How R U former MM1 and now M246 Shooters Getting Along?

[mmbma]

I was tempted to say that the MM and M246 are so similar in terms if IQ that its minute differences would be totally shadowed by the actual quality of the picture itself to be moot. But, I guess the reason we picked up a Monochrom in the first place is because we care about these tiny differences, otherwise we would just use the M240 to convert.

Never laid hands on a M246, but I'd venture a guess that the real differences are in the functionality of the cameras and the malleability of the files (LV, etc.), rather than real IQ. However the difference between MM and M246 would be less than that of M9 and M240. The difference in CCD vs CMOS would more more obvious in the color application IMO

 

[Jon Warwick]

I was tempted to say that the MM and M246 are so similar in terms if IQ that its minute differences would be totally shadowed by the actual quality of the picture itself to be moot. But, I guess the reason we picked up a Monochrom in the first place is because we care about these tiny differences, otherwise we would just use the M240 to convert.

Never laid hands on a M246, but I'd venture a guess that the real differences are in the functionality of the cameras and the malleability of the files (LV, etc.), rather than real IQ. However the difference between MM and M246 would be less than that of M9 and M240. The difference in CCD vs CMOS would more more obvious in the color application IMO

The M246, on a brief use, seems to produce files that more resemble converted M240 files. The MM was more aggressive in terms of edge sharpness / acuity and the images had real "snap", whereas both the M246 and M240 seem a lot more similar in terms of being relatively smoother (and having more dynamic range).

I think the MM was an obvious step-up in B&W image quality over the M9 .... but I'm not sure the same can be said about converted M240s vs. M246? .... for example, many online reviews could see no major difference in resolution between the M240 and M246.

That was always a MAJOR surprise to me -- what's happening on the M246 that one cannot not see an obvious resolution benefit of it having no Bayer Filter (and recording just luminance values) over the M240?

 

[mmbma]

The M246, on a brief use, seems to produce files that more resemble converted M240 files. The MM was more aggressive in terms of edge sharpness / acuity and the images had real "snap", whereas both the M246 and M240 seem a lot more similar in terms of being relatively smoother (and having more dynamic range).

I think the MM was an obvious step-up in B&W image quality over the M9 .... but I'm not sure the same can be said about converted M240s vs. M246? .... for example, many online reviews could see no major difference in resolution between the M240 and M246.

That was always a MAJOR surprise to me -- what's happening on the M246 that one cannot not see an obvious resolution benefit of it having no Bayer Filter (and recording just luminance values) over the M240?

the m240 really is a one camera solves all solution for me. but the MM has a psychological appeal that one cannot deny.
Truthfully I found I yield better photos from the m240 because of highlight recovery from color files vs fully blown on the monochom

 

[docmoore]

Yet


The 246 can do this ...

https://vimeo.com/147254517

Password : daysend

Bob

 

[D&A]

Very nice Bob. Although I rarely shoot video, it obvious the 246 has some distinct advantages.

Dave (D&A)

 

[D&A]

The M246, on a brief use, seems to produce files that more resemble converted M240 files. The MM was more aggressive in terms of edge sharpness / acuity and the images had real "snap", whereas both the M246 and M240 seem a lot more similar in terms of being relatively smoother (and having more dynamic range).

I think the MM was an obvious step-up in B&W image quality over the M9 .... but I'm not sure the same can be said about converted M240s vs. M246? .... for example, many online reviews could see no major difference in resolution between the M240 and M246.

That was always a MAJOR surprise to me -- what's happening on the M246 that one cannot not see an obvious resolution benefit of it having no Bayer Filter (and recording just luminance values) over the M240?

I think one of the questions that comes out of what you expressed is what advantahes (if any image wise) might the original MM have over the M246?

Dave (D&A)