@michiel: This was meant to illustrate the level of detail aka resolution. If I can already count skin pores with a cheap combo, why this talk about resolution? Seems to me to be more like gear mania and Pixel peeping.

A questionable gain paid for with the loss of color reproduction capability.

But then, thats just me.

@cxspark
I never got it either until I read somewhere some celebrated photographer described color as garish (I think it was HCB but don't quote me). That stripping away the color reveals texture and shape you'd often over look and attribute its credit elsewhere. I suspect most people don't get monochrome, but it's probably just out of fashion with good examples hard to find. For me, good black and white excites the imagination like a good book

Couldn't agree more. Why carry a ton of filters? Not for me, I guess.

john:

M digital bodies can NOT read apertures.

It's how the M system bodies/lenses are designed--it came out in the early 1950s.

About a dozen years ago, Leica added black or white coding dots to the lenses so the computer/camera can read what lens is mounted on the camera.

I'm certainly not a Leica basher but I don't see anything special that can't be done with another camera either.

So0paman:

The Phase include the body and lenses is at least $65,000. So that's a few times the price of this body and the 90mm lens used.

There's the $2300 Sigma SD1 Merrill, but that's not one tenth the price of this body.

ARB1:

For starters:

Do you have any idea what monochrome sensor is? Do you know what Bayer filter is?

It's like any luxury product - a luxury for those that have disposal income. A $15000 Rolex Daytona tells the time, so does a $100 Casio - more accurately and a $400 Apple watch is even more accurate with far more bells and whistles. It's really up to the consumer what they want to spend their cash on.

There is *some* truth in saying you can do the same with another camera but I think good gear makes it more likely you can get an amazing shot. OTOH I have had some great shots from my mid-range camera phone. And from my Polaroid. So the truth- if there is one- is appropriately in that grey area between B&W. Also, if you *do* have the money and B&W is your love, why not?

@MichailK: To me, this B/W seems more like film, based on the smooth contrast changes and better contrast in the shadows. I'm not certain what you mean by "faux too digital one," but these appear appear more like film to me than the b/w conversions I do in Pshop.

The smooth transition is remarkable. How much of it is provided by the lens and how much by the BW sensor?

"How much of it is provided by the lens..."

If comparing a good lens to a crappy one then you might see "transition" differences but the cheap lens would likely produce a smoother transition because optical aberrations blur the image, lessening contrast details.

A sensor without Bayer image degradations will improve SNR and MTF, producing higher fidelity and smoother transitions.

@babart thank you for replying - if this is gallery is SOC and I suppose it is then it is the first time since the film days myself sees such a smooth transitioning of the grey tones SOC - not overly crisp and abruptly contrasty always in need of editing - reminds of first listening to properly produced lo-fi sound in the ‘90s (Portishead) in contrast to the ever increasing sterile super crisp sound brought along by the then new digital multitrackers in the late ‘80s commercial studio productions

Rick Beato has some excellent videos on analog vs. digital studio production and how it changed the sound of popular music on his YouTube channel.

I agree with AE-1Burnham's comment. For me there seems a smoother transition in contrast, especially in the shadows. More like the film I used than the B/W conversions I do in photoshop.

This is just natural. The Bayer array filtered out a lot of light. Red and blue for the green pixels, blue and green for the red ones and blue and red for the blue ones. So now, how can you restore this (lost) information by BW conversion in PS?
You may get close to it, but it is not the same.

@emfor,
actually it is in the B&W sensor that loses most data as it is essentially the same as shooting with only one particular brand and type of film emulsion.
The only control of shades of gray is using coloured filters in front of the lens (red or orange) to darken the blue sky or green to lighten foliage. (Losing 2 stops of light)

After that there is no possibility of changing it afterwards. Whereas with a colour sensor you can combine infinite colour filter effects with the channel mixer.

Still, I would be interested trying it again as I loved fiddling with glass filters when I shot B&W on my Rollei 35s and Voiglander Bessa 6*9.

The best thing about using a monochrome sensor (not just a conversion) is that there is no debayering and interpolation between pixels. None. That means if noise affects a pixel, it only affects that one. So it creates very very fine grain. Same goes for detail which doesn’t get smeared by debayering.

Something that most people never think about. Even a converted sensor will do this, because it doesn’t know you are shooting in just black and white.

@Elisam
That is why in another threat I stated that a Foveon type sensor would have the best potential and can shoot good colour at low iso.
True colour per pixel. And no need to screw on colour filters. (Which would mean Losing 2 to 3 stops, which would not be good for a Foveon :).
But the Leica may win in resolution and grain but will sacrifice in control of how to represent certain colours in B&W. (The only option being at tge shooting stage). And the advertised ISO gain is lost when you have to use colour filters. (In the film days almost everyone always used a yellow or orange by default to avoid boring skies).

This is the first I’ve heard of this method. Why does blocking the two ends of the spectrum make my Nikon look like a Leica B&W cam?

Removing the bayer filter array removes almost all moire and takes the interpolation of unused pixels out of the equation, making for a far more detailed image. Let's see your uv filter do that.

He only said “similar” give the man a chance to answer.

Fascinating. I've tried making black and white conversions after shooting landscapes with a #25 Red filter and that works pretty well, but it doesn't have quite the snap of black and white film shot on German lenses.
If I can find one of these filters at a reasonable price, I may give it a try.

It shows :-)
I wish i had the eye and dexterity

Chris, my favourite gallery of yours was the Tri-X (with the Nikon F4?) - I'd love to see you include a monochrome sequence in all your reviews.

Also, the natural comparison for M Monochroms is with the Foveon! Especially a DP3M for the time being.

But for that amount of money shouldn’t you expect a couple of classic Leica looks? Maybe a Gary Winogrand and an Ilse Bing?

I would expect Winogrand's and Bing's images to be the result of development (processing) and printing decisions. . . The OOC JPEGs are similarly affected by decisions made by the Leica software engineers. I've never selected a digital camera based on the quality of the OOC JPEGs because I only shoot RAW and do the post-processing myself.

This is a camera made for photographers who will be fully involved in the creation of an image from previsualization to printing. That means shooting RAW. If you want a camera with various looks or film emulation, they are available for a lot less money. Or you can buy software to obtain one-click image conversions.

Leica cameras and lenses cost a lot for a variety of reasons. If you have never used a Leica M with Leica glass, they are available to rent. It shouldn't take long to understand why they are priced so high. . . Whether they are worth the cost to you is a personal decision.

CaPi:

There are raws, detail is very good, of course.

Don't worry, the R. Mutt signature edition will transcend all material barriers ;)

I was wondering that too. I get that there's no iris info, as Leica lenses don't transmit it, But I can't see why there wouldn't be ISO in the EXIF. Especially as many of the images were obviously taken with different ISOs in mind.

Is this a prototype?

Oversaturated out of the camera. Red channel is a little overcooked too.

I'm curious about your reference to the sensor's "life expectancy." Are you saying that the sensor actually wears out within 5 years? Or are you talking about something else?

lightandprayer:

In five years, sensors of the same acreage get to more megapixels, which people who don't know much about digital photography equate with improvements.

Now yes, after 5 years new model sensors are generally better for higher ISO/gain performance, but that doesn't mean that 5 year old sensors are no good. The D750 and Canon 5DIII remain excellent cameras, as is the even older D700.

He buys a new one every 36 shots. Thus the comment about pricing I guess.