The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

...
I agree with almost everything you wrote. As you and others have expressed, with the MM, one can expose for the highlights and then recover the shadow detail. Luckily, in most cases, the MM files are clean enough at most ISO's, so that recoverable shadow detail is relatively clean. The problem would have been if one had to expose for the highlights in the MM and when recovering the shadow detail, lots of noise accompanied this recovery. Thats why I think exposing for highlights works with the MM. If it didn't have such clean files, I think there would be issues, with regards to it's metering. ...
...
Will the new M have any advantage to B&W conversion and file quality over the M9...maybe enough to have a few evaluate whether the MM is the camera of choice for them vs. going with the new M and compromise to a degree with B&W imagery and also have the abailty to shoot color? ...
Dave,

With a digital camera, any digital camera, you should *always* be aiming to achieve the most captured data, which is in the upper half of the data values (presuming raw capture and the necessity of finishing the rendering in post processing software). Highlight saturation, aka white point, with any digital sensor is ultimately always a hard line, whereas the black point is always an assessment of how much noise you are willing to tolerate in the shadows.

This translates to "exposing for the highlights" in all cases, whether you're using an MM or not. The key is understanding a particular sensor's response and how a particular camera's metering system is calibrated. From the discussions I've read about the MM's "highlight clipping", it sounds like Leica didn't calibrate the meter to protect highlight values like most digital cameras do ... Most digital camera metering calibration is biased by -1 to -2 EV to protect highlight values (at the expense of noise in the shadows). So, to me, this highlight issue is a red herring. Understand your sensor and your metering calibration—it disappears.

I see the MM as a specialist tool for those who prefer to work exclusively in the B&W capture realm. Using it properly means also understanding and using filters when apropos, rather than having the capabilities of full spectrum capture to do spectral filtering in image processing. As such, it is a distinctly different camera from the new M or M9.

I haven't used an MM myself, personally, to see how much more or less it can produce compared to my M9. I have been impressed, however, by the raw files that Jono (and others) posted—detail acquisition and very very fine tonal gradients at the elevated ISO settings are quite remarkable and surpass what I see with the M9 by a stop or two.

Whether the new M can actually do better, with 50% more pixel resolution and higher sensitivity, can only be exposed by testing and direct comparison, once a production new M comes available.

All cameras are compromises in many ways. ;-)

Godfrey
 

D&A

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

With the understanding that this is GetDPI the obvious answer is to have a Monochrom hanging from the left shoulder and a new M across the body from the right shoulder.

Problem solved. :grin:
Except for one thing. Which shoulder then does the financial burden rest against to offset the cost of owning both (speaking for myself personally of course...LOL!)

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Dave,

I haven't used an MM myself, personally, to see how much more or less it can produce compared to my M9. I have been impressed, however, by the raw files that Jono (and others) posted—detail acquisition and very very fine tonal gradients at the elevated ISO settings are quite remarkable and surpass what I see with the M9 by a stop or two.

Whether the new M can actually do better, with 50% more pixel resolution and higher sensitivity, can only be exposed by testing and direct comparison, once a production new M comes available.

All cameras are compromises in many ways. ;-)

Godfrey
Godfrey,

I agree with most of your entire post and can certainly identify particulary with the lines you wrote (quoted above).

The one area which I would slightly disagree with is the general rule of exposing for highlights and letting shadow information & noise levels fall where they may. There are times when shooting under very low light conditions where the information conatined in the shadows is of primary importance to the shot and often times its necessary to let the highlights blow out, in order to preserve shadow detail which might be germain to the main subject being photographed and excessive noise in these low light areas would be a considerable distraction and even a major image issue. Your points though are well taken and I certainly understand what you were trying to express.

Dave (D&A)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Except for one thing. Which shoulder then does the financial burden rest against to offset the cost of owning both (speaking for myself personally of course...LOL!)

Dave (D&A)
Both - it'll be the monkey on your back paying for it all. let's not forget the his 'n hers 35 FLE's on each too :ROTFL:

(Confession - I ordered a Monochrom myself)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Both - it'll be the monkey on your back paying for it all. let's not forget the his 'n hers 35 FLE's on each too :ROTFL:

(Confession - I ordered a Monochrom myself)
Whew...I just saved myself $10,000 (for those his 'n hers FLE's) . I'm one of the few who shot with the 35mm FLE and wasn't completely enamored with it. Oh wait, I want one of those Monochrom bodies too....guess I'll have to feed that monkey after all. :)

Dave (D&A)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Whew...I just saved myself $10,000 (for those his 'n hers FLE's) . I'm one of the few who shot with the 35mm FLE and wasn't completely enamored with it. Oh wait, I want one of those Monochrom bodies too....guess I'll have to feed that monkey after all. :)

Dave (D&A)
Monochrom and 35 'cron is what I decided on. I might crack and get another summilux but I don't need the perfection of the FLE ... Yet.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Except for one thing. Which shoulder then does the financial burden rest against to offset the cost of owning both (speaking for myself personally of course...LOL!)

Dave (D&A)
Not an insignificant expense for most I suspect :eek:

Plus I have every intention of keeping my M9P Chrome because the files are a dead match for the S2 files when shot in tandem.

I figure I have 5 or 6 months to gather the funds for the new M and a few accessories. As I scan my vault and studio, there are oodles of nifty stuff that shall soon appear on the B/S forum here. The days of being a "photo pack rat" must come to an end. :loco:

In a way, I'm glad that the Hasselblad H5 and Leica S are not "must have" incremental updates. That would have been a financial wolf devouring my piggy bank beyond recovery ;)

My MM arrived yesterday. I'll tell you one thing, it is something else to walk into a room so dark you would never even consider reaching for the M9 ... then spinning in ISO 6400 or 8000 on the MM, take a picture, and look down at the LCD and there is actually something there ... and it is that wonderful glow of light and rich tones that makes up the excitement of B&W photography. :thumbs:

WaHoo! My RRS Arca M base plate also fits the MM ... glad I kept it ... sometimes being a procrastinating pack rat pays off :)

-Marc
 

D&A

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Marc, what happens when it gets so dark inside that room that although the MM can get the shot at ISO 8000, it's simply too dark to find where the heck you set down the MM camera in the first place, in order to take the darn shot...LOL!
Looking forward to your impressions.

Dave (D&A)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Godfrey,

I agree with most of your entire post and can certainly identify particulary with the lines you wrote (quoted above).

The one area which I would slightly disagree with is the general rule of exposing for highlights and letting shadow information & noise levels fall where they may. There are times when shooting under very low light conditions where the information conatined in the shadows is of primary importance to the shot and often times its necessary to let the highlights blow out, in order to preserve shadow detail which might be germain to the main subject being photographed and excessive noise in these low light areas would be a considerable distraction and even a major image issue. Your points though are well taken and I certainly understand what you were trying to express.

Dave (D&A)
re: bolded portion above

Certainly ... When I say "exposing for the highlights", I always intend "exposing for the intended highlights in which you wish to retain detail", which means considering what dynamic range you have to work with and what other scene information is important. There are many scenes in which the available dynamic range of the sensor is inadequate to capture everything and you either have to let some things saturate or other things fall into darkness. What to let blow out and what to is an aesthetic choice ... based on your understanding of the sensor and its available capture dynamic range, etc etc.

It was ever thus with film and hasn't changed with the digital capture world, although the range of sensitivities have become enormous compared with film! :)

Godfrey
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Theroretical: MM vs. M 240 Consideation

Marc, what happens when it gets so dark inside that room that although the MM can get the shot at ISO 8000, it's simply too dark to find where the heck you set down the MM camera in the first place, in order to take the darn shot...LOL!
Looking forward to your impressions.

Dave (D&A)
Always keep the camera in your hands when you cannot see it.

This is only half joking ... I've been in circumstances like that!
 
Top