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!

Special edition Monochrom is SEXY

Photojazz

Member
Exactly DN. I don't know what Leica was thinking slapping a little video button right next to the shutter release button. I really don't. For my usage, they could have saved that feature entirely, the development cost, and the production costs. I do think live view has functionality, for framing. But video? Nah!

Auni, I own both M9 and M, and I am aware of gains in some areas. But also image quality is set back in other areas. It wasn't all gain.

There were things that were better before they changed them. That's just how it is. The new M was a leap forward in many areas though, that's true. But the CCD had some image qualities about it, that the new M just doesn't touch.
 

Auni

Member
Exactly DN. I don't know what Leica was thinking slapping a little video button right next to the shutter release button. I really don't. For my usage, they could have saved that feature entirely, the development cost, and the production costs. I do think live view has functionality, for framing. But video? Nah!

Auni, I own both M9 and M, and I am aware of gains in some areas. But also image quality is set back in other areas. It wasn't all gain.

There were things that were better before they changed them. That's just how it is. The new M was a leap forward in many areas though, that's true. But the CCD had some image qualities about it, that the new M just doesn't touch.
I would have to disagree with all of this. The button on the top seems well placed. LV is going to help with framing. The framelines of the M9 were a step backwards. The M240 lines are illuminated and not only would that make them easier to see they are also more accurate for most users at the distances they shoot at.

I see no value in the older CCD sensor used on the M9. Improvements in color are only subjective. I can take any M240 image I've seen and PP it, for all intents and purposes, to be indistinguishable from the M9 by the viewer, but I can not say the reverse. "That" is just how it is. The sensor in the M240 is measurably better than the M9.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
As far as LV goes; I would agree - that's a nice thing to have. First, so you can frame precisely, and secondly, not resorting to external (E)VFs (which I'm admittedly not a big fan of). But then, staring at the back of the camera isn't really my "thing" either...

As for the sensor... That's very much debatable. I get output from the M9 and Hasselblad CFV CCD sensors that I have yet to see come from anything CMOS-based. And that's right out of the camera. Sure, you can PP to resemble it, but some of that involves interpolation. Not the same.
 

Auni

Member
As far as LV goes; I would agree - that's a nice thing to have. First, so you can frame precisely, and secondly, not resorting to external (E)VFs (which I'm admittedly not a big fan of). But then, staring at the back of the camera isn't really my "thing" either...

As for the sensor... That's very much debatable. I get output from the M9 and Hasselblad CFV CCD sensors that I have yet to see come from anything CMOS-based. And that's right out of the camera. Sure, you can PP to resemble it, but some of that involves interpolation. Not the same.
Thank you for your very civil reply. I have tens of thousands of CCD images from M8-M9 taken over six years, and I certainly prefer the images from my M240 which I've had since early April. I have over 10,000 images from the new M240 and just find the files better in many ways and the images more pleasing.

I have read several here and on other forums who see a difference and prefer the M9... I guess my eyes aren't able to appreciate or understand what it is you prefer.

Again, I do like the M9 images I have taken and consider overall improvements in the M240 images as minor and more to do with the M240 images files being more adjustable in PP.

And, for the record, the black MM is sexy.;)
 

Double Negative

Not Available
No worries. The takeaway is simply - it's very much a personal thing.

I think you said it best earlier; "...I could be happy with any of these great cameras."

You're so right. :)
 

MaxKißler

New member
I'd like to chime in here. First of all, I don't own an M and probably won't for quite some time. This is mainly because of two reasons:
a) I'm a photography student and as such I've already spent too much money on far too expensive camera gear.
b) I don't like it. I've tested the new M several times and apart from the fact that I couldn't afford it anyway, even if I wanted, it felt much too digital (in a negative way). There was nothing special about it anyhow. It is just like most other digital cameras and the files look and feel accordingly. With the M9 the files are a little bit like digital medium format. It's a different kind of quality you get. Neither better nor worse, just different and more to my liking.

Apart from that: What I really like about the Monochrom and M9 is that it's basically an M7 with a sensor in it. I use the M9's crappy screen to change settings but whenever I'm taking a picture it remains off. I don't need to see on a screen what I've just captured (sounds cheesy but true: I just saw that seconds ago in the viewfinder!). Sometimes fewer is more. And I think that's one of the reasons why the Monochrom is so popular.

Perhaps one can objectively measure the quality of a sensor but either I connot see the benefits or I value different criteria more than what is being measured.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I don't need to see on a screen what I've just captured (sounds cheesy but true: I just saw that seconds ago in the viewfinder!).
That is the way a lot of digital cameras work and surprisingly, a lot people shoot that way (without "auto review") as well! :shocked:

No, that isn't the salient feature of the MM.
 

