Blog

“That guy’s a terrible writer,” posts a reader on a photography forum, garnering numerous likes and +1’s. “His photos are just random snapshots with no context,” states another on a different site. “I couldn’t be bothered to read what he wrote, because I’m sure he doesn’t say anything that I haven’t read before,” professes yet another critic — seemingly oblivious to his own deliciously paradoxical condemnation.

These are, of course, all comments written about yours truly.

Online forums are wonderful places for learning all sorts of things about oneself. For example, they taught me I’m not a “real” street photographer because I shoot from afar with a telephoto lens. I’m not sure exactly when my 28mm lens became classified as ‘telephoto,’ nor when ‘afar’ became defined as ‘2 meters’ — though I’ll willingly admit that I’m not a real street photographer… but that’s because there is no such thing.

On numerous occasions, I’ve read that I haven’t a clue how to properly process my photos. But can a total stranger really know how I intended them to look? Frankly, my photos look exactly the way I want them to! A more astute critic would impugn my taste, but it’s always my abilities that come under attack.

My proudest moment came when a highly agitated reader claimed that I’m such a horrible photographer, that my very existence has tarnished the profession and is preventing others from finding photographic employment. How can I not be flattered that someone believes I’m both famous enough and influential enough to ruin an entire industry!

Thanks to my penchant for shooting with Leica rangefinders, one of the most oft-repeated internet condemnations is that I’m not worthy of a Leica. More often than not, the verdict is delivered with the word “sorry” in front, as in “Sorry, but Leica’s are wasted on him.” The word’s inclusion is meant, I’m sure, to soften the verdict and illustrate the benevolence of the adjudicator. But here’s the thing — and this is going to make a lot of people on a lot of forums very happy — I am in complete agreement with this assessment! It’s true, Leica’s are wasted on me. In fact, every camera I’ve ever shot with is wasted on me.

I’ve never owned a camera that wasn’t eminently capable of producing a Pulitzer Prize winning photo. Yet I’ve never won a Pulitzer. All these cameras with all this potential — and here I am squandering them on my own personal enjoyment and dubious aesthetic values. Daido Moriyama photographed his NY ’71 book with a half-frame Olympus camera. It’s a masterpiece. I actually own two Olympus half-frames, yet neither has resulted in a collection anywhere near that calibre. Josef Koudelka’s Chaos shows what one can accomplish with the panoramic format. But two years into my Hasselblad Xpan explorations, I’ve yet to produce a single photo worthy of being a Koudelka outtake. Even today’s trendiest and most popular gear is wasted on me. My Olympus OM-D E-M1? I doubt I’ve used more than 20% of its myriad feature set. Call me “lame,” but I just haven’t gotten around to employing its watercolor art filter yet. Curiously, Leica’s rangefinder cameras are so void of bells & whistles that, in many ways, they’re actually less wasted on me than other cameras — at least I use every feature in my Leica M film bodies. However, I must sheepishly admit to not having yet pushed the “M” button on top of the M246.

So what does this rambling pre-amble have to do with Leica’s new Monochrom camera? Nothing. And everything. Its main purpose is to weed out people who land on this site expecting a blow-by-blow feature assessment. Nothing prevents people from reading something quite as effectively as actual words.

Those who are brave enough to endure the prologue are usually the sort who know (or have now learned) that ULTRAsomething is neither a news site nor a review site. ULTRAsomething is about photography gear the same way that Gilligan’s Island is about survival tactics.

My exploration of this camera is still a work in progress; my opinions are mine and mine alone; and my photos are meant to satisfy myself, and not the demands of an internet audience. In other words, everything I write about Leica’s new Monochrom M (Type 246) camera is but a guidepost — markers that people are free to connect in whatever way most benefits them.

Cents and Sensibility

Another commonly-logged complaint amongst photo forumbulists (yes, I just neologized that word), is that ULTRAsomething’s camera articles are useless. Apparently, this is because the articles never actually tell the reader whether or not to buy the camera, nor if upgrading from some previous model is worth the expense.

It’s a criticism that falls just short of being justified. Yes, it’s true. But it’s true for a rather valid reason — because to do as asked is impossible! How can I make a recommendation? I have no insight into the individual wants, needs and pecuniary status of my readers. I only have insight into my own. So that’s what I write about.

Leica’s cameras, in particular, are rather expensive. So I understand the reader’s desire to find some sort of external validation that either supports their decision to purchase one, or justifies their rationale to not. But these are, ultimately, personal questions that only the reader can answer.

I’m often tempted to take the philosopher’s way out, and suggest that very few people actually need a new camera. As I wrote in a reply to a reader’s comment in the previous article, “My 1958 Leica M2 is far better at being a camera than I’ll ever be at being a photographer.” But “need” implies rational thought and intellect — and for me, photography has little to do with either, and everything to do with emotion. Different cameras may ultimately yield similar results, but the impact they have on a photographer’s instincts, methods, motivation and passion can have a profound and real effect on achieving that result.

So add this to the long list of ULTRAsomething articles that fails to state whether a camera is actually worth the expense. Instead, I’ll suggest you can find the answer you seek by simply asking yourself two questions:

1. Is this camera going to provide me with a technical, tactile or emotional advantage over a camera I already own?
2. If so, then am I willing to give up X, Y and Z in order to gain that advantage?

I can’t possibly answer Question #1 on your behalf. But the remainder of this article will answer it on mine.

Similarly, your X, Y and Z will likely be unique and very specific to you. Obviously, no one should be willing to give up X, Y and Z if X = “food,” Y = “shelter” and Z = “safety and security.” But what if X = “learning to cook, rather than going out to eat?” What if Y = “dumping cable TV and sticking with a 4 year-old smart phone running last years’ operating system?” What if Z = “mending your grandfather’s old hand-me-down zoot suit, rather than purchasing something more fashionable?”

Offense and Sensibility

As stated above, the first question I asked myself — and the question you’ll ultimately need to ask yourself — is “will this camera provide me with a technical, tactile or emotional advantage over a camera I already own?” For me, ergonomics are actually the most important factor when choosing a camera. In my case, that means a rangefinder. However, since I already own several, the fact the M246 is also a rangefinder does not provide it with any immediately apparent ergonomic advantage.

So, instead, I decided to look for advantages within the camera’s image quality capabilities. At first blush, this might seem a strange avenue for me to explore — after all, the appearance of my published photos certainly makes it seem as if I don’t actually care about image quality — and to an extent, that’s true. But it’s true only when discussing the look of my final prints. In reality, I like to capture as much fidelity as possible, because the more I capture, the greater the number of ways I can screw it all up in post-processing.

As I discussed in Sensors and Sensibility, I have a few quibbles when it comes to using digital cameras for so-called “street” photography. Believe me, this isn’t a “film vs. digital” debate. I like both and I shoot both. In fact, I don’t believe in pitting one format against the other. To me, they are two completely different mediums, with two completely different outcomes. What matters is not “which is better,” but “which is better for my intended purpose?” And for my use on the streets, I prefer to use film because of its exposure latitude, highlight response, and the “forgiving” nature of its less-clinical renderings. So the best thing a new digital camera could do for me is to negate some of that need for film, while providing me with all the inherent advantages that digital offers (workflow, resolution, flexibility).

What I saw from the tests I performed in Sensors and Sensibility is that the M246 has a tremendous amount of usable dynamic range. For my own particular brand of photography, this translates into the following tangible benefits:

1. It means I can underexpose a scene (protecting the highlights), yet still have enough clean and meaningful shadow detail to pull up my subject in post processing. The end result won’t necessarily look like film, but it means I’ll be just as likely to “get a usable shot” with a digital camera as I currently do with film.
2. It means I can use faster shutter speeds, which will freeze the motion blur that comes from having both a photographer and a subject that are frequently in motion. Using faster shutter speeds means shooting at higher ISO — even in bright sunlight — but with the camera’s stellar low light (shadow) capability, it’s a worthy trade-off.
3. It means I can use narrower apertures, which will diminish focus errors caused by scale focusing. Again, narrower apertures mean shooting at higher ISOs than one might normally choose. But once again, the relatively minor increase in shadow noise is more than offset by the benefit of having more photos appear “in focus.”

While I initially only theorized these advantages (based on my controlled tests), I have since employed these techniques in the field. Though it will take a little while for me to adjust my habits to accommodate this wholesale change to balancing ISO, shutter speed and aperture, the theory has definitely been proven.

The M246 will absolutely provide me with more of a technical, tactile and emotional advantage than any camera I already own — because, until now, I’ve never used a digital camera that I’ve found so thoroughly satisfying for “street” work.

Dissents and Sensibility

There is a flip side to the question of whether a camera provides enough of an advantage to warrant consideration: “Does it create any disadvantages that will negate those hard-earned advantages?”

For some photographers, a black & white sensor might be a disadvantage (particularly if, like me, they’re considering upgrading from a color camera, like the M9). In my case, a monochromatic sensor actually provides a wealth of new advantages — many of which I discussed several years ago in the Fetishist’s Guide to the Monochrom series. 100% of my photography is black & white. This means that the sole advantage of using a color sensor rests in its ability to change relative tonalities after a photo is taken. But for me, this single advantage is more than offset by the Monochrom’s inherent image quality advantages, the workflow improvements for BW photography, and my own psychological need to actually shoot (and not just display) in black & white.

Many potential M246 customers are currently engaged in the whole CCD vs. CMOS sensor debate. M8’s, M9’s and the original Monochrom cameras all used CCD sensors. M240 series cameras (including the new Monochrom M246) use CMOS. There’s no doubt that they provide a different rendering, though I find the differences to be more apparent in color images. Like many, I have a slight preference for the appearance of a color file from a CCD that’s been exposed at base ISO. But I’m not shooting color. And I’m not shooting at base ISO. So any minuscule (and totally subjective) advantage of a CCD is ultimately lost on me, where the new M246’s high ISO capabilities (and thus, its shadow detail and dynamic range) tilt the balance totally in favour of its new CMOS sensor.

Another image quality debate that’s currently raging on the internet concerns the fact M246 files are 12-bit, and not 14-bit. I’ll admit, before I started testing the camera, this “issue” worried me a little. Although Leica explained its necessity, and mentioned they could see no real-world disadvantages to the 12-bit files, I had my doubts. So, during the test phase, I set out with every intention to prove Leica wrong. Instead, I proved that I was wrong. I could find no issues with 12-bit files. I could not “break” the images in post-production, like I thought I could. There was not one single shred of evidence in my testing that would make me think that the 12-bit nature of the M246 files constituted a “downgrade.” Perhaps a 14-bit version of this camera (were it possible) would have even greater fidelity — but the 12-bit version that currently exists definitely bests the performance of the previous 14-bit cameras.

Having thus debunked (or dismissed) the currently trending internet-based worries, I do have one actual issue to report. It concerns the way a geometrically alterered image can bring out noise patterns in the shadows. It’s a problem I first reported back in Part 3 of the Fetishist’s Guide to the Monochrom. At the time, I didn’t fret over it too much — it affected only a small percentage of my photos and, when it did, I could spend some extra time and energy minimizing the effect in post-production.  Unfortunately, this issue is still present in the new M246.

In brief, this problem is as follows: Monochrom noise is extremely fine. It’s more like a light dusting of static than any sort of de-mosaicing noise or “film grain.” Because of this, even at high ISO values, the shadows appear relatively noiseless. However, if you boost those shadows by a couple of stops, you’ll start to see what looks like a loosely textured “weave” — much like you’d see if you looked closely at a fine wool suit fabric. If you then alter that image geometrically, you’ll begin to see patterns emerge. Even a simple rotation (such as you might perform to level a horizon) will cause a sort of tilted, grid-like pattern to appear in the amplified shadow regions. If you perform any non-linear geometric distortions (such as lens correction or keystone correction), then the shadow noise will display a subtle moire-like effect with undulating lines and waves appearing within the noise. Remember when you learned about magnetism in grade school? You’d sprinkle some iron dust on a paper and the dusting looked totally random. But when you brought a magnet near it, those iron particles would begin to form patterns. That’s exactly what can happen to the amplified shadow noise in a high ISO Monochrom file.

The best way to minimize any pattern is, of course, to avoid doing what causes it to appear: Don’t shoot at high ISO; then don’t add add several stops of exposure to that file’s shadows; then don’t manipulate the heck out of that image’s geometry.” Right — you might as well tell me to give up photography.  So the next best way to minimize the patterns is to actually add some irregularity to the shadow noise. If I have a file that I know will be tortured in post-processing, I’ll add some noise to the shadow regions, then export an upsized version of that file from Lightroom. This works much the same way that dithering works in digital audio. Because digital audio is so clean, any time you re-sample it, you end up with audible artifacts that are imprinted on the sound by the processing algorithms. In order to render these artifacts inaudible, noise is added to the file before it’s resampled.

I have no idea if this is what’s happening with Monochrom files, but on the surface it seems that the noise is so fine that it actually enables us to see exactly what sort of pattern-based processing algorithms are being used by our image processing software — algorithms that are supposed to be invisible to the naked eye become visible because there’s not enough noise to mask them.  I’ve tested Monochrom files with both Capture One and Lightroom/Camera Raw, and the results are essentially the same.

If my theory is correct, and if the Monochrom continues to grow in popularity, some enterprising developer might be well served by adding an automatic dithering option to their RAW converter — precisely for the purpose of dealing with low-noise, fine-grained files like those produced by the Monochrom. Hopefully, I’ll find some time this month to perform further tests, and seek out the guidance and knowledge of both Leica and various RAW converter developers. If I find out more, I’ll post a follow-up article.

Vents and Sensibility

Though my testing of the new Monochrom M246 uncovered a cornucopia of tangible imaging advantages, I do have a few issues regarding the camera’s ergonomics. Granted, the M246 is still a rangefinder, and a rangefinder is the #1 requirement for my particular style of shooting. But there are a few worrisome trends developing in today’s digital rangefinders — some of which dampen my enthusiasm somewhat.

I must first begin with a confession: Two years ago, when I first took Leica’s new M (Type 240) for a “test drive,” I had a rather negative response. To say I didn’t like the new body would be an understatement. The 100g of excess weight really annoyed me. The relocated menu button sat directly beneath where my thumb wanted to rest, forcing it over onto the LCD, where its extra thickness cause my wrist to ache. I was completely discombobulated by the fact that, when I brought the camera to my eye, I couldn’t see any frame lines until the camera “woke up,” which felt like an eternity. I suffered separation anxiety over Leica’s decision to remove the frame line select lever, and was even inexplicably annoyed there was no longer a number following the letter “M.” After a single evening spent shooting the M (240), I felt a renewed sense of appreciation for my slimmer (in hand), lighter and “proper” M9.

But this only represents half a confession. Because back in 2006, when Leica released the M8, I had a similarly negative response. Though roughly the same weight as a film M, the M8’s extra thickness made the camera feel much heavier and seem far clunkier. Gripping it made my wrist ache. It seemed to take a similar measure of eternity to write a file to the SD card, and I was totally distressed by the thunderous noise that would spring forth from its shutter.

It was 2009 before I finally purchased an M8, deciding that my dislike of digital SLRs was greater than any ergonomic issues I might have had with the M8. Over time, I grew rather accustom to the M8’s extra thickness and, though it still never felt as good in-hand as a film M, I was able to build up enough wrist strength that it no longer hurt to carry it all day. I never did adapt to the shutter sound, which is one of the reasons why I upgraded to the M9 immediately upon its announcement.

So it’s rather ironic that I immediately dismissed the M240 for failing to match the ergonomics of the M8/M9 when, in fact, I once dismissed that earlier line for its own collection of ergonomic issues. Progress always exacts its price. Fortunately, when the Monochrom M (Type 246) arrived, I was mentally prepared from both my previous M240 experience and from my M8 experience, which taught me that first impressions weren’t always lasting impressions.

I’ve been in possession of a prototype M246 for a month now, and I’ve had the opportunity to take it for several dozen walks. In general, I’m still somewhat annoyed by both the weight and ergonomic concerns. When I bought the M8, it was the lightest, most compact high-fidelity digital camera I owned. I never had to choose between my “good” camera and my “portable” camera — they were one and the same. But a lot has changed since then. Today, the 240-series M’s are the heaviest, least compact digital cameras in my (temporary) possession. Now, when I walk out the door, I must once again choose between fidelity (Leica) or portability (any of my other digital cameras).

Fortunately, for the past month, the choice wasn’t mine to make. I had to take the M246 because I had to test it. And the more I tested it, the more I fell in love with it. In the end, I felt about the M246 the way I ultimately felt about the M8 — that my appreciation for what the camera could do (and how it did it) was greater than my dislike for its heavier, more awkward body.

Thankfully, Leica returned the exiled frameline select lever to the M246. The missing number after the letter “M” (which, admittedly was about as ridiculous an annoyance as has ever been stated) was also rectified, because the M246 has no logo or model demarkations whatsoever. I’m still not totally thrilled with the electronic framelines, but at least they seem to be set for 2m (making framing a bit more WYSYWIG than my M9). Hopefully, now that Leica has put the framelines under battery control, they’ll go the extra step in a future model M and make them expand and contract dynamically with distance. Then, at least, there will be a tangible benefit to waiting for the framelines to “wake up.”

My other problem with the 240-type body was (and continues to be) the placement of the Menu button, which is located directly beneath the spot at which my thumb usually grips a camera. This is an issue I have with nearly every modern digital camera, and not just Leica. Customer demand for larger LCDs has reduced the space available for control buttons. So whenever I carry a camera in hand (which is always), those buttons are in the way — forcing my thumb onto the LCD, where the extra thickness makes the camera feel awkward. I’ve taken to using my old first-generation Match Technical Thumbs Up, which I purchased for my M8 back in the day. Although it partially obscures this camera’s thumb dial, it provides an alternate way of carrying the camera — at least until my wrist gets more buff.

One caveat, however, is that when the Thumbs Up is attached, then Leica’s external electronic viewfinder can’t be used. Which segues nicely into the next topic…

Kaizen and Sensibility

Like most every aspect of modern camera design, I have a love/hate relationship with live view cameras. Technically, I’m fine with the whole idea of live view — particularly when it’s offered as an addition to a more traditional ‘optical’ view, which I greatly prefer to use. Any frustrations I do have with live view cameras tend to expand or contract based on their implementation.

In order for live view to be useful for me, it needs to offer two things: focus peaking and an electronic viewfinder. Fortunately, both are present on the M246, but each has caveats. Specifically, the focus peaking works reasonably well, but I find it slightly more difficult to see than on some other camera models. The other necessity — the electronic viewfinder — is available only through purchase of an external contraption. External viewfinders, by nature, are large, clumsy and inelegant. This one also happens to be of only mediocre optical quality.

In spite of my tempered enthusiasm for this camera’s live view implementation, I’m still thrilled to have it. That’s because the M246 is, at heart, a classical rangefinder with a fully optical viewfinder and focus mechanism. Every modern camera manufacture makes a live view camera, but which of them can sell you an honest-to-goodness rangefinder? Just one — Leica. Yet, as much as I need and rely on rangefinders, there are times when it’s not the optimal way to focus. Fast lenses shot wide open? They benefit from live view. Those 90mm and 135mm Leica lenses that go unloved and unmounted for months on end? They have renewed purpose thanks to live view’s ability to easily focus them. Low ambient light? Another prime reason for using live view. The viewing, framing and focusing options on the 240-series are an absolute delight — combining all the benefits of rangefinder cameras with the shot-saving benefits of a focus-peaking live view when you need it. So the presence of live view on a Leica M series camera — even an implementation as middling as this — is the cherry atop the icing on the gravy on the cake.

Suspense and Sensibility

Let’s revisit my first pre-purchase question, “Will the Leica M Monochrom (Type 246) provide me with a technical, tactile or emotional advantage over a camera I already own?”

The answer is absolutely, unequivocally and enthusiastically “yes.” The camera’s technical advantages are leagues above any other camera I own. The emotional benefits of shooting a digital monochromatic camera proved themselves to me back when I first tested the original M9-based Monochrom, and they continue with this camera. The tactile victory is a bit less one-sided: I find the heavier body and electronic framelines somewhat less desirable than what my M9 offers. But these quibbles are more than offset by the benefits of live view, the quieter shutter, the beefier battery and the overall reliability of the M246.

So with Question #1 definitively answered, I have now moved on to question #2: “Am I willing to give up X, Y and Z in order to gain that advantage?”

I am presently in the process of defining exactly what X, Y and Z might mean to me… In the meantime, I’ve still got Leica’s prototype M246 in my possession, and I’m in no hurry to remind them of that fact.

---

Each morning, a sound with the ironic name of “silk” punctuates the dawn and snatches me cruelly from a blissful slumber. I fumble for the iPad, shut off its alarm and immediately launch my email app. Nothing jolts me back into a state of consciousness quite like staring into the cold, hard reality of an inbox full of fresh new problems — each vying for my immediate attention.

A couple months ago, one of these wake-up emails bounced across whatever sequence of satellites connects Wetzlar Germany with Vancouver Canada. It was, of course, from Leica. They don’t email me often, but when they do, I know it’s because they want something.

Normally, receiving email from anyone who wants something qualifies as “undesirable.” But when Leica wants something, it usually falls into one of two categories: Either 1) they want me to speak at a Leica Akademie, or 2) they want me to test some new piece of gear. Both scenarios require an extensive amount of work, yet both are actually quite enjoyable.

This day’s email fell squarely into Category #2. “Do you have time to test a prototype of the new Monochrom?” it asked.

Truth is, I didn’t. I’d gotten embroiled in way too many projects and was already burning the candle at both ends.

“Absolutely, I have time,” I lied. “Send it to me.” Hey, I could always buy more candles to burn, but how many opportunities do I get to test a brand new Monochrom prototype?

Leica’s request was that I compare and contrast the image quality between three cameras: the original M9-based Monochrom (MM9); the latest Type 240 color M (M240); and this new M Monochrom, designated as Type 246 (M246).

Anyone who’s aware of my current photographic leanings will probably think I’m a curious choice for such a task. After all, I’m not exactly Mr. High Fidelity when it comes to photography. My photos are often grainy and/or noisy, haphazardly focused, dubiously exposed and unorthodoxly framed. But here’s the thing — the look of my photos is actually a conscious and creative choice, and not (as internet forums might suggest) one born of incompetence. As an engineer, I’m actually quite adroit at testing and analyzing products both clinically and objectively. But as a photographer, I’m free to ignore whatever the logical half of my brain suggests. I’m also free to appropriate left-brain logic and apply it creatively with the right-brain. And it’s this latter function that will dictate the direction of this article — I will first analyze the clinical performance of the M246, then use that analysis to suggest how I might be able to use it creatively.

Shades of Grey (Literal Version)

Any time I work with a new monochromatic imaging surface (film or digital), I like to see how it maps colors to tonality. Such knowledge was particularly important for this series of tests, since I would be pixel-peeping and comparing the outputs from both color and monochromatic cameras. In order to do this, I needed to make sure that any M240 color conversions would closely match the tonality of the M246 and MM9. I did this same thing back in 2012, when I wrote A Fetishist’s Guide to the Monochrom. At that time, I had to create a custom Lightroom profile to make the M9’s BW conversion match the output of the original Monochrom. Would I need to do the same here?

I shot the same X-Rite Color Checker chart under the same lighting conditions (and using the same lens) with the three cameras I’d be comparing: The MM9 and the M246 had very similar tonality. For kicks, I decided to see how the M240 file would look if I simply applied Lightoom’s default BW conversion, as shown below. Note that I was not evenly remotely concerned with focus, resolution or noise in this test, so the “softer” M246 image is indicative of nothing other than my carefree technique.

Surprisingly (and unlike the old M9), Lightroom’s default conversion of an M240 color file matches the tonality of the M246 quite closely. Sure, there are minor differences, but no wholesale zone shifts. Certainly, there’s nothing that should impact my ability to compare images from a BW-converted M240 file with those from either an M246 or an MM9. So, for the remainder of this article, all M240 files have been converted to black & white using Lightroom’s default BW conversion.

The Setup

In order to carefully compare images from three different cameras, I knew that my usual modus operandi of hand-holding and scale-focussing would not suffice. In order to perform these tests, I had to remove as much human variable from the process as possible — particularly considering that the human was me. So every comparison involved the following method:

1) Each camera photographed the same scene, under the same lighting conditions, using the same exposure.

2) Each camera photographed that scene using the same lens, which I rotated between all three cameras. In order to deliver maximum fidelity to each sensor, I used Leica’s stellar APO-SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2 ASPH lens.

3) To reduce the possibility of external vibration, each camera was mounted to the same Gitzo tripod (a relic from a past career in landscape photography, if you can believe it).

Needless to say, such rigidity means this article’s accompanying photos look nothing like the quirky, grungy, exposure-guesstimated product that usually populates the ULTRAsomething site. Because of this, I’ve decided to divide my Monochrom test article into two parts. This first part will compare camera images from a purely clinical standpoint. By analyzing these differences, I’ll be able to predict how best to employ the new Monochrom M246 in the field. A follow up article will then take a look at my field-analysis of the M246, and whether or not my theoretical findings proved valid.

Shades of Grey (Figurative Version)

For my first round of tests, I chose to compare images at each camera’s base ISO. This means ISO 320 on both the MM9 and M246, and ISO 200 on the M240. Though this theoretically gives the M240 a 2/3 stop imaging advantage, it represents the “best case” scenario for any photographer trying to extract maximum image quality from each camera.

As part of the test process, I always took a second shot with the M240 — this time at ISO 320, which put the camera on equal ISO footing with the two dedicated monochromatic cameras.

