Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Dave,Paratom Wrote>>>"Overall I stay to my comment that I am happy with all 3. I like the b&w shots from the MM a lot, I love the exceptional detail of the S2 all over the frame, and I like the little more "character full" rendering of the M lenses. All 3 are different."<<<
After working with the files from all 3 cameras (although I only own one of them), I sort of feel the same way. The MM B&W files aapear to have more of a distinction from M9 B&W images the more the MM is pushed, not only with using higher ISO, but how the image was exposed and subsequently the resulting tonality exhibited in post processing.
The S2 files appeared not only acutely sharp but subject redering as you say was often too perfect. It reminded me more of digital perfection as opposed to the image appearing film like in some instances, but of course its quite subjective. It's not so much the camera but the superb S2 lenses I beleive for use of the Pentax 645D which has a very similar sensor uses lenses designed in the film era and this often gives sharp results but with a roundness to the image, not seen in S2 shots. This then may be partially the reason why M( images have a bot of both attributes, depending on the lens used. Images from lenses like the 35mm FLE and to a degree the 50mm Lux asph, give a near techically perfect rendering, while lenses somewhat older in design (some asph and some not), give sharp results but with a more rounded look to the image. Such lenses might incluse the 35mm Lux asph (pre FLE), the 50mm Lux, the 35mm cron ver IV and many others of course.
All very interesting and I've been enjoying reading the thoughts provided by MM uses and of course the images they've posted.
Dave (D&A)
groomz: I'll have to go back and read this whole thread, but, I think the increased detail's noticeable in small (8.5 x 11) prints.seems for my purposes, the MM is all about better iso quality.
seems the increased detail offered by the MM is only slight and only noticeable in big prints.
I feel the M-M is superior in IQ, once you have a good workflow. M9 is amazing in IQ for B&W, with the added flexibility to adjust light channels to get the effect you wish. But the M-M has incredible details embedded in the DNG files. More importantly the depth of tonality is amazing, and I think, as more support comes out in different programs, it will be a lot easier to PP.do you guys find the monochrome images much better then m9 b&w?
details please.
hard to tell from online images sometimes.
thanks