Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: alifatemi on May 23, 2015, 10:21:06 am
-
I like to ask all friends here who have had first hand experience with Lieca monochrome, those who really have it and leave with it for long time, what is your idea in long run of this camera if we forget about deferences between viewfinder and SLR and just focusing on B&W picture differences. I am considering buying monochrome but don't know if even after post production manipulations, we can reach any meaningful verdict between the two? even without considering monochrome such a high price tag. I mean lets forget about viewfinder pros/cons compare to SLR, and lets forget about price we gonna pay for monochrome, can't we really reach the same file quality of monochrome with really good SLR with best chosen lenses available and also after in post production turning the files to B&W and tuning them accourdingly? Regards.
-
The answer to your question is, obviously, "yes", as you can generate an infinite variety of b&w renditions of your colour image, but the only thing that you can vary with the b&w one is the local and global contrast and exposure; you cannot lighten or darken specific colour ranges only luminosity ranges.
That said, the b&w Leicas will produce slightly cleaner / less noisy pictures than their colour counterparts (particularly with older lenses, which were not corrected in the blue spectrum, because film was not sensitive to it).
How much any of this matters depends on what you are shooting, in what volume, and what you intend to do with it and how good your post-processing skills and aptitude are.
-
MM?
It is OK. It tends to burn out the highlights unless you underexpose. Here is a shot done with the MM.
https://danielteolijr.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/whimsical-composition-copyright-2015-daniel-d-teoli-jr-mr-v42.jpg
Here is the rundown on the M240. Same thing applies to the MM if you wish to read my review. M240 does have the color sliders that can be used in PP as was noted previously.
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/my-review-of-the-leica-m240-that-dp-refused-to-publish/
-
If you are a B&W street photographer there truly is not a better digital tool for that. The files from my MM are much cleaner and void of artifacts that are sometime associated and some of hte problems I had when converting color to B&W. I tend to see in B&W and I shoot a lot of street so for me it was a no brainer. And apparently the original was a good enough seller for Leica because they just released an ungraded CMOSIS version. I don't have any plans of upgrading but the files I have seen on line from it are pretty amazing.
-
An important part of my B&W workflow is to find an artistically pleasing B&W interpretation of the scene in post. That is only possible by shooting color RAW. That alone takes Leica Monochrom from my list of possible cameras, not to mention the cost. I might loose a bit in resolution (unless using Nikon D800 series), but gain much much more in other possibilities in forming the final B&W rendition.
-
An important part of my B&W workflow is to find an artistically pleasing B&W interpretation of the scene in post. That is only possible by shooting color RAW. That alone takes Leica Monochrom from my list of possible cameras, not to mention the cost. I might loose a bit in resolution (unless using Nikon D800 series), but gain much much more in other possibilities in forming the final B&W rendition.
This is certainly a valid approach, and one I tried (to like) during the mid & latter 2000s. But the approach that works best for me is the opposite: dial in a pleasing monochrome palette in-camera, then stick with it. Or use b&w film. This means using JPEGs with CFA'd-sensor cameras, which is fine 'cuz I then expose as though I'm using a b&w transparency film like Agfa Scala. Little post work wanted or needed. Options deliberately limited. An advantage with EVF cameras is that I can see what I'm getting in the finder as I do it. With film, or with the Monochrom in my limited experience with it, a few filters are enough to tilt the overall tonality a bit as desired.
-Dave-
-
I only shoot raw and I can tell you the files from the MM are just spectacular. The original 18mp has been compared sharpness wise to the Nikon d800e because there is no color. The noise also looks more like at high ISO (6400 and 10,000) like tri x processed in a acutance developer like Rodinal. I can see a difference in large prints when I convert from color and the prints from the MM. Plus the idea of B&W not being an after thought like if you had B&W film in your camera. You are looking for things appropriate for B&W prints not, oh this shot might look cool in B&W. It is a much different approach.
Here's a little something comparing the original MM and the d800e
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/
-
I only shoot raw and I can tell you the files from the MM are just spectacular. The original 18mp has been compared sharpness wise to the Nikon d800e because there is no color. The noise also looks more like at high ISO (6400 and 10,000) like tri x processed in a acutance developer like Rodinal. I can see a difference in large prints when I convert from color and the prints from the MM. Plus the idea of B&W not being an after thought like if you had B&W film in your camera. You are looking for things appropriate for B&W prints not, oh this shot might look cool in B&W. It is a much different approach.
Here's a little something comparing the original MM and the d800e
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/
But using B&W film, we could use color filter to enhance or reduce certain tonality either in front of camera or later on in lab; can we still use color filter also with mm?
-
But using B&W film, we could use color filter to enhance or reduce certain tonality wither in front of camera or later on in lab; can we still use color filter also with mm?
Not so much a case of could; rather I think it is recommended?
-
But using B&W film, we could use color filter to enhance or reduce certain tonality either in front of camera or later on in lab; can we still use color filter also with mm?
Yes in front of the camera (lens), not later in the lab.
The same applies to Leica Monochrom. You can use classic B&W color filters during the shoot. Then you are more or less stuck with the tonality you captured.
By shooting color and converting to B&W in post you can try, test and experiment with all possible and impossible color filters, with the same frame.
If that is worth more than some "artistic constraints" and slight advantage in resolution Leica Monochrom provides is up to you.
-
An important part of my B&W workflow is to find an artistically pleasing B&W interpretation of the scene in post. That is only possible by shooting color RAW. That alone takes Leica Monochrom from my list of possible cameras, not to mention the cost. I might loose a bit in resolution (unless using Nikon D800 series), but gain much much more in other possibilities in forming the final B&W rendition.
Same here, such a very useful modern workflow. To go back to the limited [pre-raw shooting in a way] more film style workflow is a retrograde step as far as I am concerned.
-
Proper tool for the job not one size fits all.
I have color digital cameras for when I do color work (pro work). All of my personal work and some annual report and some bill board work has been B&W for well over 2 1/2 years now so the MM was a no brainer for me. Plus there is not a better digital tool for B&W street work than an MM. The freedom to go from 320 ISO to 6400 ISO one frame ot the next and have 6400 look like tri-x medium format is just terrific for me.
-
The files have so much in them you have so much room for contrast and tonal control. Much more than you get with a color sensor and no artifacts. I own both. While I was in college I took two semesters of zone system (8X10 & 4X5 view cameras) and yes I did all the tests. I also shot with 500 C/Ms for a couple of decades and did custom B&W and color printing as well as shooting professional for many years and the files from the MM are the only B&W digital files that have truly impressed me.
My workflow is in CS6 (I never warmed up to either LR or SE and both came with the MM) and is a lot like I would work in the darkroom.
I had a one man exhibit of my street work here in Chicago back in March and two of my college professors attended (both film guys) were really impressed with the print quality.
And yes I use color filters with the MM the same as I would with B&W film.
-
By shooting color and converting to B&W in post you can try, test and experiment with all possible and impossible color filters, with the same frame.
If that is worth more than some "artistic constraints" and slight advantage in resolution Leica Monochrom provides is up to you.
There's no need for pejorative descriptions of what's actually just a different way of doing things. What works best for you doesn't work best for me. To not accept this suggests arrogance. To accept it suggests tolerance of individual differences.
-Dave-
-
There's no need for pejorative descriptions of what's actually just a different way of doing things. What works best for you doesn't work best for me. To not accept this suggests arrogance. To accept it suggests tolerance of individual differences.
People do like to take offence at absolutely nothing. ::)
I simply saw someone offering an alternative take on why this Leica camera has drawbacks compared to say using a colour raw file and then said it was your choice which you preferred.
-
The thing I like about the MM is it is a REAL alternative to every other camera out there. Choices are a good thing. So with the sales of the old MM being so strong Leica decided to make an upgraded version is all good so to the OP the final judgement is it is an amazing camera and the perfect tool if you are a digital B&W street photographer.
Also wanted to say that I have never found the MM limiting. Using the right tool for the job is liberating in my opinion. The MM and a 35mm lens is a very good match for the way I see. Finding the equipment that matches your vision is never limiting but freeing.
-
There's no need for pejorative descriptions of what's actually just a different way of doing things. What works best for you doesn't work best for me. To not accept this suggests arrogance. To accept it suggests tolerance of individual differences.
