benlees
Well-known
I like that: noise becomes 'organic dusting'.
The noise was like the warmth and smell of a bakery, the equipment lightly dusted with flour from the magic created by last nights saints of sourdough.
Huss
Mentor
I like that: noise becomes 'organic dusting'.
The noise was like the warmth and smell of a bakery, the equipment lightly dusted with flour from the magic created by last nights saints of sourdough.
If it was a Sony it would be called digitized dirt.
Huss
Mentor
There is a M10M thread on fredmiranda.com:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1631448
Not one mention of the messed up skwew. Very disappointing that they do not have their priorities right.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1631448
Not one mention of the messed up skwew. Very disappointing that they do not have their priorities right.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Agreed.
Maybe its in the processing..as in..it could be a lot better..
Kinda "mushy" for lack of a better word..
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Maybe better to see actual prints than back lit compressed jpgs on web sites huh? Actually work with the files to be able to experience the real difference.
SaveKodak
Well-known
Much is made of 'bayer free' images, but give me a break. 40mp is 40mp, not 'secretly' 55. If you want to shoot in color right now and get around bayer interpolation, grab a Pentax K-1 which has pixel shift. Do yourself one better and get an S1R which has pixel shift and multishot for 189mp images.
No one is ever going to notice or care that your camera had no bayer interpolation.
No one is ever going to notice or care that your camera had no bayer interpolation.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Richard G
Mentor
Gregory Simpson’s three part review of the original Monochrom was wonderful. This one too is convincing. The great thing about Leica is confortably living with old technology, not just a IIIf or M2, but the M9 and M9M. Still, I would like this new one I admit.
gnuyork
Well-known
Easy to say that but have you seen Foveon files and what they can do?
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
My thoughts are exactly the same. Tonality: perfect. Resolution: perfect. But emotionally it's like I'm looking at a 4K high definition security camera capture.
Perhaps my tastes were developed and fixed in the 1970's, where I want nighttime images to look like Tri-X and with only a hint of what's in the shadows.
icebear
Mentor
I am with you and overall the examples that are published online aren't showing any detail crops. These are images with no emotional content, so no matter the camera, MP or ISO if the photographer hasn't captured anything interesting, it will leave the viewer cold.
I guess you are right but it's just w/o the BFA that get the true 40MP. With the filter you have 10MP red, 10MP blue and 20MP green and some fancy algorhythm that gives "calculated 40MP". With a true BW sensor you get the true luminecense value without heavy processing.
I don't have an M10 and an MM10 but I have the M9 and orig. MM and the files of the MM are head and shoulders above the M9 whatever the statistically identical 18MP number says. I expect the same to be true for the M10/MM10 twins.
Thinking about trading in a Noctilux 1.0 for M10...
I don’t think these file size differences are as huge as some think. If your computer handles 20-24mp files perfectly fine, it’ll handle 40mp + files also. If it’s already struggling...then, ok.
helen.HH
A smile & a wink…
Just watched Farkas’ on Youtube... that Alan/ Airfrog posted above
Thoroughly enjoyed his talk. At last I know how digital sensors work, lol. Yes late to the Party.
Excited !
When it came to showing the photos from Leica
I fell disappointed. I thought that a majority seemed rather flat
as if the light was just on the surface
Not having that magical quality of ‘Light’ seeping thru deep recesses, Coming from the furtherest back, illuminating the Image,
Even the tonal range , though it had lovely complexity still to my Eye had no Atmosphere ... Glow, Luminosity.
More like a dystopian world of flat greys
I would still like to try (not buy) the camera
I might jump on the ‘original’
Thoroughly enjoyed his talk. At last I know how digital sensors work, lol. Yes late to the Party.
Excited !
When it came to showing the photos from Leica
I fell disappointed. I thought that a majority seemed rather flat
as if the light was just on the surface
Not having that magical quality of ‘Light’ seeping thru deep recesses, Coming from the furtherest back, illuminating the Image,
Even the tonal range , though it had lovely complexity still to my Eye had no Atmosphere ... Glow, Luminosity.
More like a dystopian world of flat greys
I would still like to try (not buy) the camera
I might jump on the ‘original’
Out to Lunch
Menteur
$ 8,295. My advice...buy a handbag for $ 6,000 and feel good about your savings.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
It takes some courage to look away and explore other venues...
35photo
Well-known
Remember when shooting RAW... that is like shooting an undeveloped negative... Once you get it into Lightroom or whatever RAW processor you use then you actually "soup" the file.... Straight out of the camera yeah you are going to be disappointed because its just a flat file that needs to be processed...Especially with the Mono files they really need work, good news is once you work on one and get it to a point you can save that preset as your starting point and then apply that preset to the rest of the files... then you can tweak them easier once you have a good starting point...
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
From all the photos I have seen so far, especially the best ones, the M10 seems like a notable uptick in the specific qualities that prior versions had, so it delivers a specific style of result, and then some, in *****s.
But, Helen, I know what you are seeing, as it strikes me the same way. So far. One cannot fail to be impressed, but.....l.
Even were it $1,200 I am not sure it fits every photographer’s vision. But, I’m glad it exists.
Edit: just saw that a phrase I included which means “to the greatest possible extent”, a phrase which originated with playing cards has been asterisked out of existence by some special needs algorithm that didn’t graduate kindergarten. Bowdlerizing rears its ugly head, in this case, inexplicably. Well, there’s an explanation, but it’s incorrect.
Last edited:
Years ago I converted my Epson R2400 using Jon Cone's Piezography system. Just replaced the failing printhead on it and am back to printing.
raid
Dad Photographer
Not really. The cost makes it easy for me to look to alternatives. If I do not make prints, practically any camera is OK.
icebear
Mentor
Hi Helen,
for sure you remember the prints that Cal showed at the ICP some years back? Those were gorgeous and that is close but not all the way to the top in regards to prints. To get the most of the MM(orig.) and most likely also the new MM10, you have to learn to milk the exposure. Even then you only optimize what the raw image captures but you must get the most of it at time of exposure. You have to use the histogram to learn not to blow the highlights. Optimum exposure is a bit more finicky than on film. You screw it (no matter the position of the screw
) and you wasted an otherwise perfectly good image, nothing to save afterwards. What you capture is only the starting point for post processing the image. There is a learning curve and it sounds more complicated than it is but with a digital sensor capturing those highlights is driving to the very edge of the cliff. Stopping way too early because for safety you dialed in a -2 stops compensation is giving you souped grey. Stopping too late, you fall off the cliff and you have blown those highlights. I take it that no one having the MM10 in his hands for early reviews is able to milk the exposure yet. I haven't seen any histograms of MM10 images.To get the "glow" out of raw image files, you have to work in post e.g. Lightroom to push the whites and highlights to the very edge and beef up contrast to your liking. The camera just delivers your starting point not the final image be it for online view or for actual large format printing.