Special edition Monochrom is SEXY

[bubuli]

hi Max

thanks for the clarification. from the way you originally wrote, it seems that you're alluding to the M240 *files* to be "too digital" since you compared M9 files to "medium format digital"...which i don't agree with either (having owned an M9 for a year) but i'm digressing.

i'm not a fan of the new additional features of the M240 either (i have yet to press the "movie" button just out of spite) but to be honest, the new features never got in the way and i find it quite odd for anyone to complain about them. for example, i'd be pissed if Leica puts EVF in the RF window itself...but thankfully they didn't do that.

 

[Paratom]

With the term "too digital" I meant the new M is full of an abundance of features and is IMO to a certain degree neglecting one of its core values: simplicity.
I'm under the impression that it's trying to be a "one for all" kind of camera and by trying to please everyone, it fails to please me. The reason I chose the M system was because I did not want to have tons of features that I never use and which now seem to compromise the cameras design. For instance, what I dislike most is the movie mode: A new button next to the shutter release and four stupid holes on top for rain and dust to creep in. And it's sad that features like the frameline preview lever were condemned and that the frameline illumination only works with a battery etc. etc. All of this contributes to what feels to me "too digital".

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that Leica is constantly trying to improve their M system. There were a lot of great improvements being made. And if this new camera speaks to a lot of potentially new customers it's great. In fact when I first heard about it on the day they presented that video I was really excited. It just faded away when I first shot it...


I know I'll get bashed for this and probably deserve it, but I feel like the new M is (at least by my standards) more of a consumer product than aiming to be a prefessional's camera.
...

I was afraid the M would not have that simplicity which I liked with the M6/M8/M9…but after using it for some weeks I do find it just as simple, maybe even simpler because it handles faster, has a better display and a more discrete shutter plus more reliable battery. I don't use the EVF by the way.
Tom

 

[asiafish]

High quality CCD sensor, yes. But, better sensors are being made like the M240. More of an urban-photography legend probably perpetuated by those that own it... simple rationalization, IMHO.

Sure, high ISO is always a consideration. It allows for more degrees of freedom in selection of slower lenses and faster shutter speeds, for example.

There is a different look to CCD and CMOS. Neither is better, they are different. Within those categories there are sensors that have a better look than others.

The M Monochrom sensor is such a sensor, as is the sensor used in the Nikon D4 and now Df. A CMOS Monochrom would likely have even better high ISO noise performance than the current CCD Monochrom which is an evolution of of the 4-year-old M9 sensor, itself known for the very pleasing look to the images it records.

A CMOS Monochrom would benefit just as the CCD monochrome has from the lack of bayer array, and it would benefit as the M240 does from live view, movie recording (if Leica enabled it) and the like. Still, just as many M9 photographers prefer their images to those from the M240 (and likely just as many or more M240 users prefer theirs to the M9), so too would a CMOS Monochrom produce a different look than the current CCD Monochrom.

What would I like to see? A CCD Monochrom with the weather sealed body, better frame lines and improved LCD of the M240, but without the CMOS sensor.

 

[asiafish]

I can also take any M file and get results equal to or better than the Monochrom files I took for a while.

BS.

 

[bradhusick]

BS.

Huh? Why would I lie about this? I owned both cameras. Perhaps our levels of software skills are different.

 

[asiafish]

For what its worth, I'd love to own an M240, and have borrowed one a few times. It is a very nice camera, but try as I may, I could not get it to equal the results of the M Monochrom in any LR or Silver Efex conversion. It does produce a nice B&W conversion, but so does my Leica X2 and Canon 6D. The M Monochrom is simply on a whole other level when it comes to black and white.

If you aren't getting better B&W quality out of the Monochrom then you are either blowing highlights (easy to do, ALWAYS underexpose as the shadows are infinite) and/or you haven't discovered the joys of colored filters in front of your lenses. Colored filters unlike color filter effects in LR (which don't work on MM files) do not take any information out of the file.

The MM also responds very well to vintage or less than stellar lenses. My favorite lens on the MM is an uncoated 1937 Carl Zeiss Sonnar 5cm f/1.5 which is a lower contrast lens than anything made today. On the Monochrom it is simply magical. The images below were taken at ISO 5000 for the indoor shots and ISO 320 for the outdoor, with a yellow filter in front of the 1937 Sonnar. Minimal post. Please excuse the dusty sensor.


L1001067-Edit by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001090-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001149-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr

 

[asiafish]

Huh? Why would I lie about this? I owned both cameras. Perhaps our levels of software skills are different.

My guess is either you didn't use colored filters on your lenses (which the MM really needs) or otherwise didn't shoot to the advantages of that camera. Shot like a normal digital the results are flat and underwhelming, but shot like black and white film it is spectacular.

I don't think you were lying, but I also don't believe that converted M240 images come close to native MM files.

 

[bradhusick]

Nice images. I still stand by my comments so we will simply disagree.

 

[asiafish]

Did you use color filters in front of your lenses? Without them, M Monochrom files tend to be very flat. Ditto the M Monochrom does much better with lower contrast glass. It is a finicky beast, but worth the effort.

 

[bradhusick]

I chose not to use colored filters as it doesn't fit my workflow. I do use Lightroom and SilverEfex with aplomb and like the results. I have used the MM with vintage lenses and do like the results. It was simply not better than the M240 enough to justify a $7995 investment in the MM in addition to the M240.