-Dave-
I quite frankly do not understand your response, there was nothing pejorative intended. I have photographed professionally for almost 40 years, and often used gear which is not ideally suited* for the assignment, just to make it a challenge. Quite often it has resulted in surprising and "artistic" results. So I see nothing pejorative in my "artistic constraints" formulation. Maybe it is no the ideal way of putting it, but English is not my native tongue.
*) like shooting the presidential independence gala with closeup lens equipped Widelux F7 panoramic camera only, or handheld interview portraits with Mamiya RZ67.
-
Sorry. The use of "retrograde" tripped my annoyance wire.
I do wish there were monochrome sensor alternatives to the Leicas. Samsung was rumored to be coming out with one awhile back, but nothing so far…
-Dave-
-
I do wish there were monochrome sensor alternatives to the Leicas.
Your prayers are answered:
http://www.achromaticplus.com/Achromatic_Plus/Achromatic+.html
Jim
-
The files have so much in them you have so much room for contrast and tonal control. Much more than you get with a color sensor and no artifacts.
Interesting, but I do not see how that would be technically possible?
Room for contrast and tonal control in monochrome images is defined by Dynamic Range, and tonal control is hampered by the inability to control color contrast in monochrome, after the fact. What artifacts do you see in a Bayer CFA sensor that you don't see in a monochrome version? Any examples?
And yes I use color filters with the MM the same as I would with color film.
I don't follow. I've been a (certified) professional photographer for almost 37 years myself, and I've never used the same filters for B/W as I did for color, except maybe a UV filter. Maybe you intended to say something different, which got lost due to translation?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Try the Foveon sensor cameras for B and W conversion.
-
I don't follow. I've been a (certified) professional photographer for almost 37 years myself, and I've never used the same filters for B/W as I did for color, except maybe a UV filter. Maybe you intended to say something different, which got lost due to translation?
:-[[Sorry Brett typo I meant to say B&W film.
There has been a lot of technical info written about the MM and it's out there if you are really interested. I personally don't know a B&W photographer that has spent any real quality time with an MM that doesn't prefer it over color conversions. Most of hte hate I read is usually by those that have never shot with one let alone spend a few weeks with it. And it is still the only FF 135 format rangefinder that is a dedicated B&W camera. There are plenty of others out there that feel as I do. If that was not true Leica would have never done a newer version. Plus the idea of B&W being the vision not an after thought.
So the final judgement of someone that actually uses one is I like the original so much that I have no plans of upgrading. Over 2 1/2 years with mine and 30K plus frames I will shoot with it until it dies and Leica no longer repairs it.
-
I am enjoying the toy version of what you serious guys are talking about after just figuring out I can set my $400 Pentax K5 to RAW+ and set the jpeg filter to B&W; so I get TTL OVF & B&W live view, or a B&W review image from the jpeg and a histogram on my LCD, and a RAW color image plus B&W jpeg on my SD card for post processing however I want.
-
And I'm sure the K5 is a wonderful camera but no matter how hard ya try and slice it is not a rangefinder. I like the MM for most of the things it doesn't have. No video, no live view, no EVF no FPS to mention. And I can shoot B&W JPGs with my Canons. It is not the same.
There is not a better digital tool for B&W street photography than the Leica MM. Final judgement. Rangefinders aren't for everyone and a B&W only one is hard for some to get and that's OK. It is really nice to have choices. And the MM is a real choice over all the others out there.
-
I had an Epson RD1 but sold it when I realized what came out of it was not very different to a Minolta 5D I had at the time, so I agree it depends a lot on personal preference. It did take me a while to forget about all the other switches on the Pentax.
-
Try the Foveon sensor cameras for B and W conversion.
Yes, we know! Though actually Sean Reid's review was a comparison in using the blue channel conversion only v the MM. You can also add M9's v Fuji X and a multitude of other cams ..
You're missing the point, though - none of the comparisons,tests,reviews have, AFAIK, have actually said that any of the alternates produce better IQ than the MM. None.
-
You're missing the point, though - none of the comparisons,tests,reviews have, AFAIK, have actually said that any of the alternates produce better IQ than the MM. None.
Other than due to specific lens quality differences, I think that almost nobody can point out the MM images in a blind test. It's the same nonsense as CCD versus CMOS color. Postprocessing makes all the difference, that's also why e.g. Ansel Adams spent such an amount of time exposing and processing to the Zone System.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It was a trio for Adams reflected by three books he wrote.
The Camera (What you start with and in his case it was mostly a large format view camera to give him the control and better image quality that you get with those big negatives. The proper instrument)
The Negative (writing the score as he would refer to it as. Using the zone system to get the right tonal information so he could move on to the next step.)
The Print (performing the score as he would say. Without the other two pieces working in seamlessly together this part becomes far more difficult to control)
I see a difference with the MM where it really counts in several areas. Operation, how it renders and ultimately what i can get in my final prints.
Now that is coming from someone that has used one extensively. From some of the comments I am reading I see there is little real first hand knowledge.
For street work a rangefinder is the perfect camera as a view camera is for B&W zone system.
And again I know a lot of folks through forums and personally that have them and folks that have shot extensively with them. Most were very experienced B&W photographers and they almost all share my opinion. This camera is not for the masses and if you want a camera that shoots color then this is clearly not the camera for you but for those of us that are B&W street photographers it is an AMAZING tool that is not meant for the masses and the ones that want a camera that trys to do everything.
-
Your prayers are answered:
http://www.achromaticplus.com/Achromatic_Plus/Achromatic+.html
I neglected to mention the desire for compactness. ;)
Also…for me a monochrome camera doesn't have to be a rangefinder but it does have to support zone focusing to precise distances.
-Dave-
-
Sorry. The use of "retrograde" tripped my annoyance wire.
Except Petrus did not use the word, I did.
I stand by the use of the word too. Why? Channel mixing to me is an essential part of my B+W, so to go back to an old way of shooting and lose a big part of the flexibility of shooting raw is a backwards step in my view. The thought of a pure B+W camera piqued my interest until I realised the serious drawback involved.
-
And I'm sure the K5 is a wonderful camera but no matter how hard ya try and slice it is not a rangefinder.
In my view that is a plus, not a minus.
I like the MM for most of the things it doesn't have. No video, no live view, no EVF no FPS to mention. And I can shoot B&W JPGs with my Canons. It is not the same.
Indeed, those features make the camera far more versatile. :P
There is not a better digital tool for B&W street photography than the Leica MM. Final judgement. Rangefinders aren't for everyone and a B&W only one is hard for some to get and that's OK. It is really nice to have choices. And the MM is a real choice over all the others out there.
In your opinion. Not in others.
Never seen the attraction of rangefinders myself. And yes I have used them, in fact my first camera was a rangefinder and I used one as my street camera for years. I would never go back though, just like I would never go back to film. Fine in their time, but modern options are far more useful I find.
-
And thats you. The judgement on the MM by those that have used them is great. So good Leica just did another one and I'm sure it will sell well. I don't understand why folks that admit they don't like rangefinders are concerned at all. This camera is a REAL alternative to everything else out there and as long as there are photographers that love rangefinders and B&W street photography this camera will have a place for those that like real choices. No need to worry, you still have the cameras you like out there to.
Is shoot raw to...
-
I would have been interested in a monochrome sensor is a more usable body as I love B+W photography, but now I realise how limited such a sensor is to use, I've gone off the idea.
As for users extolling their virtues, of course they will. They are a very expensive product and the more expensive something is, the less likely people are to admit to any defects of their purchase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization).
-
Again usable body to you. I love the MM and find it VERY USABLE. It is a camera that just gets out of my way when I create. There are many, many more that agree with me. If there wasn't a demand there wouldn't be a new model. ANd it is not limiting me in anyway because it is a good match for the way I see. I find it very freeing to have that match. Just the opposite of limiting.
-
If you want the highest fidelity monochrome image, use a monochrome sensor. Leica and Nikon offer 35mm equivalent, full-frame cameras; Phase One offers a medium format sensor. The latter makes Leica look inexpensive; the Nikon is a microscope camera using a monochrome version of the sensor in the D4 and Df. Hopefully, Nikon will offer a monochrome F-Mount camera, most of the work has been done. Until then Leica is the only reasonably priced choice.
-
Agree Brian and the only rangefinder.
-
I mean lets forget about viewfinder pros/cons compare to SLR, and lets forget about price we gonna pay for monochrome, can't we really reach the same file quality of monochrome with really good SLR with best chosen lenses available and also after in post production turning the files to B&W and tuning them accourdingly?
Do yourself a favor and investigate Foveon sensor based cameras. B&W images out of Merrills are of a very high accutance. At base ISO levels DP2M is close to MM+50/2APO files by most aspects of IQ. With SD1 you can use excellent fast glass like 24/1.4, 35/1.4 & 50/1.4 Art. Color filters will work with Merrills in a similar fashion to B&W film.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3883/14315292667_1a1312e91d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nNZBLP)
Sigma DP2 Merrill
-
Maybe you should start a thread on foveon sensors or better yet spend some quality time with an MM. The thread is about the final judgement on MMs and what actual users think about it.
And it's not FF and again it is not a rangefinder.
-
just to cheer you up, here is a picture I took from my friend in Lieca store on Paris, 10 days ago, with very new CMOS mm which was there as demo; Just a bit post processing in LR:
-
"Something strange" with the page load for page 2!
Just to say, there is no "Final Judgement" on this camera, it continues to sell well; Leica has brought out a new model monochrome camera; and Phase One has brought out a new 60MPixel Monochrome camera using a new CCD from Dalsa.
Dalsa also makes a 24x36 32MPixel CCD. I would like to see that used in a new camera.
-
Where's pg 2?
If Pg 2 stays in hiding to Bart it was a typo now fixed and thanks for pointing it out (should have been B&W film NOT color film typing not my strong suit)
I find that most that have spent any real time with an MM will tell you in a final judgement it is the perfect tool for those that love a rangefinder and shoot digital B&W. There are many others that feel the same way I do thus the new upgraded MM from Leica. No demand, no new camera. Most of the people slamming the MM have never shot a frame with it. If you don't think it's valid don't buy one but it is a REAL alternative to everything else out there. Great to have that choice and kudos to Leica for giving us that choice.
An old film guy Ralph Gibson was not a fan of digital until he got his hands on an MM. Shot an entire body of work with one and released a book with those images that he shot with it. So I would say in his judgement it is a great tool also.
-
I could open Page 2 with Explorer, but not with Chrome.
Some bizarre html I am sure!
-
Brian, I still have nothing. Did I miss anything?
-
You cannot view the page when Logged into the Site!
Logged out, you can read it. Something is very strange in the most with a link to an image by alifatemi.
-
Page 2 is fritzed on my iPad while logged in here with Mobile Safari too. Just as well…it's mostly the usual combination of misunderstanding resulting from failure to communicate clearly and, worse, refusal to comprehend that one's own personal preferences aren't universal mandates.
I like rangefinders. I like using CFA-less sensors, and would love to have a camera containing one. Preferably a rangefinder, though I can manage otherwise so long as I can properly zone focus. I like using red, orange, green, etc. filters in front of monochrome imagers (film or electronic). YMMV…use what you like as you like. Be creative and have fun.
-Dave-
-
Page 2 is fritzed on my iPad while logged in here with Mobile Safari too. Just as well…it's mostly the usual combination of misunderstanding resulting from failure to communicate clearly and, worse, refusal to comprehend that one's own personal preferences aren't universal mandates.
I like rangefinders. I like using CFA-less sensors, and would love to have a camera containing one. Preferably a rangefinder, though I can manage otherwise so long as I can properly zone focus. I like using red, orange, green, etc. filters in front of monochrome imagers (film or electronic). YMMV…use what you like as you like. Be creative and have fun.
There's certainly a huge amount of defensiveness and silly accusations about hating/slamming the MM from those who are in favour of the MM towards those for whom it's not the right tool. Heaven forbid we point out that like all cameras, it has drawbacks.
Never understood why people get upset because others like to use different cameras to themselves or insist that their camera is THE camera to use for blah, blah, blah.
-
Absolutely and it certainly has a lot of drawbacks to those looking for all the stuff that many of us are glad the MM doesn't have. Then don't buy the MM and use the tool that is right for you but the bottom line is the MM was a success. And everyone I know that owns one or has spent any real time with one agrees. I see a lot of folks that have never even had one on their hands talking a lot about this and that. The bigger question is why is it so important to you to prove that other cameras are better than what is perfect for me and others?
-
The bigger question is why is it so important to you to prove that other cameras are better than what is perfect for me and others?
I haven't tried to prove anything about other cameras. Stating it is crippled for my needs has no bearing on how you use it. Don't be so very defensive.
Anyway if is so wonderful, show us some photos that demonstrate just how good it is.
-
You've stated that you don't like one big reason that many of us like the MM. You've said you don't like rangefinders. So if you don't like rangefinders and have not shot with an MM, that would be like me going into a thread about a camera that I would never buy and have never shot with trying to convince those there that the tool they have been using and getting results with that exceeds their expectations is not the right tool for them.
Just go to the MM thread here in this section.
I had a large one person exhibit in April of 2013 here in Chicago with 35 images almost all shot with the MM. Was selected to be in a juried show in New York's Soho Gallery last year. 2600 submittied images on 42 selected for the exhibit and the image was shot with an MM. The opening was in July of last year. Was selected to have a one person exhibit at a gallery in the gallery district here in Chicago this past March. Almost all shot with the MM. 4 red dots.....Not bad I'd say.
Almost won a Leica MM and $20,000 with this floral. Receive a Mark of Excellence award only 24 were awarded out of 2000+ entries. Scroll down to the floral.
http://www.i-shot-it.com/photo-competition-results.php?pcid=515c1bef18d04
Write up/interview of the March exhibit
http://tamarkincamera.tumblr.com/post/114046684541/rangefinder-artist-interview-allen-bourgeois
Wanted to also say that there is more. ;D ;D
-
You've stated that you don't like one big reason that many of us like the MM. You've said you don't like rangefinders. So if you don't like rangefinders and have not shot with an MM, that would be like me going into a thread about a camera that I would never buy and have never shot with trying to convince those there that the tool they have been using and getting results with that exceeds their expectations is not the right tool for them.
No you are being very defensive and assuming things that are not the case. I looked at thread because a B+W specific camera was intriguing as I love to shoot B+W. But on discovering the inability to modify B+W tonality in post as you can with colour raw, I realised that was a serious and very limiting gotcha. It would mean going back to an inferior workflow I used last century.
As for rangefinders that was not a consideration until someone brought it up as being so superior. They are overrated in my view and I prefer to use more capable [again in my view] tools. There is zero advantages to using a rangefinder in my experience and lots of positives to other viewfinders. All have drawbacks.
That's for the link to photos, I shall go and peruse.
-
I'm not getting defensive. Just wondering why someone that admittedly doesn't like rangefinders would worry enough to come into a camera thread that is about a rangefinders and tell everyone all the limitations that camera has to them. You can control tone, density and contrast. I do it all the time. It does take some knowledge and practice to get good at. You have to see some of it before you shoot it. I see in B&W. I know what filters to use to get the effect I am looking for. Experience with film and now the MM. THis camera is in now way limiting to me. In fact it is just the opposite for me.
I love rangefinders and I love a dedicated B&W camera. And there are more like me thus the success of the original MM.
You can modify tone exactly the way you could with B&W film and it works quite well You just have to see and filter for it when you shoot it.
And if you have not spent any real time with one how do you know? I would never comment on a camera I have never shot with.
Also this camera is probably not for you for many reasons. And probably some of the cameras you prefer are not for me. Great to have choices.
Wanted to add if you want to tone it to say sepia or make it look like a van dyke brown or cyan o type you can save the file when you convert from raw/dng to RGB tiff and use PS to color tone.
-
I'm not getting defensive.
You certainly have been.
Just wondering why someone that admittedly doesn't like rangefinders would worry enough to come into a camera threat that is about a rangefinders and tell everyone all the limitations that camera has to them.
Only mentioned because someone brought rangefinders up Vs other viewfinders in a sneering manner. To repeat myself for possibly the third time, I was interested in the B+W sensor, the camera form factor was irrelevant.
You can control tone, density and contrast. I do it all the time. It does take some knowledge and practice to get good at.
But you cannot alter tonal balance between colours in the raw file - channel mixing. A very useful attribute, very handy for skin tones for example.
You can modify tone exactly the way you could with B&W film and it works quite well You just have to see and filter for it when you shoot it.
And just like with B+W film it is a pain in the posterior to do and not always practical. Particularly for street photography, what people say this sort of camera is good at.
BTW, I am not saying the camera is bad just that it is limited in an old fashioned way. Limits can be good, sometimes they are hobbling. It's like shooting colour film with a white balance that cannot be changed. Yes filters can be used for correcting white balance, but they are not able to cope with mixed temperature lighting. Much better to shoot raw and get WB right in post.
And if you have not spent any real time with one how do you know? I would never comment on a camera I have never shot with.
But I haven't commented on the camera itself, the problems of not being able to channel mix with a B+W sensor yes. Anyway saying this thread is only for Leica users is rather snobbish, which is sadly an atribute I associate with Leica shooters because of well..their snobby behaviour. :-\
When I used PCs I kept up to date with Apple gear and usually knew more about how to use them than Apple owners did [and vice versa now]. I like to keep abreast of all cameras/computers not just the ones I own. That way I can have a more balanced, less partisan view of things.
-
I can't see page 2 while logged in. I reported this to admin hope they can fix it. Also liked to upload a picture several times taken by new MM but can't.
Anyhow, is it possible to distinguish between MM picture and another camera in blind test?
-
This sequence demos the usefulness of channel mixing.
Left and middle shots have same settings bar colour channels, the left one has flat setting on colour channels.
Shot on right is an attempt to get shot looking as punchy like middle version without using channel mixing. But it looks awful, mainly as I cannot control skin tones separately from other colours. :-\
-
Here's where you keep missing the point. Some of us prefer a pure B&W approach. You seem not to so this or any truly B&W dedicated camera is clearly not for you but that doesn't mean others can't appreciate that. THis camera sold well enough for Leica to just put out an upgraded model. So just because I love the camera and can defend my position doesn't that is defensive. I have no desire to try and convince you that this camera is for you but it is for many. That is still my point and sale figures would back that up and most of the ones I know that have MMs are also very seasoned B&W photographers that clearly prefer a dedicated B&W camera. If you don't there are certainly plenty of other opinions other options for you out there.
I have no problems controlling skin tones. I converted like you for years until the MM came out and after just a few hours of shooting with it I was sold.
-
I can't see page 2 while logged in. I reported this to admin hope they can fix it. Also liked to upload a picture several times taken by new MM but can't.
Check file size and type as forum has limits as to how big and what kind of image you upload.
Anyhow, is it possible to distinguish between MM picture and another camera in blind test?
Be an interesting and tricky challenge. But best done by viewing some good prints. Areas where I think the MM would be strongest wouldn't lend themselves to viewing on screen.
-
It's very hard to make real judgements on a monitor. The prints are spectacular.
I get out several times a week on the streets and I have no problems and find it to be the best digital B&W tool for that job that I have used and this ain't my first rodeo.
I know my B&W digital print quality has improved but it is more than that. For me it is a more intuitive way to work. To find equipment that matches the way you see and work is so valuable and that is exactly what this is for me.
-
my file for upload is just 1.8Mb
-
It's very hard to make real judgements on a monitor. The prints are spectacular.
they are spectacular yes but what about blind test on print? have you done the test for yourself yet and see if someone else can recognize the deference on prints?
-
Here's where you keep missing the point. Some of us prefer a pure B&W approach.
There you go with the snobbery again. There nothing more 'pure' [whatever that is meant to mean] about a monochrome sensor than a normal raw file, I can choose never to see any colour in my photos when using that method.
You seem not to so this or any truly B&W dedicated camera is clearly not for you but that doesn't mean others can't appreciate that.
Never said it wasn't for others. That's your defensive misinterpretation thinking otherwise.
So just because I love the camera and can defend my position doesn't that is defensive.
The manner in which you do it, is what makes your postings defensive. Besides, you haven't once addressed my point about the limitations of not being able to channel mix, so you have defended nothing as that's my only issue with the B+W sensor.
I have no problems controlling skin tones...
Didn't say you did. Changing them or other tones independently of other colours however is not an option with a B+W sensor. Very useful as shown in demo image above.
-
they are spectacular yes but what about blind test on print? have you done the test for yourself yet and see if someone else can recognize the deference on prints?
You'll need to shoot the exact same image and processed/printed as best you can with different cameras.
But even then like with film stock, a lower quality film may make for a better rendering of the image. So 'best' can be an ethereal concept.
