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!

Film M or Monochrom - which would you choose for a B&W project?

For an ongoing photo project in black and white, I would choose to use -

  • A film M with black and white film

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • The Monochrom version 2

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • Other (please elaborate)

    Votes: 11 39.3%

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
V

Vivek

Guest
Kirk, For me, it is the MM for B&W. I have splendid set of lenses, filters and the doodahs for it. Hoping to get a back up (another MM if I find one cheap enough). The MM2 would call for a better set of lenses. While that would be a good thing to have, I can not afford them all at once. The original MM can take any beat up, old lens and still deliver (unlike what was claimed at its debut).
 

just4fun

Member
I use B&W film if I need true BW
For digital B&W, I rather shoot raw color then convert to BW (I can control the tone or digitally add color filters)
 

seakayaker

Active member
At this point Other is way out in front in the Derby, but it's hard to tell what Other is.

I wonder how many Others would use digital color and convert?

Or how many would use the MM they already own?

Kirk
I voted for 'Other' since the Monochrome (1st version) was not listed and there was no option for doing a project using both a monochrome and film which would be an approach that I would/could use.

Converting color to B&W should be a separate option. So the polling questions, if expanded may produce different results.
 
Agreed! I asked bcz like you and Vivek, I'd just continue using my MM and wouldn't change in mid-stream.

Kirk

PS, unlike Vivek, I don't expect the M260 to be so much better in resolution as to require different lenses. My thoughts run in the other direction: with higher ISOs, can't I just use Summicrons and sometimes even stop down?

If I upgraded to 260 I'd enjoy Live View for WA landscapes, for which I use WATE and MATE. For other work I'd just use my Mandler lenses and expect more shadow detail, and hopefully more headroom for the highlights.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
My "other" is primarily a MM-v1.

I can't advise you on your project because I don't know what your intent may be or what aesthetics would be appropriate to accomplish that intent.

I am currently doing an on-going B&W project with the MM for a few reasons: I prefer a rangefinder for what and how I shoot; a B&W dedicated camera helps me think with a B&W mindset; the MM v1 has some of the "gritty" attributes of 400 speed B&W film, or pushed B&W film.

I'm not after 35mm that looks like MF.

- Marc
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Agreed! I asked bcz like you and Vivek, I'd just continue using my MM and wouldn't change in mid-stream.

Kirk

PS, unlike Vivek, I don't expect the M260 to be so much better in resolution as to require different lenses. My thoughts run in the other direction: with higher ISOs, can't I just use Summicrons and sometimes even stop down?

If I upgraded to 260 I'd enjoy Live View for WA landscapes, for which I use WATE and MATE. For other work I'd just use my Mandler lenses and expect more shadow detail, and hopefully more headroom for the highlights.
Kirk, It is more to do with the MM being an "ISO less" camera. I just keep it at base ISO all the time and can reach the highest ISO (when exposed "properly") in the post with ease. I think the transmission characteristics of the MM2's covergalss is different. I would like to see a transmission chart like they showed for the MM before speculating on the effects it would have on images.
 

aDam007

New member
Kirk, It is more to do with the MM being an "ISO less" camera. I just keep it at base ISO all the time and can reach the highest ISO (when exposed "properly") in the post with ease. I think the transmission characteristics of the MM2's covergalss is different. I would like to see a transmission chart like they showed for the MM before speculating on the effects it would have on images.
Since I rarely chimp, I think that's a pretty decent idea Vivek.

Usually my shooting style is this: Indoors with no natural light 1600 ISO, indoors with lots of natural light 400-800 ISO, outdoors shade 200-400 ISO, sunny 200 ISO. I generally keep my lenses wide open, unless something specific requires me to change my setting. That allows me to focus on only changing my shutter speed to suit the light and look I'm going for.

But back to your idea. With the M246, if like the M9 and M9M where there's no adverse effects to just setting one iso and pushing.. Then I think I would always leave the M246 on base ISO, and just shoot my desired aperture (usually wide open), and a shutter speed that's fast outdoors and moderate indoors. So maybe 4000th outside, 500th in the shade and 125-250th indoors. No green color shift to worry about, and then if I like something to really pop out of the background, I selectively lighten it using the brush tool. No overexposed highlights.. Perfect.

Now I just need to decide if I want to be limited to black and white images :D
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I didn't vote since, by my previous response, my vote would necessarily be "other" given the current poll choices.

I find the M-P240 raw files just as easy to manipulate, if not moreso, as the M9 files. Whatever is meant by ISO-less, I can bring up vastly underexposed image areas with the CMOSIS sensor just as easily and with the same quality as I could with the M9 sensor. I see no reason that the same characteristics will not apply to the MM246 CMOSIS sensor, albeit in monochrome only.

I did a brief test of the ISO-less raw characteristics with the M9 a long time ago and the results were very good. I guess I'll repeat that test with the M-P, and the MM246 when I get it.

By and large, however, what I'm finding is that the out-of-camera M-P JPEGs, when properly exposed, are FAR more to my liking than what came out of the M9. Of the last two sets of photos I posted, seven in total, four were processed from the M-P JPEGs with extremely little additional tweaking in LR. I could never do that with the M9 to my satisfaction. You can't use the ISO-less feature when making JPEG output. This makes using proper exposure for a sensitivity setting more useful as you can output both a full-fledged raw file as well as a reasonably well balanced JPEG in B&W simultaneously.

I'm keeping at least my M4-2, maybe the CL as well, and when the MM246 arrives I'll have all these cameras as choices when working a project. To me, that's the right way to go as each camera and each recording medium has its specific advantages and aesthetic appeal—I just have to decide what the project's focus and intent are, and use the equipment appropriately to achieve that.

G
 

algrove

Well-known member
Kirk, For me, it is the MM for B&W. I have splendid set of lenses, filters and the doodahs for it. Hoping to get a back up (another MM if I find one cheap enough). The MM2 would call for a better set of lenses. While that would be a good thing to have, I can not afford them all at once. The original MM can take any beat up, old lens and still deliver (unlike what was claimed at its debut).
Be patient my friend. You will be rearded as used MM's just might get to US$3k next year.
 

algrove

Well-known member
I guess everybody knows there is a new FW for the M246 and that is before even one has been delivered!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I guess everybody knows there is a new FW for the M246 and that is before even one has been delivered!
I didn't, but it is academic. I don't honestly expect my MM246 order to be fulfilled before Fall at earliest. When I get it, I'll just look to see what version firmware is on it and what's then available for download and installation.

There do seem to be a few near-final-production MM246s in the hands of reviewers and testers so I suspect that Leica posted the fw update so that they could easily obtain and install the latest for their testing efforts.

G
 
Top