I spent two days lugging three cameras and a tripod all over Vancouver, shooting hundreds of “test” frames illustrating various scenes. Upon analyzing all these shots, I came to the conclusion that they essentially all illustrate an identical set of similarities and differences. For this reason, I’ll use just one representative scene, and take various 100% crops from within that scene to demonstrate my discoveries.

Below is the scene as photographed by all three cameras (with the M246 version being the one displayed here).

What follows is a series of comparisons between cameras, using different crops from the above scene.

Comparison 1: Try as I might, after examining hundreds of frames — all shot with each camera at its base ISO, I could see very little resolution difference between them. Sure, the MM9 has only 76% as many pixels as the other two cameras, but it seemed no less adept at resolving detail. Comparisons between the M246 and M240 yielded results that I would consider “inconclusive.” Sometimes, the M246 seemed to resolve slightly more detail, and sometimes the M240 did. In reality, most differences boil down to the influence of “outside variables,” such as atmospheric conditions, wind, or even the subtle contrast differences inherent in the tonal variations between the way each camera mapped color to luminosity.

Comparison 2: This next comparison attempts to remove another pair of variables from the process. Specifically, the M240’s ISO has been increased to 320 in order to match that of the two Monochrom’s. Also, the MM9 file has been upsized by 15% using Photoshop’s Bicubic Smoothing algorithm, so as to match the overall pixel count of the two newer cameras.

Upsizing the MM9 files make them appear a tiny bit “softer” than either the M240 or M246 files. This is to be expected. The 2/3 stop increase in the M240’s ISO has also had a subtle effect on resolution. It’s not always immediately apparent, and is something that will very likely never be seen in a print (much less on a massively downsized web image). As such, it’s only likely to concern pixel-peepers and nerds who write camera reviews (cough).

Comparison 3: This is simply another crop, taken from a section near the center of the frame. Here, the softness of the up-sampled MM9 image is a bit more apparent, while the resolution differences between the M246 (at ISO 320) and the M240 (at ISO 200) continue to appear essentially non-existent.

Comparison 4: Same crop as above. Only now, the M240 frame has been shot at ISO 320, matching the ISO of the other two cameras. In this case (and at 100%), the slightly degraded resolution of the M240 file is apparent.

It’s important to keep in mind that the images I’m showing have had no sharpening and no noise reduction. In other words, they may be somewhat representative of how the sensor performs, but they’re not that representative of how people actually work. The following comparison shows how the resolution differences appear to be minimized significantly when a tiny bit of sharpening is applied using the Pixel Genius PK Sharpener plugin. Note that default, automatic values were used, and that the differences could be narrowed ever more by optimizing the sharpening in each file.

Comparison 5: The next comparison again uses the same image, and again selects a different crop region. The goal for this comparison was not to see which camera had the highest resolution, but to see which camera had the nicest gradation between shades of grey. On first glance, the MM9 appears to give the smoothest gradations at base ISO. However, it’s important to remember that the file’s overall micro-contrast has been softened by the upsizing process, which has the effect of greatly minimizing the visible noise. In reality, files from the MM9 (that have not been upsized) have a nearly identical noise floor as the M240 and M246 cameras.

The M246 at ISO 320 and the M240 at ISO 200 appear nearly identical. Noise levels are incredibly low in both cameras, though I can perceive a tiny bit more noise in the M240. Don’t worry if you can’t — I’ve had the benefit of looking at hundreds of images and doing blind comparison tests. I would guess that, at base ISO (200 on the M240, 320 on the M246), I’ve been able to correctly identify which file came from which camera 75% of the time — and the way I can do this is to look at the noise levels. It can be subtle, but it is perceptible under certain conditions.

Comparison 6: This is the same crop as displayed previously, only the M240 has now been shot at ISO 320 to match the two Monochrom cameras. Here, we can definitely see more noise in the M240 image. Whether or not this matters to you is entirely your decision. Frankly, to me, it doesn’t matter. Nor am I sure I’d be able to see it in an actual print. Some might even prefer the noisier file because it gives the illusion of increased detail. For example, one could easily fool themselves (and others) into believing that the noise seen on the distant mountain is actually a more detailed representation of its “trees”.

Descent Into Darkness

Once I’d seen how a mere 2/3 stop increase in ISO speed began to make M240 and M246 files start to diverge in appearance, the next step was obvious: test the cameras at steadily increasing ISO speeds. So, one evening, I set up a tripod in a safe location and watched night descend upon Vancouver. As the sun set, turning first to dusk and then to night, I photographed the scene each time the required ISO speed increased: First to ISO 800; then 1600; 3200; and finally 6400.

Here is how the scene looked at the beginning of the evening:

And here’s how the scene looked as shown in the final ISO 6400 test:

(Note: Both overview images courtesy of the M246).

As before, a single LEICA APO-SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2 ASPH lens was shared between all three cameras — Each set of 3 photos also used the identical aperture, shutter and ISO speeds.

The first crop, shown below, is from the upper right section of the frame. Each column corresponds to a particular camera: MM9 on the left; the new M246 in the middle; and the M240 file on the right. Each row correlates with an ISO: 800 on top; then 1600 and 3200 in the middle; and ISO 6400 on the bottom. Note that, for this particular comparison, I kept the MM9 file at its native resolution, and did not up-sample it to match the M246 or M240.

At ISO 800, noise is present though not overly problematic — though it does display a mild impact on the overall resolution, particularly in the shadow regions. This is most apparent in the M240 file, and slightly apparent in the MM9. As the ISO speed rises, so do the differences between cameras.

The second crop, shown below, is from a section located nearly in the center of the frame. Again, the MM9 is on the left, the M246 is in the middle, and the M240 is on the right. Also as before, ISO values range from 800 on the top row to ISO 6400 on the bottom.

Crop 2 depicts an area with more micro detail but less subtle gradation than Crop 1. The results, however, are identical. The new Monochrom M (Type 246) is nothing short of astounding at high ISO.

Again, it’s important to point out that the images displayed in the previous two examples have had no noise reduction or sharpening applied. The M240 files benefit substantially from the application of color noise reduction, and the result of that noise reduction (coupled with some optimized sharpening) is indicated in the file below. With proper processing, the fidelity of the M240 file can be brought mostly in-line with the M9-based Monochrom — though the quality and evenness of the MM9 noise remains (to my eye) superior. Neither file comes close to matching the fidelity of the M246.

Generalities

Basically, what these files (and hundreds more like them) have shown me is this:

1. With each camera at its base ISO (meaning ISO 320 for the M246 and MM9, and ISO 200 for the M240), there is very little difference in image quality between these three cameras. Resolution, noise and contrast are extremely similar, and all three cameras deliver outstanding image quality. And yet, when I make a blind comparison between two images — one shot with the M240 and the other with the M246 — there is enough of a difference that I can still select a favourite image. And 75% of the time, my favorite file comes from the M246. Obviously, subtle differences in focusing accuracy and other variables will affect my preference, but 75% is not insignificant.
2. Since files from the original Monochrom are 24% smaller, it might not necessarily be the best choice if you need to make extremely large prints. Though as previously shown, at low ISO’s, the original Monochrom certainly holds its own against the two newer cameras.
3. That said, there’s a certain indefinable “something” that I like about the MM9 files — particularly when shot near base ISO. I’ve not yet figured out what this is, but it appears the MM9 files have slightly more out-of-camera contrast than the M240 or M246 files, which seems to give them a tiny bit more initial “punch.” Of course, post-processing will easily level any playing field, so I suspect my quasi-preference for the look of MM9 files at low ISO is something that would fail to find its way into a final print.
4. With the M240 set to the same ISO (320) as the M246, it’s quite easy to tell the images apart. The M240 is noticeably (though not offensively) noisier and, as such, has slightly less detail. In general, this difference is only visible when a file is viewed at 100%, and without any noise reduction or sharpening applied.
5. Files from the M240, when converted to B&W, get rather noisy and rather blotchy at higher ISO values.  Files from the MM9 also get noisier, but the MM9 noise is like a fine dusting of static, rather than clumps of de-mosaicing blotches. Noise from the M246 is extremely fine-grained and totally unintrusive. ISO 6400 from the M246 remains wonderfully clear and imminently usable (at least for my photography).

So which camera is “better?”

You don’t really expect me to answer that, do you? “Better” is a subjective term. What’s better for one photographer might not be better for another. I will, however, tell you what these results mean to me, and how I plan to exploit them in the coming weeks.

A Master Plan

I suspect that the M246’s low-light capabilities are going to fundamentally alter the way I use a digital camera. The reason for this is likely not what you expect — I don’t intend to alter my balance between daytime and nighttime photos, nor do I expect to start taking more photos in dimly lit interiors. In fact, I’ll still use this camera for the purpose of taking photographs outdoors and in broad daylight. So why am I saying its low light capabilities will alter the way I use a digital camera? Bear with me…

When I’m out shooting candid, “found” photos in public places, I have absolutely no control of my environment. My subjects are in motion. I’m in motion. A photo opportunity might appear 1 meter to my left, quickly disperse, and a new opportunity might suddenly present itself 5 meters to my right. I have precious little time to worry about composition, and almost no time to worry about background. Lighting conditions? They are what they are, and they change frequently between deep shadow and bright sunlight.

Because of these constraints and conditions (and because of my own personal preferences), the last few years have seen me gravitate back to film for shooting on the streets. Film (particularly black & white film) is forgiving. I can miss focus and miss exposure, and the picture still succeeds. The same isn’t always the case with a digital sensor — where errors from my hasty, reactionary shooting technique get magnified by digital’s clinical precision.

One of film’s most useful attributes is, for me, the way it gently rolls off the highlights in an overexposed area. Consider the following scenario: I’m shooting on a shady section of the street, and my subject is in that shade with me. Behind my subject, and all around it, there is brightness — sky; reflective buildings; the sunny side of the street. If I were to take this photo using a camera’s built-in light meter, my subject would appear in silhouette — mercilessly darkened, so that the rest of the scene didn’t overexpose. But my subject is the subject, and I want it to be properly exposed, and not necessarily the background. Because of the way BW film rolls off the highlights, I’m free to overexpose a scene (thus properly exposing my backlit subject). Enough highlight detail remains to prevent the image from clipping to pure white. But with digital, this hasn’t necessarily been possible. Digital cameras do not gently roll off the highlights. They clip them — and all the more so on a monochromatic camera. If I use a digital camera and want a backlit subject exposed properly, the resulting photograph will possess a plethora of blown highlights. If I want to protect against blowing the highlights, then digital cameras require I do the opposite of what I do with film: Instead of exposing for my backlit subject and overexposing the background (as I would do with film), digital cameras require that I expose for the background and underexpose my subject, which I then must try to brighten in post-processing.