-
LoL I was wondering when the snob thing was going to raise it's ugly head. I never said one was better than the other. I just stated what was better for me and many others. So if you prefer yoru approach your a snob PLEASE... Funny how the name calling and personal attacks always sneak into it when on the web.
Use whatever cameras you like but back to topic the judgement on the MM is it is a great camera. Whether it is the camera for you can only be answered by you.
-
No snobbery involved- compared with most color digital cameras on the market, a monochrome sensor will give a higher resolution image free of artifacts introduced by color mosaic filters. Color filtration is done in-camera, just as you would do for black and white film. Nikon and Phase One both offer monochrome cameras.
The Foveon sensor is also free of artifacts introduced by color mosaic filters. Due to the architecture of the sensor it is not as efficient for low-light. Sigma currently owns the technology, and has their own proprietary SLR mount. That has limited the use of Foveon sensor technology. I'd love to have one in F-Mount. Polaroid marketed a Digital point and shoot camera using the Foveon sensor years ago. It was probably premature on the market, had issues.
-
they are spectacular yes but what about blind test on print? have you done the test for yourself yet and see if someone else can recognize the deference on prints?
Some I can, some I can't, just depends. It gets a bit more noticeable at high ISO. For me I like the look of the high ISO noise from the MM over the noise from most other digital cameras. It looks a bit more like film grain than digital noise.
I posted this earlier but heres a better look at the files and some words other than mine.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/
It is a different shooting experience and only better if it is better for the photographer shooting with it. My advice is find stuff that works for each individual. We are all different but I keep repeating this because it is true. THe MM is a real alternative to everything else out there at the moment. No one but you can decide if that is a difference that is right for you. My advice is try one. You may hate it. many do not like shooting with rangefinders and there is nothing wrong with that. Many don't want to give up color or the ability to convert. There is also nothing wrong with that approach either if thats what is working.
-
I'd like to see Foveon tech get developed further. I've seen great results, color and b&w, from it but IMO it requires medium format technique—camera on tripod, base ISO, precise exposure—to make it sing, whereas my own use of b&w is better served by something more flexible. I am sometimes tempted by those Merrill cameras, though…
-Dave-
-
The Foveon sensor is still actively being developed- I would like to see it available with more SLR mounts. It is based on an amazing principle, the spectrum of light being absorbed at different layers of the silicon detector. That also is going to increase noise at higher ISO, and limits "Saturation count" for individual colors. The geometry is interesting, but does not lend itself to lens mounts that are close to the image plane.
-
The Foveon sensor is still actively being developed- I would like to see it available with more SLR mounts. It is based on an amazing principle, the spectrum of light being absorbed at different layers of the silicon detector. That also is going to increase noise at higher ISO, and limits "Saturation count" for individual colors. The geometry is interesting, but does not lend itself to lens mounts that are close to the image plane.
Correct. It requires the light rays to strike the sensor rather perpendicular, which is also much harder on larger sensors. The larger the sensor, and the less retrofocus design the lens has for shorter focal lengths, the more oblique the path of light will be. And since the travel distance through silicon functions as an approximate wavelength indication, the corners will see the same color of light different than the optical center does. Theoretically the sensor output can be calibrated for that, but that will be pretty hard to do well in practice, and even harder as the size increases.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The offset Microlens technology developed by Kodak for the Leica M8 and M9 would lend itself to a full-frame Foveon sensor. I can use a Jupiter-12 3.5cm F2.8 with the M9, lens detection turned off, and get very little vignetting at the corners. The J-12 is a Zeiss Biogon copy, but in Leica mount. The rear element is very close to the sensor. Mine has Zeiss glass in it from 1943 (based on internal SN), $60 on Ebay.
I suspect that On Semi now holds the Kodak patents; would be worth Sigma looking into licensing it.
-
...I'd love to have one in F-Mount....
I have the Sigma SD15 and readily converted it to accept Nikon F-Mount lenses using the excellent SigmaCumLaude conversion kit. (I believe they have one available also for the SD1.)
-
That sounds interesting- I need to look those up!
-
LoL I was wondering when the snob thing was going to raise it's ugly head. I never said one was better than the other. I just stated what was better for me and many others.
And did so in a snobbish manner. Nothing to do with whatever choice one makes.
So if you prefer yoru approach your a snob PLEASE...
No, only when you use language that is snobby.