They say that fuji x-pro2 has a really good B&W Acros simulation.

It has, I use it. Plus it has different B&W filters.

"Is the Acros good enough vs. the regular B&W mode to warrant an upgrade? I have an X100T, and the Across on the X-Pro2 is the main thing that is appealing to me." I have the X-Pro2. Though I've used the Acros far more than the Monochrome options, the difference isn't great enough to change bodies solely for it. Course I realize I'm posting that in the Monochrom thread, so who knows. ;0

LMAO....I didnt even notice the /s.....

Are you for real damgooddesign?! Leica have been making cameras in this style since the 1950s! To say Leica are copying Fuji is, I'm afraid, demonstrating a lack of knowledge on your part. Henri Cartier Bresson used Leica rangefinders, and that is what this is in digital form!

wow think about what u just said....lol

Wow...I rarely see so much stupid compressed into one short post. You truly are clueless.

@ rfstudio: Yes we are serious. Very! Your message clearly show a lot of hate towards Leica. Nobody is forcing you to buy this camera or any other Leica product for that matter. Until you own a Leica product, please refrain from making such stupid comments.

I have to disagree with you on that. I just sold all my Nikon equipment once I started shooting with Leica m9. IMHO the Leica m9 which used a CCD sensor is far more superior to a 36mp nikon d800. The result that I get from my m9 I could never get from my old D800.

No one is ripping off anyone, you have choices, don't you? So stop making dumb comments.

And it obviously costs a lot of money to take all those features out otherwise all the manufacturers would.

People who can afford or want this camera don't worry about the cost! You/we already know this though. If I could, I would....it's that simple.

Do you think it would be good idea if camera design and also RAW was standardized across the board?

alex:

Even DNGs have changed over the years. Newish ones don't open with older software, software that has no problem with old DNGs.

You see a camera company is going to say: "we think we can get better results if we process the data a bit differently".

Then what about non-Bayer pattered RGB sensors?

Leica, Pentax and Ricoh all shoot DNGs.

I hate how manufacturers decide what we want to do with stuff. How dare Leica or Nikon or Sony decide 'you must use this to record images'... Maybe I want to fry some bacon? Maybe I need a rugged carabiner to repel down the side of a building? Psssh.

Soul-killing technocrat jerks, I say.

Having a scientific and flexible approach to photography is extremely useful. You can buy filters as you need them, I hate having to remove inbuilt stuff. I also build my own computers. In both cases it's a great way to learn how things work instead of brainlessly using them out of convenience. That's why I also loathe cell phone cameras- although they do serve a purpose of making sure authority figures dont abuse their power and they get documented with visual evidence if they do.

IMHO: buy a roll of Fujifilm Neopan Acros. And a used Leica M6. Buy Leica lenses with the rest. Everyone will notice the difference.

As expected, Dpreview's standard gang of black and white haters are out in force voting up this comment.

I agree the X100T will produce nice tones in B&W and cost a tiny fraction of the Leica, but there's no denying the fact that the M is a dedicated mono sensor and its results will indeed have a pop lacking in the Fuji.

It’s doubtful that a Fuji fan would be able to tell the difference, but photographers with a discerning eye and an appreciation for quality can, and they’re willing to pay for it.

Then...I don't see the point of you buying one!

nice one

With a 24 MP B&W camera you get 24 million B&W pixels. All of them exacrly (more or less) the same. No Bayer CFA filter that makes it necessary to apply advanced algorithms to extract the image. It is pure and simple. You also collect almost all light, instead of almost a third. On that B&W camera you can attach an optical filter, e.g. an orange filter or a deep red filter and you still get 24 million equal measures of the image and it will behave just as a B&W film. Putting an orange filter in front of a color film or color sensor is not all that fun. Witha B&W camera it might look gorgeous.

@ Roland, don't bother, he will not understand.

You don't see the point of spending 7K on a camera that shoots only B/W? That is not what you said the first time. You should've edited your comment when you had the chance.

credible references are unpopular in photography fora and quite rare ;-)

You haven't found anything Stephen? I'm also interested to see some comparisons.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I think that says a lot about the claims of the superiority of mono sensors. I think the proper question for photographers is Where is improved resolution and acutance coming from, lens or sensor? There is no doubting the quality of Leica lenses. What is needed is a test of the sensor variable (mono vs. color) that keeps *all* other factors controlled. I have not found one yet.

We'll see if we can get hold of an M Monochrom.

Given that the colour filter in front of each pixel absorbs around 50% of the light that hits it (the red and blue for a green pixel, the red and green for a blue pixel, etc), it should be obvious that there will be around a 1EV advantage to removing these filters.

Equally, the fact that you're not interpolating from neighbouring pixels to derive the colour value at each point means that you have pixel-level data made up solely from individual pixels (which should result in sharper images, no matter how good your demosaicing is).

Whether this is enough to make a significant difference (or be worth the hassle of having to go back and shoot with coloured filters again), is another matter.

If we can get the M Monochrom into our test scene, we will.

If you'd be able to test the Monochrom, that'd be great, Richard! Very interesting to see such a different sensor compared to the conventional ones. It would be even more interesting if you could test a newer 'conventional' Leica (M-P?) alongside with it.

artnaz - we'd like to add both, ideally.

It's pretty obvious that mono sensors are much better than false color bayer sensors, just ask an astronomer why they use mono cameras with color and luminance filters (LRGB imaging) over these dumb bayer filtered false color sensors you guys use. Not only is the resolution MUCH better, exposure times are cut to 1/4th!

Over at Steve huff there is a comparison image of MM and A72 ,same lens etc....they look pretty similar to me and I couldn't really see a resolution advantage for the Leica....the Sony looked pretty much the same as the MM on the 100% crop....I don't own either, and would like both cameras....except that I could afford the Sony A72 but the Leica is just plain out of my reach.....now if only my Canon wides would work on the Sony.....

I think there was at least one company which modified existing cameras by removing the Bayer-matrix from the sensor...The rate of success was low (many sensors broke in the process) and so the price was high...
Why not buying a proper B&W camera "from the root..."?
PS: I 'm a Mono fan and I'm waiting for my M Typ 246...!

He's on a mission trying to prove there is nothing special about a mono sensor. He of course is uninformed and completely wrong....but that doesn't seem to stop some people.

Why b&w film? Why oil instead of watercolor? What ks baffling is why you even asked.

On the spot? I guess you change mid roll and throw away a lot of film.

What is baffling about a monochrome digital camera? It is a tool for photographers who photograph that way.

And what if those aliens have a much better understanding of colour and light than we 21st century humans do?

Damn aliens, always bragging about their camera's sensor tech, but we must remember that photos are made by the (single) eye of the photographer.

@HowaboutRaw
we're not living in Science Fiction. And mankind's physics has moved past understanding of color and light already.

falconeyes,

I more than suspect you be incorrect.

Robert, I wonder if many aren't depressed because they feel inadequate because of the constant comparison in society and that only the 'best' is good enough? and if you don't look, have, own, drive, live etc etc the 'best' you are inadequate? Our worshipping of brands and material possessions have made us miserable unhappy and dissatisfied with life...photography is supposed to be a grand adventure, a great hobby at the very least, instead it often degenerates into insulting and aggressive 'statements...' about equipment....cameras and watches and cellphones are the new male jewelry! Things we use to proclaim our status and wealth in life...

Its made to do something rather different than the usual. The modifications to the sensor creates a unique image, UV photography. Instead of processing the B&W by the camera or a processing program the camera is specifically made to capture this type of image.

creates an allure and or a challenge

Fuji X10, the same thing? Um: aj;dljfajdfk!@!%@#$#.

LOL!

A B&W x-trans sensor?

Price is a bit lower in the 'Other Leica.'

Leica should make the Leica lookalike.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=987309737968541&set=a.100967393269451.2182.100000685727168&type=1&theater

The bird's flying. A7s + 35 f1.2 Voigtlander. Manual focus is a joy

Though I've made a good living with Nikon and will continue to do so now in retirement, I know Nikon also under-rated AF and lost a lot of their professional base to Canon because of this failure. Not just sports shooters, but across the board. There was a huge ship jumping and Nikon has just barely caught back up. It was a complete and utter failure in understanding the importance both professionals and amateurs place on reliable autofocus.

Of course, AF is now ubiquitous and rightly so.

@ _Federico_ You manually focused on the little girl and with luck got some birds in that depth of field. You didn't manually focus on those flying birds, so your point isn't in the least taken. Sell that idea to Facebook users where it might be believed and where it belongs. ;-)

When you buy a camera like the Sony A7s, you'd better think manual focus is a joy, because Sony makes almost no lenses in FE mount.

Guident,

And there's no AF M mount option to jump to.

Leica already has an AF DSLR body and lenses.

Many of the PanaLeica lenses for the m4/3s system, and 4/3s system are optically excellent, and those are AF bodies.

Current highend Nikons, like the D810, have amazing AF.

And even more basic Nikon DSLRs, like the D5500 and D7200, have very very good AF in the year 2015.

I can't speak to what Nikon did 20 years ago.

But in 2015, starting without already owning system lenses, there are plenty of reasons to pick Nikon instead of Canon for a DSLR system.

