Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/05/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bob, My answer is simple, and my test for buying photography equipment. If it will result in your instinctively getting better photographs with it, it is worth the expense - for example, the placement of controls on an Nikon D800/D4 are what I am used to obviating the need to think too much while photographing, so I will buy these ahead of an Nikon D750, which, features wise, would do very nicely indeed. Cameras are just a tool for getting pictures I want, and am happy with. The rest of the marketing/technical/subliminal reasons for purchasing, I leave to others to ponder on. Occasionally, a system comes up that fits my needs very well, so I am willing to put in the effort to train my brain so that my actions become instinctive - which is what I did with the Fuji X system. It is very uncomplicated, in reality, if you think about it. Cheers Jayanand On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Robert Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. Lots of variables floating around here. The new Mono246 has 50% > more pixels than the original Monochrom. Unless Leica's engineers are > stupid (which they are definitely not!), your bound to get a better image. > More information. > > And I believe they are using a new processor? A "Maestro II" versus the > "Maestro I" in the original Monochrom? Another variable we don't know much > about its impact. > > As Ted would say, "WHO GIVES A FLYING FART!" KISS!! IF IT GIVES YOU A > BETTER IMAGE, ALL THIS KERPHLUFFEL DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS!!!" > (or something like that). > > However the original Monochrom images I've seen are gorgeous. Tina, Lluis > and Jay (to name just 3) have blown us (me) away time and again on the > amazing tonalities and images at high ISO's (10,000 I believe?). > > After all this the question for me is if the cost of the new 246 is worth > it over a used Monochrom (~$3K difference) for: > 1. The improvement in the rangefinder (IMO), > 2. The better shutter mechanism (my M9 always had a kick to it that really > caused A LOT of lost sharpness), > 3. Improved ISO performance above 10,000. > 4. The better fit into my hand of the M240 vs the M9 > > The main worry is what Peter said: We really don't know what the impact > will be going from 14bits to 12bits. I think that remains to be seen... > > So I guess I'll wait and see until some consensus comes out from real > world, non-Leica paid, photographers. Whether or not I will be able to > afford groceries (and I am truly grateful for your concerns in this area, > Steve!) remains to be seen. Probably not whether I go with the old or new > Monochrom :-) > Bob > > P.S., for those interested, Erwin Puts just got his M246. He initially > noticed that the uncompressed file size of the new Monochrom is smaller > than the M240, though the compressed files are the same. "The reason for > this is unknown"... > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> > wrote: > > > Precisely my point... look at the images..... > > > > I have an M9. I looked at the images created in the comparison shots. > The > > M9 images, when converted to B+W were of significantly less quality in > > resolution than the M246. > > OTOH, we are comparing apples ( 16MP) and oranges (24MP). Pixels, do NOT > > grow on trees. More pixels does = better fine display quality, all other > > things being equal... same lens. > > > > OTOH, if someone wants to sell their MM and go buy a M246, I am a willing > > buyer......... of the inferior. > > > > I have no intention of spending $7500 on a camera. > > > > He says irreverently.. just like he said when he bought his M8, and M9 , > > and > > A7..... > > > > Frank Filippone > > Red735i at verizon.net > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+red735i=verizon.net at leica-users.org] On > > Behalf > > Of Mark Rabiner > > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:41 AM > > To: Leica Users Group > > Subject: Re: [Leica] New M(246) Outputs 12 bit Files > > > > I agree Frank, tahtwhat whatever bits or other specs if the camera is > > making > > better images than the previous with supposedly better specs then its not > > the specs (bits) we should be looking at but the images the camera makes > > and > > our own bank accounts to figure out how to get it! > > > > > > On 5/6/15 1:17 PM, "Frank Filippone" <red735i at verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > Mark and others.... > > > > > > The issue of 12 vs 14 bits is not straight forward..... Yes, the > > > difference in a straight line way is 4 times the data, but really that > > > means there is 4 times the GRADATION in the data. More gradation = > > > more smooth transitions between different tones. > > > > > > Assuming the saturation point ( top value) and lowest point ( pure > > > black, as in more black is just not possible) remain fixed. Then there > > > could be a bit of non linear-ness to the ADC... There may be more > > > values in the bright areas, and less in the dark areas.... still > > > achieving the same dynamic range,. But 12 bits and 14 bits could have > > > different non-linear transfer functions.... Which, in the context of > > > photography, may not be at all easy to see with the eyes. > > > > > > Let me stop here... I spent the better part of my working career in > > > understanding the intricacies of ADC products. If I go any further in > > the > > > explanation, I will lose almost everyone. Suffice it to say that > what > > we > > > do not know exceeds what we do know. > > > > > > Yes, there is a story out there... Yes it is important that we know > > > what that story is, in theory. In practice, the M246 seems to produce > > > better images than the MM.... 12 bits 14 bits or some other number of > > bits. > > > > > > I agree with Mark.. HDD storage is so cheap that 12 vs 14 bits is a > > > ridiculous reason to chintz on the ADC resolution. There is some > > > other reason. > > > > > > Or, someone made a bad assumption in the first place and this whole > > > thread is a waste of time. > > > > > > Frank Filippone > > > Red735i at verizon.net > > > > > > Peter according to some guy on the internet its not a matter of a few > > > steps up from 12 to 14 bit. Its 4 times as many shades of intensity > > > in a given range. > > > That sounds like a big deal for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark William Rabiner > > Photographer > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > -- > Bob Adler > www.robertadlerphotography.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >