Leica Monochrom Field Test

[Jorgen Udvang]

I probably couldn't afford vintage shoe racing. Still, I believe in paying for something that is going to reward you more than the sticker price. I am happy to buy a really great camera that is going to give me years and maybe decades of enjoyment. And one really great camera is better than two OK cameras.

I can subscribe to all of that, and this is one of the headaches of modern photography; while buying decades old lenses that still work great is no problem, but when it comes to digital camera bodies, that is much harder. To start with, very few bodies, except those weighing a kilogram or more, seem to be built to take abuse over time, and then there's the sensor thing. Even though I can probably live with a sensor that is 10 years or older, I don't only take photos for my own enjoyment, and the question will arise occasionally: Why can't you take photos in the dark like anybody else? Why don't your photos have smell/3D/small bunnies running around in the hair of the beautiful girl that you just captured a photo of?

While the MM is undoubtedly state of the art in many respects as of today, except for build quality, it will most probably be overshadowed by some new tool/toy 5 or 10 years into the future. That, of course, will not make it a lesser toy than it is today, but expectations rise.

 

[StephenPatterson]

While the MM is undoubtedly state of the art in many respects as of today, except for build quality, it will most probably be overshadowed by some new tool/toy 5 or 10 years into the future. That, of course, will not make it a lesser toy than it is today, but expectations rise.

I actually believe we are at one of those technological plateaus where the improvements being made will not be as earth shattering as those of a few years ago.

The M3 was a major leap forward when compared to the IIIf, and many Leica users upgraded to the new system with it's improved rangefinder/viewfinder/frame lines, bayonet mounting system, improved film loading, etc. Throughout the next 45 years there were many small improvements to the M line, but these were mostly incremental steps to refine the basic version. When the radical M5 was introduced it was so unpopular that the M4 was called back into service, and it was not until the introduction of the M6, which basically added the features of the M5 to the body of the M4, that the Leica faithful were pleased. And while the M8 went through it's initial teething pains it was, in many respects, a game changer.

I believe the upcoming M10 is a reincarnation of the M5, and that while it will be more advanced with live view, video, etc. it is a half hearted attempt to bridge the gap between the old and new. Will it be able to capture better images than the MM or M9 (or the M8)? Perhaps, in the right hands, but I believe most people viewing images and prints will not see a difference, and certainly will not be able to say that this image must have come from an M10 and this MM or M9 image is somehow not as good. For the truth is that the M8, the M9 and the MM are as good as most of us need, now and in the future, and the added bulk and hybrid viewing system of the M10 will be a detraction for many.

 

[Brian S]

Future improvements:
Dynamic Range, especialy on the high-end for charge well capacity. This would prevent highlights from being blown out. This seems to be the direction that the Nikon D4 went. 16MPixels, increased dynamic range.

Spectral Response of the Detector: eliminate IR response of sensors used for visible-light photography, to eliminate the need for IR filters. Kodak did a good job in shifting spectral response into the visible range compared with the first generation detectors, but 30% or so of the response is still in IR. In the early days of using Photodetectors to replace CDS cells, Gallium-Arsenide detectors were used in some cameras (Nikon FM, Pentax MX, Konica FS-1) as the response is much closer to film. Silicon cells with IR blocking filters were cheaper.

 

[fotografz]

I actually believe we are at one of those technological plateaus where the improvements being made will not be as earth shattering as those of a few years ago.

The M3 was a major leap forward when compared to the IIIf, and many Leica users upgraded to the new system with it's improved rangefinder/viewfinder/frame lines, bayonet mounting system, improved film loading, etc. Throughout the next 45 years there were many small improvements to the M line, but these were mostly incremental steps to refine the basic version. When the radical M5 was introduced it was so unpopular that the M4 was called back into service, and it was not until the introduction of the M6, which basically added the features of the M5 to the body of the M4, that the Leica faithful were pleased. And while the M8 went through it's initial teething pains it was, in many respects, a game changer.

I believe the upcoming M10 is a reincarnation of the M5, and that while it will be more advanced with live view, video, etc. it is a half hearted attempt to bridge the gap between the old and new. Will it be able to capture better images than the MM or M9 (or the M8)? Perhaps, in the right hands, but I believe most people viewing images and prints will not see a difference, and certainly will not be able to say that this image must have come from an M10 and this MM or M9 image is somehow not as good. For the truth is that the M8, the M9 and the MM are as good as most of us need, now and in the future, and the added bulk and hybrid viewing system of the M10 will be a detraction for many.

I tend to agree. However, that presupposes a bent toward the rangefinder style photography which is not as prevalent as we may think it is, even amongst M users. Witness the call for all sorts of distracting do-dads to "modernize" the M camera, most of which aren't needed to carry on doing the type of work rangefinders excel at.

The other aspect of improvement to an existing camera like the M8/M9/MM can happen outside the camera itself with software advancements. It is amazing what can be done with a RAW file from some 5 year old camera run through PP in today's RAW programs. I think that will continue to improve the files of existing cameras well into the future.

The M5 might not be the best analogy ... its downfall was size, not features ... as proved by the M6. It will be interesting to see how things like a clip-on EVF will be implemented with the M10 and how well a CMOS sensor compares to the CCD of the M9. If the M10 retains the rangefinder as we know it, stays the same size or is even wee-bit smaller, produces IQ that equals or bests the M9 while providing higher ISOs ... and providing all the other do-dads can be ignored ... the M10 will be a viable rangefinder tool, and perhaps the last great M strictly for the rangefinder style of photography.

We will know soon enough.

-Marc

 

[woodyspedden]

Thank you for posting this.

It was great to see young, enthusiastic street shooters who actually get what rangefinder photography is all about, :thumbup: ... instead of competitive/comparative whining about boutique positioning and missing electronic toys and such.

If my upcoming eye surgery to remove advanced cataracts, and the use of replacement lenses to correct my astigmatism is successful, my eyes will be more like theirs again, and I can get back to M photography like I did once before ... when the only camera I owned was a M, and the only film I ever used in it was B&W.

Maybe with a Monochrome ... I even have a complete collection of Leica colored filters that I never sold

Thanks so much for the link! Exciting and inspiring!

-Marc

Hey Marc

+1 on advanced cataract surgery. I get the left eye done on 9/16 and the right eye on 10/18. i can't wait because M9 focusing is so difficult for me now and as cataracts are basically yellow filters, my color vision is distorted.

good luck with yours

Woody

 

[docmoore]

cataracts are basically yellow filters

Very dirty, distorting yellow filters....

Bob

 

[iiiNelson]

Looking forward to the MM. Considered selling my M9-P to cover cost once the M10 arrives but I will probably keep it and just pay for the MM.

 

[StephenPatterson]

Jono's shots and write up have convinced me that once the initial furor dies down I'm going to swap my backup M9 for an MM. I still believe I can create B&W images with my M9 that will for the most part be indistinguishable from those of the MM, but in reviewing my archives from last year I see that more than 50% of my DNG keepers are B&W, plus the advantage of very high useful ISO and improved dynamic range lead me to believe that this camera could be a useful tool for my particular style of photography.

Of course at the present rate of delivery this might not happen until well into 2013.

 

[algrove]

Stephen- Agree with your post. I was in New Orleans (before the storm approached) and REALLY needed more ISO in those Jazz Clubs. I was using ISO 1250 on an M9 and as expected the shadow details are just very noisy, but that has never stopped me from PPing them in the past. Now the clubs/musicians might not even exist/still be there, when I am scheduled to return in November. That's the shame.

Next week, next week. The fever will begin!

Just be careful as the increased resolution of the APO 50 might just be a useful "tool" in the future also.

 

[chrism]

I've just had an e-mail to tell me my MM is in Montreal and will be moving Eastwards. Exciting!

Chris