MIkhail
Well-known
Hello,
I am wondering if anybody who owned both of the cameras (Leica Monochrome and any of the Sony A7 series) compared the black and white images from both?
Is Leica BW image superior, and if so, is it couple thousands of dollars superior?
My wife suggested a gift for anniversary, plus I got some bonus at work, etc., etc. But I already have Sony A7, original one...
Please note that I am fully aware of functionality, form factor, etc.
That is NOT the comparison that I am looking for, having shot Sony A7 for a long time as well as various Leica cameras.
But never had Monochrome.
I don’t have any brand loyalty either, so it’s the image vs. image comparison that I am looking for.
Thank you in advance.
I am wondering if anybody who owned both of the cameras (Leica Monochrome and any of the Sony A7 series) compared the black and white images from both?
Is Leica BW image superior, and if so, is it couple thousands of dollars superior?
My wife suggested a gift for anniversary, plus I got some bonus at work, etc., etc. But I already have Sony A7, original one...
Please note that I am fully aware of functionality, form factor, etc.
That is NOT the comparison that I am looking for, having shot Sony A7 for a long time as well as various Leica cameras.
But never had Monochrome.
I don’t have any brand loyalty either, so it’s the image vs. image comparison that I am looking for.
Thank you in advance.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Monochrome has big presence on Flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/mmonochrom/pool/
Most of it is dross, but I have one or two Monochrome users to follow and they produce very pleasing BW.
Fabio Lugaro is one of them. Just couple of days ago he posted joyful BW from his Monochrome.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fabiolug/32202975617/in/pool-mmonochrom/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/mmonochrom/pool/
Most of it is dross, but I have one or two Monochrome users to follow and they produce very pleasing BW.
Fabio Lugaro is one of them. Just couple of days ago he posted joyful BW from his Monochrome.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fabiolug/32202975617/in/pool-mmonochrom/
peterm1
Mentor
I have not had either but will convey something I had not realized though I probably should have. However it is not something I have heard spoken of until I was told recently that the Leica Monochrome produces its mono output as RAW (DNG) files. Other digital cameras can produce mono image output but only as JPG. I suppose this accounts for the excellent image detail etc of the Leica's images in this camera. I do not know how it affects dynamic range compared with Sony or other cameras but should have thought there would be some advantage there too at least if relying on in-camera mono processing - though of course if you do what I generally do which is shoot in RAW then convert in post to monochrome (if that is the output I want) then that difference would be minimized or nullified given you are still working with a RAW file to start with not a JPG.
Others will be able to comment on this but I must say that when I heard about mono RAW output from this camera it set me thinking about whether I could justify buying one myself. at least there is a certain liberating film like shooting experience if shooting natively in mono and getting the best possible digital outcomes direct from the camera without needing to go to post processing every time as I do now.
Others will be able to comment on this but I must say that when I heard about mono RAW output from this camera it set me thinking about whether I could justify buying one myself. at least there is a certain liberating film like shooting experience if shooting natively in mono and getting the best possible digital outcomes direct from the camera without needing to go to post processing every time as I do now.
MIkhail
Well-known
Kostja, thanks. I will take a look.
BUT, I know files can be made looking good, from any camera.
Hell, I even know how to do it myself
The answer I am looking for- besides the form factor, are the files, being compared "apples to apples", that much better?
I am not asking to trash Leica, mind you, I am considering getting Monochrome.
MIkhail
Well-known
Don't you enjoy the post-processing though? I would think you do.
I mean I get the rumblings about the need for post process from those who posts straight from camera, But you (and I) are not those.
cz23
-
I don't own the Sony, but here's an experience that might be relevant.
When I was selling my Monochrom (CCD), a professional photographer responded to the Craigslist add. We met and he took many pictures with it, alongside those with his A7II and the same Leica lenses.
After a couple days he called to say he was not interested in buying it because he could not see a significant difference in the files between the two cameras.
John
When I was selling my Monochrom (CCD), a professional photographer responded to the Craigslist add. We met and he took many pictures with it, alongside those with his A7II and the same Leica lenses.
After a couple days he called to say he was not interested in buying it because he could not see a significant difference in the files between the two cameras.
John
MIkhail
Well-known
I did some googling and mostly the sentiment is the same
That sucks... I was hoping to get convinced
furcafe
Mentor
I have the current, M240-based, Monochrom as well as the Sony a9 & an old a7R. I don't do monochrome conversions of color files as I'm not into post-processing, but from what I've seen, there's no real technical reason to get a Monochrom over a Sony, especially if you get an a7RII or a7RIII.
MIkhail
Well-known
OK,
That's exactly what I was looking for.
Alone the same lines, is there a reason to upgrade to latest A7 Sony from the original that I have?
Still images only, not interested in video.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
M,
I would agree with you that with skill any camera can do really good B&W. Pretty much it is just about being stubborn, digging in, and making the camera work for you.
You should know that I am a Monochrom owner user, and I do not have experience with an A7. I love my MM warts and all, even though it pretty much today is a rather primitive camera with a crappy LCD, slow buffer, not so great high ISO...
So when it comes to files the CCD sensor on my MM has a unique rendering that is more mid rich than a CMOS that has better shadow detail and smoother rolloff in the highlights with scooped mids.
I suspect that your A7 files would display a histogram more like a M246 because both have CMOS sensors.
You should also know that I print and use Piezography. In my judgement it takes prints larger than 13x19 to really take advantage of the increased tonality and resolution. I print 13.3x20 on 17x24 sheet as my small print size and 20x30 image size on 24x36 sheet.
So really unless you intend to print big (big prints don't lie) where more detail is revealed and tonality opens up to transcend formats, I don't think the files produced by a Monochrom would be exploited.
My prints don't look like small format at all, look like medium format, and at times with a file made under perfect conditions I dare say looks like large format.
The files can be that good if you are. Also know that I tend to shoot like a large format shooter where I maximize everything at time of image capture to minimize post processing as to minimize digital artifact (noise). For example I use yellow filters to get the contrast I want at image capture rather than in post processing where contrast boosting can add noise and digital artifact. Pretty much I need "clean" files that require minimal post.
So the moral of the story is will the files/data be exploited where it matters, like say in a large print?
Also know that Piezography is a match made in heaven with a MM. If I had studio space I could print digital negatives and make silver wet prints via contact printing with the Piezography system I currently own. All I need is $150.00 worth of software and a I1 to fully calibrate my system for profiling. Everything is turnkey at this level.
Cal
I would agree with you that with skill any camera can do really good B&W. Pretty much it is just about being stubborn, digging in, and making the camera work for you.
You should know that I am a Monochrom owner user, and I do not have experience with an A7. I love my MM warts and all, even though it pretty much today is a rather primitive camera with a crappy LCD, slow buffer, not so great high ISO...
So when it comes to files the CCD sensor on my MM has a unique rendering that is more mid rich than a CMOS that has better shadow detail and smoother rolloff in the highlights with scooped mids.
I suspect that your A7 files would display a histogram more like a M246 because both have CMOS sensors.
You should also know that I print and use Piezography. In my judgement it takes prints larger than 13x19 to really take advantage of the increased tonality and resolution. I print 13.3x20 on 17x24 sheet as my small print size and 20x30 image size on 24x36 sheet.
So really unless you intend to print big (big prints don't lie) where more detail is revealed and tonality opens up to transcend formats, I don't think the files produced by a Monochrom would be exploited.
My prints don't look like small format at all, look like medium format, and at times with a file made under perfect conditions I dare say looks like large format.
The files can be that good if you are. Also know that I tend to shoot like a large format shooter where I maximize everything at time of image capture to minimize post processing as to minimize digital artifact (noise). For example I use yellow filters to get the contrast I want at image capture rather than in post processing where contrast boosting can add noise and digital artifact. Pretty much I need "clean" files that require minimal post.
So the moral of the story is will the files/data be exploited where it matters, like say in a large print?
Also know that Piezography is a match made in heaven with a MM. If I had studio space I could print digital negatives and make silver wet prints via contact printing with the Piezography system I currently own. All I need is $150.00 worth of software and a I1 to fully calibrate my system for profiling. Everything is turnkey at this level.
Cal
shawn
Mentor
I think there are a bunch of improvements in the later cameras. Obviously more resolution, lack of AA filter, IBIS, better/bigger EVF, more dynamic range, better high ISO performance...etc..etc.
If you don't want to spend a lot of time in post try using the Rich Tone Monochrome in the Sony. Works best with a tripod as it combines multiple exposures together to create the file.
Shawn
MIkhail
Well-known
Cal,
Thank you.
I don't print larger than 19x13" (and did not print larger when I did wet printing either). So I cannot really see any advantages for me as it is for you
So what you are saying is making perfect sense, in full accordance with the law of diminishing returns.
Huss
Mentor
Definitely, the current A7 cameras do not suffer from sensor flares that the original A7 did. This is when you get a multiple series of highlight flares from a scene with bright highlight areas.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58120415
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Cal,
Thank you.
I don't print larger than 19x13" (and did not print larger when I did wet printing either). So I cannot really see any advantages for me as it is for you
So what you are saying is making perfect sense, in full accordance with the law of diminishing returns.
Mikhail,
You nailed it with the diminishing returns concept. It actually takes an vast extraordinary amount of effort to fully exploit the full possibilities.
You also made a good point about how today any camera with skill can make great B&W.