@HowaboutRAW Maybe you failed to read or understand what I was saying. I was a professional Nikon user for over forty years and full well know its history and appreciate their use today. I also said they almost have caught up to what they lost to Canon by under-rating AF back 25 or so years ago. Look at my profile and gear list.

Of course there's no AF in M mount. It's a rangefinder, and that also wasn't the point. I've also owned a Leica for over fifty years. What's new? I just don't consider my camera to be a fashion statement. It's a tool to make a living for me. Nikon is also my chosen tool to drive my passion to make images.

The point was, AF is not over-rated. It's important as a tool for both professional and amateur use.

G:

I understood that you'd used Nikons. 25 years ago, even 15, AF wasn't great--in the 1990s AF started to be good for pro cameras.

I don't immediately look to gear lists.

AF for many purposes, not all, is indeed over rated, and I stand by that comment.

The M line is far from a fashion statement, and I don't think you should imply that.

The point about the M not being able to be set up easily to do AF was that you then went into SLRs with AF, and Nikons, as you know, have over lapping systems between the AF models and non-AF models.

And Leica still has a DSLR with AF.

@HowaboutRAW You can stand by your comment all you want, but the vast percentage of jobbing professionals would disagree with you as I also do. Sure we manual focus sometimes, but AF is no longer a simple luxury.

And as far as a fashion statement, I'll stick to that. Also all the faux Leica look alikes like some of the Fuji models. They are often worn as a fashion accessory. That doesn't mean they're a bad camera, just the reason many buy them. I know doctors and well to do business people who buy a new Leica to go with their new Rolex watch. If they can't afford that Leica, they go get a Fuji to go with their Bolex watch. Same thing.

How many serious photographers really need a B&W camera this expensive with a 35mm sensor? If they were serious about black and white, they'd go get a sheet film field camera.

chlam,

Yep, that's a good use of AF, also likely shot with a longer lens than any available M lens.

The D3S is a great camera, but B+W images would be on the order of 6MP from files from the D3S.

I know exactly why one might use sheet film. I still have two clients who require sheet film for their product material. One requires a minimum of 5x7 for some reason I've really never fathomed, but I will do it for him. If I have to go the the effort to break down my metal 4x5 and break out my old wood Deardorff 5x7, it's going to cost him, and I'm not cheap to start with. ;-)

And what about black and white? Your eyes generally see in color frequencies under most conditions. When it gets dark, we switch to monochrome and don't see as well. So, the basics are color. I shot black and white for years, but that was because black and white was a mature technology and a color darkroom was too expensive for a teenager.

Today, the case is altered. Color is no longer more expensive and it's become a mature medium. We can now go back to the basics more easily by shooting color. That is unless you're wanting to be trendy and be perceived as artsy. Whatever floats your boat. ;-)

@howabout1970?

Except when you rave about af performance on the nx-1,
manual focus is over rated, except for stills.

@mediasorcerer These are just trendy things people say sometimes. Seen it for years, but something different each time. People often ignore history. It's cool and hipster to be retro. ;-)

G:

Nothing to do with being "retro", much AF is over-rated. I guess P&S cameras have now have dramatically improved AF, that in many ways is more useful.

By all means want to shoot a tennis match, use a Canikon pro body with AF. Want to shoot really dim interiors, pro AF can be a big help if things are moving around.

There was once guess focusing, then range finder, then ttl and now autofocusing. There was once tin type, then sepia toning, then black and white, then 2 color, then 3 color and now digital color. It's always been interesting to note, there have always been some who take refuge by trying to be trendy in moving backwards. ;-)

This refuge is often barrier against appearing incompetent. It's a little like changing a failed color image to black and white in order to save it, hoping for artsy. You just can't save a failed image in this manner. A failed color image will generally be a failed black and white image. A failure in autofocusing will generally translate in poorly focused manually focused images. Understanding and mastering the core techniques generally provides better success. :-)

Lassoni,

Nope.

Now there are very expensive digital audio systems that can start to sound like a half decent turntable, but those are still unusual.

Things are starting to change, and digital audio is getting less expensive and better, but the means to this end are still obscure.

@J GGG I must certainly be a boy when I carefully compose my shot well beyond some decisive moment and take my time using a loupe to make sure I'm focused properly while viewing the ground glass on my 5x7 Deardorff with my Nikkor 90 f/8 SW mounted. I also spend my boyish hours in the darkroom processing. I'm proud to be among other boys who do it similarly.

In small format I must not be passionate because I prefer autofocus systems. We're a bunch of boys compared to those trendy cool talking Leica Men. They dress just perfectly and enter the room at that "decisive moment" to make that manly retro-look impression. Wow, I'm impressed. Love that Rolex too. I pre-focused on it as you entered among us. I wish I could be a passionate GQ kind of Man. ;-)