How does Sony A7 (latest) compare with Leica Monochrome?

LCSmith said:
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?
Click to expand...

Better question would be: what the hell you talking about? I asked questions and people answered. You have anything to say on subject? If not, then I have something to say to you, will try not to though...
 
willie_901 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hear you on a subject of "experience of operating a camera". I had all 3 types of Leica - M, IIIf, R. Still have some.
It certainly a different experience but final image for me was always a first priority. Still is :)
 
markjwyatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mark,

As a printer, from a printing standpoint, and from experience I can print bigger with a MM file than a M9 file that was converted.

Please understand that I do extraordinary things to maximize image capture and minimize post to create clean files.

One way to extrapolate is that the lack of Bayer Filter Array for RGB makes the 18 MP MM more like a 24 MP sensor in comparing resolution.

The M246 is somewhat compromised as the files are 12-bit instead of 14-bit like in the MM. There is a bit of a trade off between megapixels and bit-depth inwhich the M246 has more MP for enhanced resolution, but the MM has more bit-depth to make up some of the difference in MP count.

No doubt the M-246 is a more advanced camera with better shadow detail, smoother roll off in the highlights, better high ISO, more dynamic range...

No doubt the BFA degrades a B&W as far as resolution.

The question here is the additional noise and digital artifact evident. For me that depends on print size. On prints 13x19 or smaller you really won't see or notice a difference.

On really big prints any noise or digital artifact becomes amplified. Also know that on really big prints things really open up also. The mids sing so that small format transcends formats. Also detail is reveal that is not evident on smaller prints. Prints are less about contrast and more about broad/complete tonality like in larger formats.

Cal
 
MIkhail said:
Better question would be: what the hell you talking about? I asked questions and people answered. You have anything to say on subject? If not, then I have something to say to you, will try not to though...
Click to expand...

Odd that someone confident in his position would become defensive. I have nothing to add. I hope you enjoy whatever decision you make. I have owned digital Leicas (though not the MM) and Sony A7R2. The color from the Sony never seemed right. The color from the Leica was always perfect (I used hodiernal Leica glass). But I do not really enjoy color photography and I have committed my workflow entirely to shooting and processing and printing bw film. I am an amateur who does it for the love. People who have to make a living being a photographer would obviously have very different criteria for gear.
 
MIkhail said:
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.
Click to expand...

MIkhail, looks like you need to get raw, dng files from both. To compare by yourself. I understand your situation.

Any Leica bw file needs PP. Starting from M8, if not processed correctly, it gives so-so results.
And with Monochrome I see 99 from 100 to be a failure in PP.

But it is all personal. This is why the only solution I see is to get files from both and try them in PP.
 
Calzone said:
Mikhail,

Thanks for the link.

Too bad this commercially could not be performed.

The remove annoying anti aliasing filters that degrade images.

Also likely firmware might have to be optimized.

Cal
Click to expand...

I am reading, Sony A7R II does not have one.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
MIkhail, looks like you need to get raw, dng files from both. To compare by yourself. I understand your situation.

Any Leica bw file needs PP. Starting from M8, if not processed correctly, it gives so-so results.
And with Monochrome I see 99 from 100 to be a failure in PP.

But it is all personal. This is why the only solution I see is to get files from both and try them in PP.
Click to expand...

Kostja, actually, if one has to go extra mile to look for a difference, that probably answers my question already :)
******************************
I think I am getting a picture here.
Thank you everybody.
I certainly don't dismiss the form factor, compactness etc.
But- to me - that's secondary.
 
I’ve never looked at a digital b&w photo and have been able to identify which camera took it. I’ve seen beautiful images from all sorts of devices.
 
MIkhail said:
I am reading, Sony A7R II does not have one.
Click to expand...

Mikhail,

I pretty much use the Lightroom default of setting of 25 for sharpening.

Any additional sharpening comes from my use of "Clarity."

I don't like anti-alias filters at all. I'd rather have the moray.

Cal
 
MM Here

MM Here

I still have my CCD Mono. Post processing and shooting should try emulate the Zone system. Shooting must follow same procedures as film for focus and direction of light and effort to find the best shadow detail without washing out high lights. This a skill that is easily learned with experience with film.

Nothing emulates film grain like the CCD Mono. Nothing.

I just bought an M10 and we'll see how B&W fares with the Mono, but I'm willing to bet that it's apple and oranges.
 
Interesting discussion. Thanks @MIkhail

I like the B&W I get out of my 24 MP Fujifilm XT-2 (I believe it does not have an AA filter). Good color leads to good B&W, but I suspect going direct would be better. I need to start playing with Fujiflim RAW X Studio, because this uses the Acros engine in the camera, and the Acros engine is designed (as far as I understand) to process noise as Acros grain, which I find interesting. I do shoot straight Acros jpegs sometimes, but with RAW X Studio you get some ability to guide the creation of the jpeg, much like other RAW processors.
 
Dektol Dan said:
I still have my CCD Mono. Post processing and shooting should try emulate the Zone system. Shooting must follow same procedures as film for focus and direction of light and effort to find the best shadow detail without washing out high lights. This a skill that is easily learned with experience with film.

Nothing emulates film grain like the CCD Mono. Nothing.

I just bought an M10 and we'll see how B&W fares with the Mono, but I'm willing to bet that it's apple and oranges.
Click to expand...

Dan,

I own a Leica SL. In a way the M10 is a SL except a compact rangfinder.

I would agree with you that the CCD sensor of the MM is better in emulating film grain. It also has its distinct rendering.

My SL with its CMOS sensor does really well for B&W and has its advantages, but there is no replacement for the MM.

I would not say apples and oranges, but I would say you need both. The MM is kinda unreplacable. If you want a digital that is most like a film camera the MM is it.

Cal
 
MIkhail said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sorry for responding late, but yes, to follow up on what Huss posted, there are clear tech improvements in each iteration, not just with the sensors but also features & user interface (image stabilization, improved EVF & autofocus, etc.) as well as file handling (IIRC, the 1st generation a7 & a7R didn't offer true lossless compression).
 
furcafe said:
Sorry for responding late, but yes, to follow up on what Huss posted, there are clear tech improvements in each iteration, not just with the sensors but also features & user interface (image stabilization, improved EVF & autofocus, etc.) as well as file handling (IIRC, the 1st generation a7 & a7R didn't offer true lossless compression).
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
MIkhail said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry for my delay in responding. Yes Mikhail, I do enjoy PP - you are absolutely correct. To me it's not just an integral part of the image creation process, in a very real way it is THE key part of the process for many of my images.

I guess you and I come more from an artistic perspective - where the task is not to just capture an image but instead is to create an image. I think this is perhaps the reason I prefer digital imaging over film imaging. I could never do this stuff back in film days.
 
peterm1 said:
Sorry for my delay in responding. Yes Mikhail, I do enjoy PP - you are absolutely correct. To me it's not just an integral part of the image creation process, in a very real way it is THE key part of the process for many of my images.

I guess you and I come more from an artistic perspective - where the task is not to just capture an image but instead is to create an image. I think this is perhaps the reason I prefer digital imaging over film imaging. I could never do this stuff back in film days.
Click to expand...

Peter,

This is an interesting POV. I pretty much in art school decades ago learned just the opposite, where I was trained to make negatives that could be consistently optimized and printed on a grade number two paper "straight printed."

In a way I continue this tradition from film to digital.

Digital offers a new creative freedom for sure.

Cal
 
peterm1 said:
Sorry for my delay in responding. Yes Mikhail, I do enjoy PP - you are absolutely correct. To me it's not just an integral part of the image creation process, in a very real way it is THE key part of the process for many of my images.

I guess you and I come more from an artistic perspective - where the task is not to just capture an image but instead is to create an image. I think this is perhaps the reason I prefer digital imaging over film imaging. I could never do this stuff back in film days.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
I always preferred to make as "neutral" negatives as possible so I can manipulate them during printing. From multi-grade filters and split tone printing to intricate masking. That's as far as I ventured.
Then, of course, there is multiple exposures (on film or during printing) and/or printing from several negatives on one paper. Done that too.
But the freedom of manipulation that digital gives is something else.
So in some instances the image taking is just the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top