airfrogusmc
Well-known member
Well I have yet to see a 6400 ISO file from either the M8 or M9 as clean as the one I posted.
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!
How much of a seller's remorse would you get if you sold your Monochrom
- Thread starter mmbma
- Start date
Shashin
Well-known member
LOL. So you counted the number of images you viewed. But it is nice to know that you are still unencumbered by facts--you just have to wish it and make it come true.
I will save the $900. I can make my own selenium toned prints. Anyone can be a darkroom technician.
PeterA
Well-known member
The problem I have with your 'observations' is that I have an M8/M9/MM to go with my M3 and MP - and I can't get the same file from an M8 or an M9 that I get from the Monochrome.
btw - your $900 price tag for a print is nice work if you can get it...and pretty much underlines why digital photography 'economics' is so compelling - for less than 10 prints at your prices I have bought into a top of the line Epson...or an MM and a Summicron..or (fill in the blanks to your heart's desire)
I kept my 11c - it makes for a lovely retro deluxo piece of sculpture alongside my LF Sinar - both sitting in my reception area...do yourself a favour if you love b&W and rent a Monochrome for a weekend with a decent lens - be prepared to be blown away in the same way panchromatics at 25ISO used to deliver @ 100X the effort and cost and hassle...
I think you should give up your line of argument - you are just digging an embarrassingly deeper hole with each utterance - I mean this in the nicest possible way.
At one juncture when simultaionsly testing the monochrom again my M9, shooting the same urban landscape (on a moderately bright overcast day)...with the same lens at virtually the same time (ISO's 320 & 640), I was a bit taken back when I got back and post processed the initial matched pairs of shots. At ISO 320, except for a notable increase in acuity and also a slightly cleaner file with the MM, the on screen images seemed to be extremely close in look, DR and tonality accross the frame in most areas of the image. If I had stopped at this point, I might have declared it was possible to essentually replicate what is achieved with the MM, with a M9. Even the prints I made nearly showed their very close similarity.
Luckily I didn't stop testing that day, nor subsequently on other occasions with both cameras. Lighting, the degree of shadow and highlight detail, contrast of the scene being captured and a multitude of other image charateristics can apparently alter how each camera records the subject across the visable spectrum of light. These subsequent images underlined at times how vastly different each camera's subsequent B&W image was when final post processed output of the respected files was examined both at screen resolution and in print. Again, aside from acuity, sometimes the differences were farily dramatic, regardless how hard I tried matching the file's look...at other times it was more subtle....and of course there were times the comparitive images from both cameras was sort of in-between the "extremes". Differences between the matched pairs often varied and much of these differences had to do with the tonality of the subject and the scene itself and most importantly how it was lit.
Thats why I believe that only by actually testing out both cameras in a similar fashion, can one get a much better handle as to whether the B&W imagery produced by the MM and it's apparent strength over the M9 (in this regard), is worth it to the potential purchaser. It also allows them to make an assessment to the standards they set for themselves with regards to their own B&W imagery with film and prints from the wet darkroom. That so far has been my limited experience with the MM.
Dave (D&A)
Luckily I didn't stop testing that day, nor subsequently on other occasions with both cameras. Lighting, the degree of shadow and highlight detail, contrast of the scene being captured and a multitude of other image charateristics can apparently alter how each camera records the subject across the visable spectrum of light. These subsequent images underlined at times how vastly different each camera's subsequent B&W image was when final post processed output of the respected files was examined both at screen resolution and in print. Again, aside from acuity, sometimes the differences were farily dramatic, regardless how hard I tried matching the file's look...at other times it was more subtle....and of course there were times the comparitive images from both cameras was sort of in-between the "extremes". Differences between the matched pairs often varied and much of these differences had to do with the tonality of the subject and the scene itself and most importantly how it was lit.
Thats why I believe that only by actually testing out both cameras in a similar fashion, can one get a much better handle as to whether the B&W imagery produced by the MM and it's apparent strength over the M9 (in this regard), is worth it to the potential purchaser. It also allows them to make an assessment to the standards they set for themselves with regards to their own B&W imagery with film and prints from the wet darkroom. That so far has been my limited experience with the MM.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Sadly,the fact is you don't need either to champion an argument... only perception and opinion. Perception is truth though in the eye of the beholder and you can't quantify or argue perception.Dave, don't cloud the issue with facts and reason.
airfrogusmc
Well-known member
But you can argue the fact the MM does outperform the M9 at high ISO. 6400 is a real option and I shoot the streets at 3200 and 6400 all the time and get clean files that I never could get at those ISOs with an M8 or M9. Now thats real and not just opinion.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Believe me I know and M8/M9 only go up to ISO 2500. It was more in response to the people (well person) who says there's no difference. There is but maybe their eyes aren't sensitive to that area of the EM spectrum so they don't see the difference... or maybe they're just argumentative.
airfrogusmc
Well-known member
I think they're both great tools. The mm is sharper and has more range than the M9 but I just love the color files from the M9.
douglasf13
New member
I've had reasonable success shooting the M9 up to about ISO 5000 (ISO 160 +5 EV in LR4,) although I certainly wouldn't call it clean. Granted, like I've mentioned, I don't mind noise, and I often add grain to digital black and white shots. I'd still buy the MM, though, if I shot more B&W.