Cal
MIkhail
Well-known
MIkhail
Well-known
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
A7II (and models beyond the original) can use TechArt adapter to autofocus M lenses. If AF capability with M lenses is more compelling to you than manual RF focus on an M, that is a reason to stick with Sony. If you shoot wider than 35mm, a Kolari sensor mod is a sensible investment.
I just acquired a Kolarified A7II. It’s more robustly built than my well-used A7K (which I bought, originally, as a FF digital body for my ZM lenses). The TechArt adapter offers real P&S convenience, at a parade or the fair. I reckon my investment there about $1250.
I also have an M-D, though, and the photographic experience with it is exactly like an M7, like a metered RF film camera. Calmer. More inwardly focused. An optical mechanical instrument with a digital sensor, as opposed to a multi-menued heads-up display with a shutter button. No reason to fidget with menus, displays, no function buttons erupting like the measles; no PASM or exposure compensation-dials getting twisted by gremlins in the bag.
Also: I bought the M-D to celebrate my retirement, which has some parallel to your situation. (Years ago, when I wanted a Monochrome, the A7K was what I could afford.) to know what one truly desires will always inspire. Some occasions are worth the greatest possible gifts.
I just acquired a Kolarified A7II. It’s more robustly built than my well-used A7K (which I bought, originally, as a FF digital body for my ZM lenses). The TechArt adapter offers real P&S convenience, at a parade or the fair. I reckon my investment there about $1250.
I also have an M-D, though, and the photographic experience with it is exactly like an M7, like a metered RF film camera. Calmer. More inwardly focused. An optical mechanical instrument with a digital sensor, as opposed to a multi-menued heads-up display with a shutter button. No reason to fidget with menus, displays, no function buttons erupting like the measles; no PASM or exposure compensation-dials getting twisted by gremlins in the bag.
Also: I bought the M-D to celebrate my retirement, which has some parallel to your situation. (Years ago, when I wanted a Monochrome, the A7K was what I could afford.) to know what one truly desires will always inspire. Some occasions are worth the greatest possible gifts.
LCSmith
Well-known
Is this a serious question? I cannot think of two digital cameras which are more different than a Sony Alpha and a Leica Monochrome. The similarities are that they are full-frame and mirrorless. That is about it. I do not mean to be mean-spirited, but seriously, what are you talking about?
markjwyatt
Well-known
Is there any truth to the contention that an 18 MP Monochrom image is better than a converted 18 MP image for RGB sensors? It does make some sense since every single pixel is directly used rather than combined to create a color which is then converted to a shade of grey. The implication is that an 18 MP RGB sensor is somewhere between a 6-18 MP B&W sensor.
willie_901
Mentor
The M Monochrome Type 246 (link) has the best analog dynamic range of any Leica M camera. Still,its DR is very close to the M10's. (link)
The DR is also similar to SONY bodies (link).
The low-light performance is within 1/3 stop of the SONYs'. (link) – zoom the chart to see detail for the 24 X 36mm sensor column.
These data are estimates for un-rendered raw file data. So post-processing rendering parameters do not affect the results.
In-camera JPEGs are rendered from raw data. A raw file's signal-to-noise limits JPEG rendering. However, perceived image quality could depend on the in-camera demosaicking algorithms as well differences in rendering parameters.
"Is Leica BW image superior, and if so, is it couple thousands of dollars superior? "
This is a subjective question. My subjective answer is no – the M Monochrome Type 246 is not worth the ~2 thousand dollar cost increase.
What is worth 2 thousand dollars could be the value-added aspect of using an M rangefinder. The experience of operating a camera with an optical rangefinder and minimalistic controls is worth something. Avoiding lens adapters and the convenience of using coded lenses is another advantage. These also are subjective issues.
While signal-to-noise ratio is not the sole factor that determines the perceived quality of monochrome images, I would prefer a M10 to the Type 246.
The DR is also similar to SONY bodies (link).
The low-light performance is within 1/3 stop of the SONYs'. (link) – zoom the chart to see detail for the 24 X 36mm sensor column.
These data are estimates for un-rendered raw file data. So post-processing rendering parameters do not affect the results.
In-camera JPEGs are rendered from raw data. A raw file's signal-to-noise limits JPEG rendering. However, perceived image quality could depend on the in-camera demosaicking algorithms as well differences in rendering parameters.
"Is Leica BW image superior, and if so, is it couple thousands of dollars superior? "
This is a subjective question. My subjective answer is no – the M Monochrome Type 246 is not worth the ~2 thousand dollar cost increase.
What is worth 2 thousand dollars could be the value-added aspect of using an M rangefinder. The experience of operating a camera with an optical rangefinder and minimalistic controls is worth something. Avoiding lens adapters and the convenience of using coded lenses is another advantage. These also are subjective issues.
While signal-to-noise ratio is not the sole factor that determines the perceived quality of monochrome images, I would prefer a M10 to the Type 246.