You see where this is going now, don’t you? Cameras with poor low light performance have noisy shadows and very little shadow detail. If my subject actually resides in those shadows (as is often the case “on the streets,”) then I need to brighten that subject in post-processing. But bringing up the shadows brings up any noise that resided within those shadows. Also, shadow noise tends to seriously obfuscate actual image details. The result? With most digital cameras, I have to choose between one of two evils: huge expanses of blown highlights, or a gritty, blurry, low-res subject. Take a look at my photo oevre for the last few years, and you’ll see which evil I’ve partnered with.

But the M246 is likely going to change all of this. Its stellar low light performance means I’ll be able to play digital contrarian, and “expose to the left.” This will keep my highlights in check. And because of the M246’s low-light capabilities, I know there will be enough clean and meaningful shadow detail that I’ll be able to pull up the brightness of my subjects in post.

But there’s more: Even in the absence of strong backlighting and high contrast, I’ll still be able to take advantage of the M246’s low light performance in ways that might not necessarily be intuitive. Remember when I mentioned how both I and my subjects are usually in motion? Better low light capabilities mean I’ll be able to shoot at higher ISO’s, thus using a shutter speed that will be fast enough to counter any motion blur. And remember when I said subjects can instantly appear at unexpected distances? This is precisely why I often scale focus a camera — quickly guessing my subject’s distance and rotating the lens to match. Alas, my guesses are not always accurate. So to improve the likelihood that my subject will actually fall within the lens’ depth-of-field, it would help if I could use a smaller aperture. Smaller apertures generally mean shooting at higher ISO speeds — not a problem with the M246.

Conclusion

As this is only stage 1 of my Monochrom M246 investigation, it’s still too early to draw any definitive conclusions. But I’ve seen enough to know that I want to take the M246 out onto the streets, implement my master plan, and see if it really does become the “game changing” camera I expect it to be for my brand of candid, observational photography.

So, until I check back in with that report, here’s a fun little photo to ponder: I was working in my studio late one night, and had just quickly patched up a sound designed to drone away in the background while I got some work done. The only external light source in the room came from a pair of IKEA book lights — each with only a single LED. They provided enough light for me to see the synth’s jacks, knobs and wires; but not enough light that I could actually read much of the text imprinted on its panels.

“I wonder what those cameras would do with this scene?” I thought. Ten minutes later I had my answer.

As with the “Cityscape : Crop 3” image shown earlier, this one shows a direct comparison between the three cameras with all noise reduction and sharpening disabled. The M240 column shown at the far right represents the “best” I could make that file look — I fine tuned the color noise reduction and the sharpening to get what I believe was the best result. This shows how much image data can still be extracted from such a noisy M240 file, but it also shows how far removed the quality is from an unaltered, unprocessed M246 file. By the way, I consider it a minor miracle I was able to include the MM9 image at all — it was so dark, I couldn’t see enough contrast in the viewfinder to focus accurately. It took a few tries to get the focus right. The M240 and M246, on the other hand, offer Live View, which made it extremely fast and easy to focus on the synth. Score one for modern technology!

So that’s it for now. The next article in this series, Sentences and Sensibility, is far less pedantic and contains photos that seek to determine whether or not the M246 is capable of stooping to my level…

CONTINUED IN PART 2…

---

CAVEAT: The Type 246 Monochrom M camera used in this analysis is a protype build, and is running pre-release software. Consequently, it’s possible some differences might ultimately exist between the camera used here, and the one that gets put into production. One important aspect of this, which was discovered and reported by my colleagues during their testing, is an incompatibility between the M246’s DNG files and Apple’s Photos and Aperture apps when running Yosemite 10.10.3. Specifically, these two Apple-branded apps will crash when trying to open an M246 DNG. Leica and Apple are both fully aware of the issue, and Apple has identified the bug in its core RAW software — so a solution is forthcoming.

FURTHER READING: I’m not the only photographer who’s been busy testing an M246 prototype. Jonathan Slack has crafted a thorough and well-rounded article that discusses not only image quality, but also deftly covers the camera’s ergonomic and functional advantages (something I won’t be getting to until the next article). And he does this while simultaneously managing to include actual photos (rather than the silly “test” photos I’ve opted to employ).

And for those who think my approach to discussing equipment is a bit too frivolous and off-the-cuff, might I suggest you visit Sean Reid’s excellent Reid Reviews site? Sean digs deeply into the nitty and burrows in the gritty. And frankly, I’m thrilled that he does so — because knowing that his reviews are so detail-oriented means mine don’t always have to be — I can just point my fact-hungry readers to his site. Sure, it’s a pay site. But for the price of a few licoricemochamellocinnos, you’ll gain access to some of the most complete, detailed and objective camera and lens reviews available. Personally, I’ve been a subscriber since 1974… or maybe it just seems like it.

REMINDER: If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.