The Leica Monochrom 18mp at $8k

[Mike Rizos]

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_monochrom/

[Mei Lewis]

It's neither crazy nor genius, just shrewd business sense given Leica's typical customer.

[Mei Lewis]

And it's much better to shoot color then convert to black and white because then _you_ not the camera has control over how colors get converted.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

And it's much better to shoot color then convert to black and white because then _you_ not the camera has control over how colors get converted.

 

No. You control the colors by putting color filters on the camera lens.

[Travis Gray]

And it's much better to shoot color then convert to black and white because then _you_ not the camera has control over how colors get converted.

 

From what I read (too lazy to find the article) the purely B&W sensor is better for low light since it's only dealing with pure light levels and not worrying about the color stuff.

 

So, yeah, color filters. Traditional B&W photography.

As soon as I have $8k in disposable income, plus some for lenses, I'd think about picking one up.

Or maybe after I buy a regular Leica first.

[David Mullen ASC]

From what I read (too lazy to find the article) the purely B&W sensor is better for low light since it's only dealing with pure light levels and not worrying about the color stuff.

 

So, yeah, color filters. Traditional B&W photography.

As soon as I have $8k in disposable income, plus some for lenses, I'd think about picking one up.

Or maybe after I buy a regular Leica first.

 

You'd naturally expect better sensitivity simply because narrow-cut color filters in front of each photosite have been removed, that must be allowing two-stops or so more light to reach each photosite.

 

Of course, you lose light by using a color-contrast filter in front of the lens, but then, most b&w shooters don't use color filters when doing low-light night work anyway.

[Travis Gray]

You'd naturally expect better sensitivity simply because narrow-cut color filters in front of each photosite have been removed, that must be allowing two-stops or so more light to reach each photosite.

 

That makes sense. So I guess it's just rating the sensor differently, so what may be 1600 on the monochrom would be 6400 on a traditional full color sensor? I was thinking it just meant it didn't have to process as much so it was able to go higher with less noise.

 

Yikes then. If it is two stops... that's awesome.

[David Mullen ASC]

That makes sense. So I guess it's just rating the sensor differently, so what may be 1600 on the monochrom would be 6400 on a traditional full color sensor? I was thinking it just meant it didn't have to process as much so it was able to go higher with less noise.

 

Yikes then. If it is two stops... that's awesome.

 

That's just a guess but you figure that these color filters have to be pretty dense to remove the other two colors efficiently and let only one through.

[David Mullen ASC]

You can see a test here where someone removed the Bayer CFA and showed the increase in brightness:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&message=36488951&changemode=1

 

When people say an increase of "150%" I'm not sure how that works out in terms of stops, obviously a 100% increase is 1-stop, so I guess 150% is 1.5-stops?

[Travis Gray]

When people say an increase of "150%" I'm not sure how that works out in terms of stops, obviously a 100% increase is 1-stop, so I guess 150% is 1.5-stops?

 

I hate when people say that, because it seems like no one agrees on anything. I'm guessing you're spot on there, since increase should call for addition? So x + (x * 1.00)?

 

This is photography. Say it in terms of stops, people. haha

[David Mullen ASC]

I hate when people say that, because it seems like no one agrees on anything. I'm guessing you're spot on there, since increase should call for addition? So x + (x * 1.00)?

 

This is photography. Say it in terms of stops, people. haha

 

Well, technically a percentage is more scientific -- talking about an increase in brightness in terms of stops is sort of photographer-layman's way of avoiding math.

 

I've always had problems with figuring percentages in both directions -- i.e. a loss of 1-stop is 50% transmission (because a 100% loss would be total) but an increase of 1-stop is 100% more light (twice as much). But an increase in 150%? Would an increase in 200% be 2-stops? Would a loss of 2-stops be 75% lost?

[Travis Gray]

Well, technically a percentage is more scientific -- talking about an increase in brightness in terms of stops is sort of photographer-layman's way of avoiding math.

 

I've always had problems with figuring percentages in both directions -- i.e. a loss of 1-stop is 50% transmission (because a 100% loss would be total) but an increase of 1-stop is 100% more light (twice as much). But an increase in 150%? Would an increase in 200% be 2-stops? Would a loss of 2-stops be 75% lost?

 

Yeah, this is why I like to do everything as decimals haha. Doing this with pricing is the same thing too, where different point of sale software may handle discounts/profit margins differently.

 

So yes, 2 stops is 75% transmission, 25% loss. And then an increase of 150%, I'd do ISO+(ISO*1.5). So 1600 ISO increased by 150% is 4000. Math annoys me.

[Mei Lewis]

No. You control the colors by putting color filters on the camera lens.

 

Good point, but still less flexible, more time consuming and all around clumsier than post conversion.

 

I'm not convinced that this camera would be any better dealing with noise than say a 5Dmk3 or D800 downsampled to the same resolution. Will be interesting to see test results.

[David Mullen ASC]

Good point, but still less flexible, more time consuming and all around clumsier than post conversion.

 

So putting a filter in front of a camera is now too much work? You could say the same thing about taking the time to compose the shot, why not just shoot everything wide on a high megapixel camera and figure out the compositions in post? Too often the word "flexible" is just another way of saying "don't figure out what you want until later."

 

The time to switch a filter on a b&w camera is about the same amount of time spent in Photoshop converting a color image to b&w and playing with the RGB levels to change the contrast, so please drop the whole "it's too time-consuming to use filters on the camera" line of argument. We're talking about b&w digital photography here, it's still more convenient than developing your own b&w film.