Photojazz

Member
Well, you didn't hear a negative really out of me, except for that video button. I have heard people say they can get files to look nearly indistinguishable from M240 to M9. That may well be true. I haven't had that much success all the time. But again, I have not shot my M that much yet. I haven't even had it very long. But I do hate the video button. I don't want to think I could be filling up my SD card, and draining my battery by accidentally pressing that button sometime. I tried a video once, I couldn't even get it to play, go figure, right? Must be operator error. lol.

Double Neg, I do appreciate what you are saying about live view use. I tried using it for focus on the M, and it didn't work real well for a 80 Lux R lens. Since I do not want a big honkin viewfinder on my camera, I am opting to sell the R. It has a certain signature about it, it is nice glass. But I am going to stick with M glass for my M collection, and stick with Nikon and Zeiss for my Nikons. I actually bought the R lens for Nikon conversion, but in the end, I just don't think it's that meaningful for me to keep it. I'd rather just have a nice 85 1.4 Nikon lens with AF, and keep it simple. That is good glass anyway on that side. On M side, I have a 75 Cron, other than losing a bit of speed, I don't lose anything else, except a bit of that Leica dreamy look. Well, yeah, there is that. The newer lenses are much more clinical in their presentation, but that adds up to image depth, and clarity. Good for the digital world.

We all have to draw lines somewhere, unless we are loaded, which I am not.

I am not much of a chimper either Max. But occasionally I do check review just to make sure my ISO was set to my liking. If it's an important shot, I want all the data I can collect to make a decision if I got a good shot or not.
 

MaxKißler

New member
That is the way a lot of digital cameras work and surprisingly, a lot people shoot that way (without "auto review") as well! :shocked:

No, that isn't the salient feature of the MM.
I said this because even if I wanted to check my shots, the M9's screen is not of much use anyway. Not only because it's resolution is so low but because even the histogram isn't very accurate. So I was merely saying I'm grateful that there even is a screen on the back of the M9. ;)
A great rear LCD is a nice to have feature but not a necessity IMO.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
That's my feeling as well, re:LCD. There's so much latitude in the DNG files that "close enough" is just that. As long as the highlights aren't (too) blown, I'm good. I chimp occasionally - mostly exposure - but rarely zoom in, etc. Mostly just for setting ISO or profiles.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I very rarely miss focus, even with the Noctilux. I owe a large part of that to Walter's Leica Eyepiece. It corrects my aging eye perfectly to the RF. I guess it also confirms that my gear is within spec... :p

...Double Neg, I do appreciate what you are saying about live view use. I tried using it for focus on the M, and it didn't work real well for a 80 Lux R lens. Since I do not want a big honkin viewfinder on my camera, I am opting to sell the R. It has a certain signature about it, it is nice glass. But I am going to stick with M glass for my M collection, and stick with Nikon and Zeiss for my Nikons. I actually bought the R lens for Nikon conversion, but in the end, I just don't think it's that meaningful for me to keep it. I'd rather just have a nice 85 1.4 Nikon lens with AF, and keep it simple. That is good glass anyway on that side. On M side, I have a 75 Cron, other than losing a bit of speed, I don't lose anything else, except a bit of that Leica dreamy look. Well, yeah, there is that. The newer lenses are much more clinical in their presentation, but that adds up to image depth, and clarity. Good for the digital world...
That's too bad that it didn't work out; that certainly is a nice lens. But I agree with you on the conversion, and that's my philosophy in general as well. I toyed with the notion of getting something like the Fuji X-Pro1 or Sony A7R and adapting, but it's always... Weird. Let the tool do what it's good at; AF, zooms, flash, etc. So yeah, I'm sticking with M lenses also. I don't have any R lenses, as nice as they are... Too expensive now, need an adapter, plus an EVF for the most flexibility... Probably a grip would help to hold it all. By the time this Frankenbeast is done - I might as well just use the DSLR!

Naw, I like my gear really simple these days. Which explains why I shoot my Ms and Hassy gear the most. A large part of it has to do with the fact that I can't SEE the damn knobs, menus, dials and what-nots. I don't shoot with glasses. Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, maybe I'm jaded or just plain ol' set in my ways. But the beauty of the basic M, to me, is being able to use it practically blindfolded. The features reside in my brain - not the camera.
 

Photojazz

Member
Well said. Actually, I bought the R a couple of years ago, so I got it before things escalated to the levels they are today. At least I got my money out of it, maybe plus a little. I honestly do not remember what I paid for the lens. That's bad I guess, but it is true. I do know it wasn't cheap even 2 years ago. Well, it was a nice lens, a real hunk of lead to carry though. Heavy glass.

I was thinking about the A7R too. If I could have got an adapter now, I might have went for it, but right now adapters are sold out, lenses have not been shipped yet, except for one 24mm Zeiss, to me, it's just to early to jump in on that camera. With an M and Nikon adapter, maybe. Otherwise, it's just a paperweight until glass is introduced. I wasn't interested in a 2300.00 paperweight right now and I am really not interested in spending on a 3rd type of glass...
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Let the tool do what it's good at; AF, zooms, flash, etc.
My tool is superb with a Canon 50/0.95, even better than the MM with that lens. It is great with the M Rokkors (all of them) as well. Absolutely no AF or zoomz. ;)

FWIW, I find the Leica flash SF something far more useful than any other (Nikon, Sony, etc). It even has settings for the Noct!
 

bubuli

Member
"I don't like it. I've tested the new M several times and apart from the fact that I couldn't afford it anyway, even if I wanted, it felt much too digital (in a negative way)."

the word fragment "too digital." what does that even mean? how do you quantify something as "too digital?"
 

bradhusick

Active member
In my experience with my M, if you set it up the right way and don't use live view or the EVF, it's almost identical in use to the M9, except that it produces much better files and does so at much higher ISO levels if desired. I can also take any M file and get results equal to or better than the Monochrom files I took for a while. Yes, it requires a few more steps, but they're easy ones.

The only drawback I have experienced with the M is that it grew fatter by a few millimeters and I like thinner cameras - it's too bad they couldn't make it M6-thin.

I said good riddance to the miserable LCD on the M9, the small batteries and the terrible high ISO performance and never looked back.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
...I can also take any M file and get results equal to or better than the Monochrom files I took for a while. Yes, it requires a few more steps, but they're easy ones...
Brad, can you expand on that a little? Are you saying the MM is no longer "all that?"

I find it hard to believe that the M can do "clean" ISO 5,000+ like the MM. And even with its 24MP sensor - does it really compare to the MM's acuity, etc.

I'm just curious, as I'm getting an MM. ;)
 

bradhusick

Active member
The MM is a special camera and quite pure in use, but the M240 is capable of clean shots at ISO 5000 and beyond. I owned both for a time and aside from not needing the few extra steps in Lightroom and SilverEfex, the Monochrom became a shelf queen while the M240 did everything asked of it. There were many shooting times when I only had the Monochrom with me that I wished I had the option of color.

The Monochrom is a wonderful tool that produces fantastic images. But the M240 just eclipses it. I wish I still had a Monochrom around so I could take side by side images and show you what I mean.
 

MaxKißler

New member
"I don't like it. I've tested the new M several times and apart from the fact that I couldn't afford it anyway, even if I wanted, it felt much too digital (in a negative way)."

the word fragment "too digital." what does that even mean? how do you quantify something as "too digital?"
With the term "too digital" I meant the new M is full of an abundance of features and is IMO to a certain degree neglecting one of its core values: simplicity.
I'm under the impression that it's trying to be a "one for all" kind of camera and by trying to please everyone, it fails to please me. The reason I chose the M system was because I did not want to have tons of features that I never use and which now seem to compromise the cameras design. For instance, what I dislike most is the movie mode: A new button next to the shutter release and four stupid holes on top for rain and dust to creep in. And it's sad that features like the frameline preview lever were condemned and that the frameline illumination only works with a battery etc. etc. All of this contributes to what feels to me "too digital".

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that Leica is constantly trying to improve their M system. There were a lot of great improvements being made. And if this new camera speaks to a lot of potentially new customers it's great. In fact when I first heard about it on the day they presented that video I was really excited. It just faded away when I first shot it...


I know I'll get bashed for this and probably deserve it, but I feel like the new M is (at least by my standards) more of a consumer product than aiming to be a prefessional's camera.


Furthermore, I was wrong and would like to stand corrected: The M9 is (not like an M7 probably) more like shooting with a Hexar RF without needing to scan film. So this camera feels a little less digital.
Anyway, if I was exclusively photographing for the fun of it, I'd probably get myself either an M6 or MP depending on my budget...
 

bradhusick

Active member
Hi Max, thanks for the clarification. FYI - I never press the movie button by mistake on my M. I just forget it's even there. The M240 is the first weather sealed digital M, so don't worry about the little holes.
 

MaxKißler

New member
Hi Max, thanks for the clarification. FYI - I never press the movie button by mistake on my M. I just forget it's even there. The M240 is the first weather sealed digital M, so don't worry about the little holes.
Thanks, good to know. If I'd own one I'd probably use black tape and just let them disappear... ;)
 
Top