 

[D&A]

Asiafish Wrote: >>>"What would I like to see? A CCD Monochrom with the weather sealed body, better frame lines and improved LCD of the M240, but without the CMOS sensor"<<<

I too would like to see that (what you wrote above), as well as a color CCD Leica rangefinder with the weather sealed body, better frame lines and improved LCD of the M240, but without the CMOS sensor".

Thirdly I'd like to see me win the lottery so I can purchase both of these very desirable cameras.

Dave (D&A)

 

[asiafish]

Not better enough to justify the cost is entirely subjective. The point is, the MM is definitely better, and while it may not fit your workflow, it is better still with colored filters, just as black and white film is.

 

[bradhusick]

Photography is subjective.

 

[Double Negative]

I've done some research into the MM vs. "MM240" and I have to say, all samples I've seen still give the MM the edge. Not just in detail, but in high-ISO capability. There's also the 14-bits of tonality (16,384 shades of grey). I honestly don't see how the M240 can possibly match it. No doubt, it comes close - perhaps even very close at times. In the end, it comes down to what your output needs are. If you're posting JPGs on the 'net, then sure. Either will do just fine. But the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Besides, the M240 is still an M240 - whether you desaturate or not. The MM still has plenty of life left in it if you ask me.

 

[Vivek]

Besides, the M240 is still an M240 - whether you desaturate or not.

You do not seem to a fan of the M (240), Michael!

BTW, congratulations on the MM!

Currently, element-m, in my view, is the poster boy for the MM. That is an envious position to be in as many of the talented folks who post in the thread started by Brad ("fun with..") and their work is jaw dropping.

I have already stated one of reasons for my purchase of the MM is, shockingly, it is still the cheapest monochrome camera in the market. Who would have thought the Hermes fans would come up with such a thing!

 

[Double Negative]

You do not seem to a fan of the M (240), Michael!

BTW, congratulations on the MM!

Currently, element-m, in my view, is the poster boy for the MM. That is an envious position to be in as many of the talented folks who post in the thread started by Brad ("fun with..") and their work is jaw dropping.

LOL! Yeah, I don't know what my deal is with the M240. Totally not my bag, baby.

Thanks! Will be waiting for me on arrival.

I would agree, element-m rocks the MM. Though others also have some truly outstanding work as well; Ashwin, Woody, Brad, etc. I guess in the end, what really matters - is who's driving.

 

[asiafish]

LOL! Yeah, I don't know what my deal is with the M240. Totally not my bag, baby.

Thanks! Will be waiting for me on arrival.

I would agree, element-m rocks the MM. Though others also have some truly outstanding work as well; Ashwin, Woody, Brad, etc. I guess in the end, what really matters - is who's driving.

Element-M is clearly (at present) the reigning king of the MM, though in the months that I've been posting in that thread I've noticed all of the usual suspects' work steadily improving. The Monochrom is definitely not a "happy snap" sort of camera, and practice definitely makes perfect.

Ashwin has also shown just how well the MM pairs with vintage glass.

 

[Double Negative]

^ Definitely...

Some more closing thoughts:

One thing that bears mentioning with the MM (as opposed to the M240) is that it will work with pretty much ANY lens - and not introduce odd colorization (e.g. "red edge") which would thus transfer to your B&W conversion.

While the M240 converted files do get close, the ultimate "clarity" of details is better with the MM, despite the lower-MP sensor. The ISO - the MM goes to 10,000 and is still absolutely usable. The M240 tops out at ~6,400, depending. There's also the compromise of DR at higher ISOs - which is more prevalent on the M240. Finally there's the ability of the MM to pull details way out of the inkiest of shadows. The M240 file would get rather noisy at this point, I'm thinking.

Brad had gotten me second-guessing my decision on the MM. So much so that I "paused" my transaction. But after thinking about it over and over I finally just did the deed... I'm going with the MM. Done.

 

[Vivek]

Michael, I am not sure I share the thoughts you have about the M. I think it (240) is perhaps the most sophisticated camera in the color M line, to date.

However, no question that the MM is in a league of its own.

Just one tip for you to consider. Just leave the ISO at its base and shoot away. Even if it is underexposed by 4 stops (you can dial in to underexpose when you want to up the shutter speed), you can still recover what one can get in the post. No worries at all. This is not easily done with a CMOS sensor AFAIK. That, to me, is the advantage of the CCD over the CMOS and nothing else.

 

[Double Negative]

Michael, I am not sure I share the thoughts you have about the M. I think it (240) is perhaps the most sophisticated camera in the color M line, to date.

However, no question that the MM is in a league of its own.

Just one tip for you to consider. Just leave the ISO at its base and shoot away. Even if it is underexposed by 4 stops (you can dial in to underexpose when you want to up the shutter speed), you can still recover what one can get in the post. No worries at all. This is not easily done with a CMOS sensor AFAIK. That, to me, is the advantage of the CCD over the CMOS and nothing else.

Yeah, I haven't thought everything through on the M240; but I'm focusing on the ISO, shadow and detail stuff mostly.

That tip is right in line with what I'm thinking though. The fact that you can pull a lot, really a lot out of the shadows. You have to take this approach anyway so as to keep the highlights safe (expose to the left with the MM).