 

Besides, there is nothing wrong with doing art that takes a bit of thought, craft, and time to get things right. If the goal is doing b&w art photography then efficiency and speed are not going to be your priorities.

[Phil Rhodes]

Two thing strike me:

 

- The colour response of an unfiltered sensor isn't going to be much (in fact, anything) like either panchromatic or blue-sensitive black-and-white filmstock; most sensors would be most sensitive in the yellow-green. For this reason, using coloured filters isn't going to give you the same result as shooting monochrome film with the same filters (not that this invalidates the approach, it's just another option).

 

- I wonder if people will start using them to take RGB triplets of static subjects, for extra sharpness. I suspect the day of this sort of thing might be over, but I'm sure we've talked about building film scanners around mono sensors and LED colour arrays before.

 

On another subject, look at the "performance proofs" and note the lack of that rather odd mushiness that you get with Bayer filtered cameras. Anyone who likes to pretend that bayer mosaics are as good as proper RGB sensors of the same resolution should look at the degree of sharpness and detail in images from this unfiltered camera.

 

(Edit: and yes, I appreciate "unfiltered" means "no low-pass filter" in this context)

 

P

[David Mullen ASC]

Two thing strike me:

 

- The colour response of an unfiltered sensor isn't going to be much (in fact, anything) like either panchromatic or blue-sensitive black-and-white filmstock; most sensors would be most sensitive in the yellow-green. For this reason, using coloured filters isn't going to give you the same result as shooting monochrome film with the same filters (not that this invalidates the approach, it's just another option).

 

- I wonder if people will start using them to take RGB triplets of static subjects, for extra sharpness. I suspect the day of this sort of thing might be over, but I'm sure we've talked about building film scanners around mono sensors and LED colour arrays before.

 

P

 

The sensor has to be somewhat panchromatic or else an RGB filter pattern in front of them wouldn't work to get you full color information. I don't think a sensor is more like orthochromatic film with almost no red sensitivity. Sure, the spectral response of the sensor is not going to be the same as panchromatic film so you'd have to try different types of color contrast filters but the principle still works, i.e. a red filter would cut the amount of cyan information passing through the filter relative to the other colors. Also keep in mind that playing with RGB levels in post is basically playing with gain in individual channels, there are some noise artifacts that can result compared to getting the levels correct in-camera.

[Mei Lewis]

So putting a filter in front of a camera is now too much work? You could say the same thing about taking the time to compose the shot, why not just shoot everything wide on a high megapixel camera and figure out the compositions in post? Too often the word "flexible" is just another way of saying "don't figure out what you want until later."

 

The time to switch a filter on a b&w camera is about the same amount of time spent in Photoshop converting a color image to b&w and playing with the RGB levels to change the contrast, so please drop the whole "it's too time-consuming to use filters on the camera" line of argument. We're talking about b&w digital photography here, it's still more convenient than developing your own b&w film.

 

Besides, there is nothing wrong with doing art that takes a bit of thought, craft, and time to get things right. If the goal is doing b&w art photography then efficiency and speed are not going to be your priorities.

 

 

Doing a conversion in post can take just as much thought, craft, and time as slotting the right piece of plastic in front of the lens. It's not just a matter of pressing a button.

The time spent is just shifted from shooting to editing, freeing up more time during shooting for more important things like composition, interacting with your subject, catching the moment.

[Travis Gray]

Doing a conversion in post can take just as much thought, craft, and time as slotting the right piece of plastic in front of the lens. It's not just a matter of pressing a button.

The time spent is just shifted from shooting to editing, freeing up more time during shooting for more important things like composition, interacting with your subject, catching the moment.

 

 

What about B&W film? Is it better to just shoot color and then scan and convert? It's the same concept here. People who do a lot of B&W shooting would probably benefit greatly from this camera. Then they have less work in post, more time for shooting, which is what everyone wants right? Photography is behind the camera, not in front of a computer.

 

 

But, yeah, maybe you don't have $8k sitting around for this camera (+ more if you don't have lenses) and a standard color camera with post conversions is just fine for you. Everyone has their tastes. I just wouldn't discount this camera entirely because you have the viewpoint that B&W conversion makes more sense in post. David brings up a good point about just playing with gain and that could lead to other issues.

[Mei Lewis]

What about B&W film? Is it better to just shoot color and then scan and convert?

 

It depends on the balance of image qualities and flexibilities you want, and film is quite different in this respect to digital.

 

I'm sure there are people who'll buy and like this camera but most of them are the same people who buy the Leica snakeskin gold special editions.

Is anyone here seriously considering getting one????

 

Leica is famous for being discreet, street photography, catching the moment etc rather than landscape photography where physical filters are more appropriate.

I find it odd they're emphasising sharpness when by and large street photographers don't much care about it. And is a similarly priced DSLR, or even a color digital Leica really not sharp enough already?

[Travis Gray]

Leica is famous for being discreet, street photography, catching the moment etc rather than landscape photography where physical filters are more appropriate.

I find it odd they're emphasising sharpness when by and large street photographers don't much care about it. And is a similarly priced DSLR, or even a color digital Leica really not sharp enough already?

 

Really? I know wedding photographers, fine art photographers, event photographers... they use Leicas. And they do a lot of B&W and you know at these things, there's never quite the amount of light you would like, so the low light capabilities are awesome for them.

 

And B&W forces you to think about the image a little more I think, since you don't have color to help create contrast in some parts, and this way, you don't even have that option. You strictly think in B&W.