance, and dynamic range. This isn't proven yet of course, but the logic is sound. This is not, despite how it may look, designed to compete with a D4, or anything of that ilk, any more than the old M cameras were meant to compete with an F4. It is designed to attract the last 35mm film stragglers (at least the ones with money), who haven't gone digital yet because black and white film can still capture a much broader tonal range than existing cameras.</p>

<p>Granted you need to be shooting at pretty low ISOs to get that. But since most of these people still consider 400 film 'fast', the fact that a D-whatever has better high ISO performance is totally irrelevant.</p>

 

[nozar_kishi]

<p> To me MM is the destination of a journey that started from a B&W-taking-M3, to high end M film, MP, and then detoured to digital, to M8 and M9, and M9P, and then returned, with a transfigured look and guts, (back) to MM. As was said earlier, B&W's strength is in its "limitations", and here we have the M3, again, only this time with 32 gigabyte of opportunities: same B&W, same pre-visualization, same filter choices, same zone system, same simplicity and worry-free nature of having only one format (here B&W) in camera. To me MM is bringing a new era; only I wish the price was lower. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Nozar, I agree fully with your comments about the importance of the M9M, at least for those film users interested in art photography with black and white, and also about its considerable price of entry. It remains to be seen, though, whether it will offer that much better monochrome quality than other competing full colour digital cameras.</p>

<p>We have seen the strong competition offered by lower price options (with Leica lens adaptability) to the M8 and M9, like the NEX-7 or the Fuji system digital camera, at about 1/5th the price. The trade-offs are the lack of the historic but appreciated M camera operational approach and the sensor size effect on lens choice. However, if the competition continues to offer higher resolution and dynamic range sensors and firmware they may allow equal performance to that of the M9M, and perhaps they may come out with an albeit smaller sensor monochrome version some day.</p>

<p>As nice as the M9M idea is, I think that Leica would sell many more of them if they had priced it instead in the $5000 range or a lower range. Materially speaking, it is not very different than an M9, but prices are probably more related to marketing strategy than to the real cost of making such a camera, and someone has appropriately assumed that no expensive R&ED was required for the "leap" from the M9 to the M9M. For those who have made the considerable investment in an M8, or more recently, an M9, doubling their debt may be asking quite a lot, although they might obtain an M9M at a somewhat lesser cost than a regular M9. But then, when it comes to interpreting Leica marketing logic, I am usually wrong.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Arthur, MM is not merely M9 without color. Leica has thoroughly redesigned the software (if not the pixels), and that has used up millions of R&D dollars. Previously, the information from groups of four cells (two green, one red, and one blue) went into a software to assign the average light intensity and frequency (color) for a fictitious cell that could be assumed to be at the center of the four. Now every cell's information goes to itself (one major reason why the resolution is very high, and ISO can be boosted).<br>

As for myself (personal opinion) I do not care about the added resolution and ISO; as long as I have now an M3 with 32 gigabyte of B&W opportunities, I am fine.<br>

I hope, with you, that others will follow with 1/5th prices. Fingers crossed.</p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>A nice controversial discussion - nothing else was to be expected after the release of the MM.<br>

For me the MM fills a very interesting niche - surely interesting only for a few photographers. This niche cannot be described by sensor resolution or iso performance alone. The unique position lies in the whole system. There is already a B & W only digital back from Phase One, much more expensive (I didn't hear any complaints about Phase One prices) - but its portability doesn't come near to the Leica M. The unique position of the Leica is that it has an extremely high resolution (comparable to 28-30 MPix of color to B&W converted pictures) combined with lenses that support this resolution <em>wide open</em> - and a small lightweight package. You probably will get the same image quality with a Nikon D800 but you probably will need a tripod and a stopped down lens (see the comments on dpreview.com on optimal use of the D800). I also believe that I get the at least the same image quality with my old Bronica and MF film. But you probably get the same technical image quality with a Leica handheld used with a wide open Leica or Zeiss lens. Thrown in more plasticity by a nice background blur. This offers new aspects for a few creative people. I doubt that the introduction of this camera will cause any changes in the mass market. I also doubt that other camera makers will follow with comparable options for 1/5 of the price. Such a niche product is only interesting for a few photographers and a camera maker who is used to live in a niche (and is able to sell its products at such a price level).</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p>I think the primary market for this new camera is current Leica owners. People that bought the M8 and the M9 are going to think about buying this one also. Collectors will get on board and some rich folks that want a camera to wear like jewelry.. I think the 35mm folks will just keep shooting film as they are already doing what they like. </p>

[Didier Lamy]

"I think the 35mm folks will just keep shooting film as they are already doing ".

Or maybe they will see the M-M as an opportunity to switch to the digital world while keeping a good part of their culture.

[dzeanah]

<p>I like the concept, and I think if Fuji were to offer an X-Pro-1 version I'd seriously consider it.</p>

<p>But then I think back to shooting B&W with film, and maintaining a set of colored filters for each lens, and the limited control after the exposure (compared to what one can do in Photoshop/Lightroom with B&W conversions and the control of the various tones and their relationship), and the fact that I tend to think in B&W but when the lighting is right my wife favors color vacation photos...</p>

<p>At the end of the day the advantages I see for the M Monochrom are simplicity (all B&W, all the time, regardless of settings) and resolution (no interpretation due to Bayer filter). For me, I don't know that this is enough to make me commit to such a specialist camera.</p>

<p>With that said, if I could choose B&W mode on my Fuji and have it flip an internal switch where the RAW file would ignore the colors assigned to each pixel and just record the intensity of the light, then I'm pretty sure I'd use it. I'd even be willing to upgrade to gain access to that functionality</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Derek</p>

<p>I am surprised to hear that you think you have more control on "exposure" in digital color and in Photoshop, than B&W film. If digital does not register details in the dark or in highlights at the first place, then all you can do in Photoshop is pumping/draining light into the image. B&W film has the latitude of close to 7 to 8 zones, and with pre-exposure, the range goes to 11, which is from pure black to pure white. MM, with possibility of multi-exposure on the same file (I gather this from Leica Forum review) can provide such information. In color digital, you only, and only, can do it (High Dynamic) with multiple shots, which dictate possibility only for stationary objects like apples; not people.</p>

[rossb]

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I think the 35mm folks will just keep shooting film as they are already doing ". Or maybe they will see the M-M as an opportunity to switch to the digital world while keeping a good part of their culture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> The M8 and M9 upgrade certainly hit the film world hard and this camera is sure to bring over some more film shooters. . For Leica it's a good move. You have the M9 folks that are thinking about an upgrade and now you have a completely different camera available. People are going to buy this camera and then when the stampede settles down Leica can hit the market with the M10 upgrade. However for a family guy like myself I will just shoot film. The strange thing about film is I am now different.. People actually want to see my photos because they forgot or do not realize that film makes beautiful photographs. Anyway when I upgrade I just buy a pack of Portra instead of Kodak Gold (LOL). </p>