Leica M-Monochrom announced

[Hamish Gill]

Leica have announced a true monochrome digital camera - the Leica M-Monochrom.
It does not see colours at all only recording luminance which leica claim increases sharpness

There is lots more info on leicas website including some demo shots
Leica Camera AG - Photography - M Monochrom

Dpreview have also done a preview
Leica M-Monochrom Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

... If I had the money, and already had a colour m9 then I would def buy one I think ... unfortunately neither of those things are a reality ...

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Interesting concept - very niche

 

[Pete Askew]

An interesting review here too:

Leica M9 Monochrom

 

[Darren Bradley]

I honestly can't say that I understand. I'm certain that Leica (as well as legions of Leica fans/owners) will swear up and down that there is an advantage to having a mono digital camera (probably going to claim that it renders tones better and provides a "film-like experience" or some such thing. But to my heathen's eye, I honestly can't see what all the fuss is about when I look at the sample photos. And for the cost... um, no thanks.

 

[Pete Askew]

I can understand the thinking behind it and, of course, the gains in resolution. For me the greatest attraction would be the improvement in higher ISO performance. The PhaseOne back had a similar appeal. But the lure of film is too strong for the outlay.

 

[Larry Bolch]

The Emperor's New Clothes are now monochrome. All hail the emperor. $15kUS with the new f/2.0 normal lens. We bow to the emperor while biting our cheeks to avoid being seen as laughing our butts off.

I will wait six months for the 450th Anniversary of Bratwurst Edition, only $10,000 more, but the standard mundane leather is replaced with actual sausage casings complete with smokey scent. That will be the camera to own, until the Millennial Vlad the Impaler edition is announced at 20K over the standard price. Same old Kodak sensor, but don't ask about the source of the leather unless you have a very strong stomach.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Haha...
Whilst I most certainly agree with the sentiments regarding the collectors editions - items that perpetuate so many things I don't like about photographers and humans such as never actually using cameras, not to mention just plain and ugly capitalism ... I do think that for a specific user, Leica are on to somthing here!
There are many people who never shoot colour, but like to shoot digital, so why have a camera that does somthing that you have no use for, and in doing that it actually detrimental to your specific end goal
I'm just supprised no one has done this before!

 

[Hamish Gill]

... Edit, just skimmed the luminous landscapes thing ... I wasn't aware of the Kodak and phase one back
I guess very early digital cameras would have been black and white too....???

And yeah, re luminous landscapes .. What he said!

 

[Larry Bolch]

Haha...
Whilst I most certainly agree with the sentiments regarding the collectors editions - items that perpetuate so many things I don't like about photographers and humans such as never actually using cameras, not to mention just plain and ugly capitalism ... I do think that for a specific user, Leica are on to somthing here!
There are many people who never shoot colour, but like to shoot digital, so why have a camera that does somthing that you have no use for, and in doing that it actually detrimental to your specific end goal
I'm just supprised no one has done this before!

I have no problem with "A sucker is born every minute." and Leica exploiting it. If they can get people to buy a 1954 camera with a Kodak sensor kludged in with no live-view, auto-focus, poorest high-ISO performance of any full frame camera, and anything else 21st century and turning it into an object of lust for the gullible, then why not. The gullible will defend it to the end of their days. (See British sports cars lacking syncromesh transmissions.)

While it could be done much cheaper and equally as good by removing the Bayer colour filter array on pretty much every camera and changing the firmware and RAW conversion software, Leica did it first and charged an extra $1k US in the process. Points to Leica.

 

[Lesley Jones]

I think I'm with Darren on this one. I probably differ from everyone else in here that I don't read photography magazines, belong to other forums (should that be fora?) or know what the next line in Emporer's new clothes will be. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate quality, but where is this all going? Take my 72 year old Leica IIIb and the 74 year old Summar lens. It was probably the best thing around back then. It shot great photographs and with a bit of fiddling (and no risk of lens flare), it still does. I've scanned the film, tarted the images a bit and put them up in forums and an exhibition. Not one person said "that's old technology and the image is poor quality". So why the need for more?

Now I like sharp images, but I'm starting to think you can get too sharp. I came from somewhere the M9 was being used a fair bit and there were some landscapes you felt could cut your eyeballs just by looking at them. That was the very first thing that struck me - not the view, not the tones, just that intense sharpness. Even with the middle of the road kit zoom that came with my Sony, as long as the original isn't actually blurred, a bit of Topaz Infocus makes it sharp enough to upload here.

I love black and white too - I shot nothing but Ilford for years, but there are always occasions when you come across something that only makes sense in colour. So what do you do? Walk around with what are essentially two M9 bodies and an assortment of lenses? I'm sure there will be enough of a niche market to keep this going until the next retro/techno fad, but even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy one of these.

 

[Brian Moore]

I have no problem with "A sucker is born every minute." and Leica exploiting it. If they can get people to buy a 1954 camera with a Kodak sensor kludged in with no live-view, auto-focus, poorest high-ISO performance of any full frame camera, and anything else 21st century and turning it into an object of lust for the gullible, then why not. The gullible will defend it to the end of their days. (See British sports cars lacking syncromesh transmissions.)

While it could be done much cheaper and equally as good by removing the Bayer colour filter array on pretty much every camera and changing the firmware and RAW conversion software, Leica did it first and charged an extra $1k US in the process. Points to Leica.

Now you hold on a minute, Larry. British sports cars have had syncro trannys for a decade at least I do believe! (Besides,...they've been busy trying to get the roofs to stop leaking.)

 

[Pete Askew]

... I guess very early digital cameras would have been black and white too....???

Well, mono at least!!

 

[Pete Askew]

Isn't it funny how cameras like these (and products from Leica in particular) can create such strong opinions. I too am often puzzled by the special editions but these are a minor part of the output of Leica and are clearly aimed at a particular type of person who likes to collect / invest in nice things. But on the whole Leica seem to go their own way and do produce some superb cameras and optics. The M8 was flawed in some ways I think (I use mine only rarely these days) but the M9 is a lovely camera to use if you like RFs in general and Leicas in particular. Leica lenses are superb and really do live up to their reputation. Similarly, the quality of the build of the cameras (M and S at least) is what you would expect given the price and they are clearly intended to last for many years still. Production volume is significantly lower than many other manufacturers and although they have faced backlogs and waiting lists for cameras and some lenses they have maintained their process and not compromised, which I respect. All this impacts on costs.

As for the M-Monochrom, as I said before I can understand what they were thinking as I had been attracted to the PhaseOne mono back at one point (and their IR unit) but for a different purpose. It is a pretty niche market but I would guess there are a fair number of people out there for whom this would be the perfect camera (and Leica probably knows this too). Price-wise this is a specialised variant of a M9 requiring a different production process and special parts so it seems about what one would expect. Whether it is worth it to you as a photographer is an entirely different question. I have no doubt it can produce superbly sharp, high resolution B&W images. It will handle like a Leica. And people will be enraged / delighted by it. And by whatever Leica comes up with next. I'm looking forward to it!!

 

[Hamish Gill]

...on the subject of the m8 and its flaws...
If i bought one, very much hypothetically speaking, would it work with my cv lenses or would i need to buy filters for all of them?

 

[Pete Askew]

Mostly it would be OK but for some portraits where the sitter is wearing synthetic black textiles then they render correctly, ie deep purple! I have filters on some lenses but it was never really a major problem. I was less keen on the crop though but, again, it was not an issue really and arguably the viewfinder is better for 28 - 35 than the M9.

 

[Larry Bolch]

Now you hold on a minute, Larry. British sports cars have had syncro trannys for a decade at least I do believe! (Besides,...they've been busy trying to get the roofs to stop leaking.)

My first car was a Hillman Minx convertible, and one got wet—no surprise. Later a Jaguar 3.8 MkII which was fully enclosed, and one got wet. Go figure.

 

[Pete Askew]

Ah, but one got wet in style!!