Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: monocrome owners

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    354
    Post Thanks / Like

    monocrome owners

    do you guys find the monochrome images much better then m9 b&w?

    details please.

    hard to tell from online images sometimes.


    thanks

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    I do.

    "Yes, the difference between MM and M9 images at full resolution is subtle rather than dramatic. It is, however, always, consistently there. And zooming deep into the DNG files in Lightroom reveals a level of detail and acuity I’ve not seen before. M9 files have always been robust. MM files take that to a whole new level."

    Leica M Monochrom

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    354
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    for b&w with my .95 i find myself at 1600 iso often indoors.

    is this where the difference with mono images really shines at higher iso?


    btw is the increased details noticeable in smaller image sizes like 8x12 and 16x24 as i tend to print those sizes often.


    thanks for the experience.

  4. #4
    Senior Member chrism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    It might be the attitude that pertains when you pick up the camera and go to take the photo. I don't even think about it when I take up a film M with B&W film in it (I know; it shows!) but surely when a photo has to be monochrome I should be thinking in terms of luminance contrasts rather than colour contrasts, and perhaps I do that, though possibly it is an automatic or subconscious thing if I do; I would feel pretentious if I claimed it to be true for me. Whichever camera is in my hands, my only conscious thoughts are more to do with framing, composition or content such that the picture, rather than the colour or greyscale contrasts, is what I intend. I can't claim to be any good at that either. I'm one of those people that take quite a lot of pictures and enjoy the pleasant surprise when one of them provides some kind of aesthetic feeling to me. Hey, it's harmless and probably keeps me from doing something that might be less desirable.....

    Chris
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    354
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    seems to me that yes the mono resolves more details and the whole b&w mindsight locked in when shooting and also the higher iso qualities is what makes the mono the great....but

    with a 2-3 month wait and the new "M" with higher iso and more resolving sensor and less $$$ coming in early 2013 (March 2013?), it is making my decision really tough.


    maybe just wait for the new "M"?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    Wait and see what the new "M" can do.

    If you primarily convert color images to monochrome, get the M Monochrom.

    Still waiting for mine. It and the M9 will be a matched pair. I think the "M" will suit a lot of people, but I have waited for the M Monochrom for almost three years. So another month or two- not a problem.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    I admit from first impressions I dont see much difference between the MM and M9 at base ISO. But maybe my technique is also not perfect to get the least sharpness (I like handhold shooting for example)....
    Just for fun I also compare the MM with the S2 at pixel level (S2:70mm, MM:75 Summicron, both at f5.6) and the S2 seems to slightly render more detail even at pixel level, but also more noise than the MM even at ISO 320 for both)

    Overall I am very happy with detail of M9 and MM.
    The S2 sometimes shows detail which allmost feels more than what I can see with my eyes when looking at the subject in real.

    For me the biggest reason for the MM was simplicity and forcing me to do b&w when I use this camera and the freedom for high ISOs.
    I have not enough experience with the MM to comment if the tonality is different.

    edit...I did some further comparisons now and feel that the MM does show more detail at ISO 320 and it also does show a different tonality. The difference between the S2 and the Ms seems more lens related - if you go off center the S2 lenses seem to sill deliver exceptional contrast and detail, even better than the M-glass.

    Overall I stay to my comment that I am happy with all 3. I like the b&w shots from the MM a lot, I love the exceptional detail of the S2 all over the frame, and I like the little more "character full" rendering of the M lenses. All 3 are different.
    I am at the point that I have to say further direct comparisons are useless to me, all three deliver exceptional results. If I had to choose between the M9/M and MM for one camera I would take the M9 (or M) because the b&w is allmost as good as the MM and the color is much better than the color of the MM
    Last edited by Paratom; 22nd September 2012 at 05:50.

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    Paratom Wrote>>>"Overall I stay to my comment that I am happy with all 3. I like the b&w shots from the MM a lot, I love the exceptional detail of the S2 all over the frame, and I like the little more "character full" rendering of the M lenses. All 3 are different."<<<

    After working with the files from all 3 cameras (although I only own one of them), I sort of feel the same way. The MM B&W files aapear to have more of a distinction from M9 B&W images the more the MM is pushed, not only with using higher ISO, but how the image was exposed and subsequently the resulting tonality exhibited in post processing.

    The S2 files appeared not only acutely sharp but subject redering as you say was often too perfect. It reminded me more of digital perfection as opposed to the image appearing film like in some instances, but of course its quite subjective. It's not so much the camera but the superb S2 lenses I beleive for use of the Pentax 645D which has a very similar sensor uses lenses designed in the film era and this often gives sharp results but with a roundness to the image, not seen in S2 shots. This then may be partially the reason why M( images have a bot of both attributes, depending on the lens used. Images from lenses like the 35mm FLE and to a degree the 50mm Lux asph, give a near techically perfect rendering, while lenses somewhat older in design (some asph and some not), give sharp results but with a more rounded look to the image. Such lenses might incluse the 35mm Lux asph (pre FLE), the 50mm Lux, the 35mm cron ver IV and many others of course.

    All very interesting and I've been enjoying reading the thoughts provided by MM uses and of course the images they've posted.

    Dave (D&A)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    354
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    seems for my purposes, the MM is all about better iso quality.


    seems the increased detail offered by the MM is only slight and only noticeable in big prints.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Paratom Wrote>>>"Overall I stay to my comment that I am happy with all 3. I like the b&w shots from the MM a lot, I love the exceptional detail of the S2 all over the frame, and I like the little more "character full" rendering of the M lenses. All 3 are different."<<<

    After working with the files from all 3 cameras (although I only own one of them), I sort of feel the same way. The MM B&W files aapear to have more of a distinction from M9 B&W images the more the MM is pushed, not only with using higher ISO, but how the image was exposed and subsequently the resulting tonality exhibited in post processing.

    The S2 files appeared not only acutely sharp but subject redering as you say was often too perfect. It reminded me more of digital perfection as opposed to the image appearing film like in some instances, but of course its quite subjective. It's not so much the camera but the superb S2 lenses I beleive for use of the Pentax 645D which has a very similar sensor uses lenses designed in the film era and this often gives sharp results but with a roundness to the image, not seen in S2 shots. This then may be partially the reason why M( images have a bot of both attributes, depending on the lens used. Images from lenses like the 35mm FLE and to a degree the 50mm Lux asph, give a near techically perfect rendering, while lenses somewhat older in design (some asph and some not), give sharp results but with a more rounded look to the image. Such lenses might incluse the 35mm Lux asph (pre FLE), the 50mm Lux, the 35mm cron ver IV and many others of course.

    All very interesting and I've been enjoying reading the thoughts provided by MM uses and of course the images they've posted.

    Dave (D&A)
    Dave,
    I dont find the S-lenses clinical or anything like that. Its just some m-lenses give images a certain "look" while the S-lenses "stay more in the background".
    For some things I like the M-look - for other purpose I prefer the "more neutral" S-lenses.
    Tom

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    Quote Originally Posted by gooomz View Post
    seems for my purposes, the MM is all about better iso quality.
    seems the increased detail offered by the MM is only slight and only noticeable in big prints.
    groomz: I'll have to go back and read this whole thread, but, I think the increased detail's noticeable in small (8.5 x 11) prints.

    Cheers, Matt

  12. #12
    Senior Member CharlesK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    730
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: monocrome owners

    Quote Originally Posted by gooomz View Post
    do you guys find the monochrome images much better then m9 b&w?
    details please.

    hard to tell from online images sometimes.
    thanks
    I feel the M-M is superior in IQ, once you have a good workflow. M9 is amazing in IQ for B&W, with the added flexibility to adjust light channels to get the effect you wish. But the M-M has incredible details embedded in the DNG files. More importantly the depth of tonality is amazing, and I think, as more support comes out in different programs, it will be a lot easier to PP.
    Charles Kalnins
    Tallai, Queensland Australia.

    http://kalnins.zenfolio.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •