Still too dark. Seems to be really hard to get pleasing images out of this camera. Too bad.... :(

Most of these images are still way too dark. For example, L1009925.DNG (the lake-side telescope) easily takes a whole stop of extra exposure, and the lifting of shadows by 100 (the max amount) in Adobe RAW, and still not a single pixel blows out at 0%K, leaving a more detailed and less depressing image altogether. The same is true of several others I tried.

I compared these images to one time many years ago when I shot a roll of Kodachrome 25 with my ASA (ISO) setting at 64, meaning every shot was 1.3 stops under-exposed.

While of course I understand the use of low-key imagery (and high-key, etc), this is no way to showcase a camera and lens combo that requires 5-digit spending.

Please send Chris Nichol or Barney Britton or somesuch out with this camera, if you still have your dibs on it.

Lots of negative comments here. Underexposed, still?

I'd appreciate some input from Jordan, Richard and Brendan here, if they still got the stomach for it. Certainly hope so.

"These monochrome-only cameras should also be underexposed" - but if you then don't correct in post they will be, ehh, underexposed ;)

Lol anyone thinking anybody will notice the difference between shots made with this $10,000 monochrome only vs a proper color sensor shot in monochrome mode or monochrome post processed. I feel sad.

The white point needs to be adjusted in many of the photos, and likely the black as well. The snow photo, with the branches, is gray, even though it looks sunny. I did control double-click on whites in Lightroom and it looks good. Add some texture and clarity, then reduce highlights just a little, and it looks even better.

Could you please explain better why would it be worse to overexpose the monochrome sensor than color sensor? Why you need to underexpose the mono sensor? I actually find it less distracting when parts of B&W images are overexposed (pure white) than in color images where overexposure can create weird colors or be simply white next to color. Also .. nothing prevents you to expose for highlights and lift the shadows to get a reasonable brightness .. I still somehow think that the images in the gallery are overal too dark.

“ These monochrome-only cameras should also be underexposed”
The idea that there was a correct exposure from which the photographer deviated is a shocking admission from a site that has published numerous articles claiming that ISO doesn’t matter and that cameras can be shot at whatever settings the photographer chooses.
Also, blaming the lighting conditions for viewers failure to appreciate the pix is pretty lame.

IMHO, the Raws of the M11 Monochrome need to be pushed towards even brighter exposure than in the revised gallery - combined with more contrast/adjusted EV curves. I found that this can be much better done in RawTherapee than in Lightroom (with the tools "Auto-Matched Tone Curve", "Lightness", "Black" and "Highlight compression"). Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to upload my resulting JPEGs here.

The Summicon-M 28mm/f2 Asph used for shooting these pictures IMHO doesn't resolve well enough for the 60MP sensor. With the absence of debayering pixel interpolation, this becomes even more visible. This camera needs a tack-sharp lens. Without it, the resolution advantage of the monochrome sensor is lost.

IMHO, the camera's low light performance is not half as good in practice as it's in theory, since protecting highlights necessitates pushing exposure in post by several stops.

In the high ISOs, I don't find the noise "filmic"/organic at all, but very blocky and pixelish-"digital".

for people really interested in learning from the masters of monochrome photography, check out on youtube: knox bertie, rui caria, alan schaller, the real sir robin, paul reid, benj haisch and of course matt osborne (aka mr leica), jeff ascough (also has nice b/w presets). one of the best and boldest b/w photographers is noctifux (NSFW!), an erotic photographer found on various corners of the net. all they have in common is that they know that light is everything in b/w photography and all of them are masters in raw processing, though few would admit it.

Monochrome appears to more about Nostalgic users more than anything else. I save boatloads of money by hitting that B/W icon in PP and most would never know the difference. Would love to see a study on this using the most expensive camera and ones costing a fraction of the cost.

But I wouldn't mine having that new Pentax K-3 Mark III Monochrome.

The article states: "These monochrome-only cameras should also be underexposed in order to protect data in the too-easily-blown highlights."

Underexposure is bad, no matter if you use a black & white or color sensor, since this reduces the shadow detail and leads to more grainy/noisy results.

Exposing "to the right" with RAW to preserve highlights would be a way better advice than misleading people to underexpose with such cameras. Why not simply take benefit of the full dynamic range from the sensor?

Most of these photos are underexposed. Exposing B&W as color is a common mistake. Colors fool you. With whites (snow, water reflections, clear skies) you should overexpose, contrary to your perception, because there is less incident light than what white and clear colors reflect, and underexpose in situations of metered dark colors. That's why incident light meters are so functional with B&W or neutral gray cards were popular. This information used to be included in the box of film rolls, so one could adjust. For the moment, the K3iii mono samples outside dpr look much better than these. Of course you can correct and recover shadows till a certain extent in post, but files should be rightly exposed to work on them, specially in a b&w sample gallery. To be a good photographer one should understand primarily light and colors, aperture and sensitivity, lenses then composition and finally gear. But gear should be last and I have the perception that for many around gear is first.

I like the first photo in the gallery of 'buyer's remorse' as he sees how much his dad paid for the Leica, compared to what he could have paid for the Pentax...

Observations: the JPG converter in the camera, well, isn't any good. The images look much better when processed from raw files. But I still don't see the point. Giving up all the color information for a minimal, if any increase in sharpness just isn't worth it.

should be called grey & black

This set shows that one really needs to understand thinking in B&W.

I really fancy a Leica Q2 monochrome but this gallery puts me off the idea. There are some shots with clear skies, are any of those taken with an orange filter?

"Great B&W photos" gear list:
Leica M11 Monochrom? checked
Speedlite?
Harsh sun?

Nice, some good images in there. I think given more time and a variety of hands the camera could do well. Can certainly see the potential.

Curious to see if these type of photos lend themselves to HDR, OLED TV's set for cinema?

Colours lack punch.

Got guite good results when importing RAW file to Lightroom and edited to my taste. Unprosessed files do not look good.

Grey comes to mind rather than black and white. Or dark grey. But to be fair it's called monochrome, not B&W.
I tried editing a few. If I bump the exposure +2EV and contrast +70 in lightroom, it starts to look more like B&W, but still something is missing.
Partly to blame is the taste of the photog: negative EV compensation and then even more highlight pulling in post. Why? But then, SOOC are rather bland too.
Looks more like the output of a technical, industrial monochrome camera.

Certainly nothing in this gallery to justify the existence of this camera*, let alone justifying its price.

*except as a Veblen good.

i was going to make a thread about the 1st gallery..but did not have the time ..its 1/2 finished on another PC ..i downloaded 1/2 a dozen raw files and was not imprest i think the SOOC jpegs and the editing were at fault but only a bit ..i made certain i had a black point and a white point and try all sorts but i could not tweak them past muddy..i see some comments in the previous gallery saying thay had nailed a film-like look ..well no B&W film i proceed and printed looked like that..my 1st 10 years as a photog back in the day were almost all B&W processed and printed by myself..i have had much better results from DSLRs going back to my 20D...the Leica files did not seem that malleable either. looking overworked very quickly.
if this camera was $500 i would not buy it..
It would be interesting for DPR to get hold of a colour M11 take the same scene with both colour and B&W bodys and see the difference
i guess if you want a look from 1920 then fine

Very nice, not only the B&W rendering but the lens as well. As someone who doubted the need for a B&W only camera I must admit there may indeed be a reason for a monochromatic camera.

Also, the photographer did a very nice job. Great compositions.

Black and White photography is one of those things that seems simple until you try it. Then you realize that it's much harder than it looks. Kind of like Bonsai, or watercolor painting.

IMO monocromatic cameras are a clever marketing idea in search of any meaningful photographic benefit. But if that's your thing, go for it. Each of us has to find their own path to inspiration. If monochom Leica's are your's then that's great.

Personaly, I'd rather have the color data. IMO most of those images could be significant;y improved if the RAW files had access to the scene color info. The direct to gray tone mappng is just too flat to my eye. YMMV

Not impressed. The grey is not black and white.