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 R U former MM1 and now M246 Shooters Getting Along?
- Thread starter turtle
- Start date
V
Vivek
Guest
That is correct, Ed.
Currently I have 3 (the count is correct) monochrome bodies. The MM, 2 debayered NEX-5Ns and a debayered Panasonic GX. The GX has a bit of a problem (result of debayering). The MM is with a CCD sensor (battery lasts forever) and the rest CMOS with live view.
The question to ask oneself is what if any makes the MM (1,2) special. If you adore RF the answer is super simple.
Currently I have 3 (the count is correct) monochrome bodies. The MM, 2 debayered NEX-5Ns and a debayered Panasonic GX. The GX has a bit of a problem (result of debayering). The MM is with a CCD sensor (battery lasts forever) and the rest CMOS with live view.
The question to ask oneself is what if any makes the MM (1,2) special. If you adore RF the answer is super simple.
jonoslack
Active member
Eh? What? Me?
I think it might be a while before we have another Monochrom to test . . .but who knows?
I'm just rather humbled by how much work you guys put into the files - I treat every one differently (except the ones I delete - which is most of them).
I prefer the new M246, but it's pretty marginal and it's functional rather than IQ based . . . .
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Likewise; the M240 and the M246 work in pretty much the same way, makes it much easier on the little grey cells.
.
The same if one works with tle M9 and MM1. In both senarios it makes things so much easier.
Dave (D&A).
.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I was actually thinking the exact same thing. All of the images are good but I think the MM9 has a bit more to it in IQ compared to the M246 IMO from what I've seen so far on the outside looking in.Jim, I'm only viewing on a cell phone at the moment, but I much prefer your original MM images in this set of images, especially the tonality. I realize its subjective and is dependant on lighting, subject matter and post processing as much as anything else. I've had the chance to work with both monochroms and like yourself agree with Ashwins fine assessment and comparison of the two.
By the way, in that last shot, is that gentleman holding a prototype of the future 3rd generation of Leica monochrom?its size is in line with new SL
Dave
interesting thread. i sold an MM and M9 to consolidate my RF kit into an M240. i don't miss the M9 much after acclimating to the M240, but i do miss the MM. i think BW conversions from M240 files are quite nice, but i really liked the latitude of the MM files, in some ways like working with good scans of med format film.
i agree with the point that moving from the ccd to the cmos cameras is less about image quality and more about in-use experience. i just prefer shooting the M240 by a wide margin. i would like to add an M246 but $wise it's not in the cards.
i agree with the point that moving from the ccd to the cmos cameras is less about image quality and more about in-use experience. i just prefer shooting the M240 by a wide margin. i would like to add an M246 but $wise it's not in the cards.
so many variables in post processing; tough to make any definitive image quality comparisons. somehow i feel it was easier to get what i wanted with the M9 version, but i'm quite satisfied with the 246, just a slightly different post, and quite subjective and image dependent.
it is really about the features and extra pixels
it is really about the features and extra pixels
thompsonkirk
Member
I like the photographs, especially the third; but is something accomplished here, in terms of tonality, that would differ from MM files?
(Hard to tell from images on a monitor, rather than printed. So I have to ask!)
Kirk
(Hard to tell from images on a monitor, rather than printed. So I have to ask!)
Kirk
Hello Ashwin, for my 2cents worth my experiences are pretty much the same as yours. Meaning I also had a M9 Mono and shifted to the 246 and I think you are spot-on.
I also moved from the M9-P to the M-P 240 at the same time. I also agonised over the colour (like you and others), now I am quite happy, its just a bit different.
I do not think I would go back but would like the next M to be smaller and lighter...
One Old lens that does work well on the M246 is the 1963 Rigid summicron. One that is less successful on the M-P 240 and M246 than the M9-P and MM is the F1.0 Noctilux. On the older cameras I prfer it but I suspect the current f0.95 will be a better match for the newer cameras.
Kirk, its as though you read my mind as I was thinking much the same thing. Then again it must be remembered that not only preferences in how the files are post processed as well as the subjectivity of the technical aspects of B&W imagey, play an equally important role in how the final product is viewed.
Dave (D&A)
Tonality, perhaps and overall feel of the two cameras for me is somewhat different.
Forgive the following analogy ... might work. The M246 files remind me of Acros and the MM more of PlusX or TriX when pushed.
M246 more like Diafine than Rodinal ... the pictures were an attempt to show that the spectrum of available tones is similar ... what
gets my attention is the ability to manipulate the files without them seeming too processed. It is not just that you have to add more
sharpening ... it is that you can do so and maintain a wonderful transparent feel to the end result ... edges just sharp enough without
excessive bite or texture in the overall feel of the picture. This is a the low ISOs of the cameras ... I have not played with the M246 at
highest ISO equivalents to discern if there is a tipping point that obviates my thoughts above.
I might add that it seems like the M246 is more like a print from a diffusion enlarger than that from a condenser enlarger. Somewhat flatter
and in need of a bit more work with curves to add contrast.
Overexposure on the M246 is like a brick wall ... nothing to recover if the highlights are overexposed and the meter in camera does not always
protect you from it occurring ... even a - 2/3 stop at times leaves one with burnt out sky in extreme areas. Pulling up shadows at lower ISO
seems relatively safe in contrast to the highlights. But many times one will prefer the highlight to land at the limit or above if the scene is
to appear as you envisioned it.
As Dave pointed out ... subjectivity and preference play a huge part in how the camera files will be processed ... it is great that we do
have the ability to work with a neutral enough digital negative rather than accept a firmly baked in look from the start.
Bob
Actually it sounds like a good description of me ... intermittently.
But just a guess ...
Sounds like either a slow SD Card or you have review on and it is slowing down perceived responsiveness.
You might try turning off image review and see if it makes a difference.
Bob
Bob, an excellent descriptive anology of some of the differences between the MM1 and M246. Like thr film snd developers tou described, often one has to choose what kind of look they are hoping to achieve, especially based on the subject matter. Often we look for "bite" and hard edges, other times a smooth and gentle tonality. Each of these monochroms like selective a particular B&W film will lean or be biased to one of these looks.
If we want a different look with one of these cameras, them ee have to try and make it work. In other words if one uses the MM1, the user will have to learn how to take the hard edge or higher contrast off thr image and likewise the opposite with the M246. Obviously each camera will excell at one or the other.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited: