Jump to content

Moving from MF B&W to Monochrom


M'Ate

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a question specifically for MF film users who have transferred over to the Monochrom.

 

I'm a keen urban landscape and informal portrait photographer, mainly producing square format B&W images from 120 film. I have owned an M9 and wasn't satisfied with it for B&W to the extent that I could abandon my film kit. I know others are happy with the M9, but this question is about the Monochrom. I am a competent Photoshop/Lightroom user and run post processing workshops regionally. My print requirements are mostly limited to 20" square and more often 12" square.

 

The cost of the Monochrom body is not an issue, but my acquisition of a lens set and fuller commitment might depend on whether I liquidate my MF kit and scanner.

 

Have you, as an ex-discerning MF B&W user been completely satisfied with the Monochrom to the point where you no longer use MF, or indeed have sold it all ?

 

Thank you for any responses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You will likely get plenty of "best camera I've ever used" or "MM replaces my 4x5" responses here but I think you really need to give the camera a whirl for a while to decide for yourself – certainly if you are thinking about abandoning your film kit. Although there is much to like about the camera's output compared with the M9, there is not such a great difference that it can be automatically assumed that your dissatisfaction with the latter will be completely assuaged by a move to the Monochrom.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would do some serious testing. I have used a Monochrom and I am certainly lusting after one. I believe that while you will get at least as much sharpness and detail out of the MM, the rendering will be completely difficult.

 

Despite similar depth of field, a 50mm lens at f1.4 on a full frame sensor will never give you the same rendering as an 80mm lens at 2.8 on medium format.

 

I have not bought the Monochrom yet because I am not willing to part with my Contax 645 kit in exchange.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use my Monochrom interchangeably with my MF film cameras, the Monochrome images can be made to look like medium format film in post processing so they hang together as a body of work. The resolution is as good as medium format, the tonality is as good as medium format. And yes, a cropped Monochrom image is still as good as medium format, but if I want a square image I tend to use a square camera, if I want a 6x12 I use a panoramic MF camera. I find it hard to compose in one format for another format, I don't really want to either, I like the discipline each imposes. The only time I can bring myself to crop is in post processing and only if the image screams out for it.

 

Before I had my Monochrom I used an M9 for converting to B&W and the difference is considerable, far better resolution (apparent with the best lenses), and far richer tonality, although I didn't think the M9 was bad at all.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Your assumption is wrong ("I will make with the Monochrom the same I am doing now with MF") because if you change your tools you will inevitably change your procedure, and that's fine.

 

Renting a Monochrom won't give you the sense of it, because more than a couple of days are needed for that.

 

I would not sell my MF gear, and would buy the Monochrom through financing or whatever. Would work with the latter for a while. And then I would ask myself about which way is the best.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Renting a Monochrom won't give you the sense of it, because more than a couple of days are needed for that.

 

But a week is only a few hundred bucks, so even two weeks is not unreasonable cost-wise IMO (given the purchase cost) to at least develop an initial opinion, especially since the OP already has used the M9, which is essentially the same camera other than the color array and resulting files. One or two weeks worth of serious shooting should produce a variety of files for more extended processing after the fact.

 

Certainly better than deciding base on forum posts.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure we stay on track, the question is:

 

"Have you, as an ex-discerning MF B&W user been completely satisfied with the Monochrom to the point where you no longer use MF, or indeed have sold it all ?"

 

I'm interested in hearing what you found, not seeking guidance on how to make my decision to purchase. Sorry if that wasn't clear and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's a discussion topic on your user experiences, not how should I proceed thread. :)

 

Most users appear to be delighted with their Monochrom, but they have different backgrounds and aspirations. The insights above are very interesting and some of the comments, eg Steve Barnet's "I shoot square, of I want square" rings a bell.

 

Thanks so far.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you shoot, I would not sell the MF kit. I'd better save for a digital back. Even a 33 mpx digiback is better than the MM in my view. And the look of the longer MF lenses is very difficult to replicate.

 

 

Sent from my iPad / Tapatalk HD

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can look on the positive side regarding your MF film work and a Monochrom.

 

Long ago when I first saw what was possible by converting M9 files to B&W I looked at my MF gear in a different way. It spawned a new enthusiasm for MF folders, square or 6x9, I put together my own light weight 6x12, because portability and simplicity started to become more important than a heavy MF outfit. I've got more MF cameras since buying my M9 and Monochrom than I ever had because the FF 'miniature format' is no longer a radically different quality as 35mm is. With a tripod they all work in a similar way, hand held and each can be used up to its limitations.

 

Nearly all my cameras, FF, MF, can work on a similar ballpark IQ level (give or take), the irony being that I'm now more than happy not to struggle getting fine grain from 35mm but can use that to fully embrace grain and contrast as an antidote to sharpness and smooth tone. Which leaves large format, that I still use. A 4x5 negative has its own unique qualities. With a perfect 4x5 negative the Monochrom IQ is edged out. But anybody who understands and has used 4x5 will know that the word 'foibles' comes into the equation especially when working outdoors. Look at A Adams pictures in the flesh and a large format user will recognise those foibles, look at them in a book and someone can assume they are all default super sharp. So, I think that when a large format camera is encountering a 'foible', like a soft breeze, the Monochrom can do as well, even better sometimes. You don't need to stop the lenses down as much for equivalent DOF, therefore the exposure times are shorter than large format. So stick perfectly acceptable 'fine art' landscape picture from each camera on a wall and there is no appreciable difference in straight forward IQ that would identify one or the other to a fellow large format user. The Monochrom can 'get away with it'.

 

Steve

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents:

I had a Hasselblad and shot with Acros 100 for years.. worked great, but the scanning became a hassle when I started printing with a Epson 3800.

Next I had a Phase One P20 and after that P40+... worked very well for Black and White.

 

In my opinion the Monochrome performs so well that for 20" prints you will be super happy.

I have sold all my medium format gear (have a few Mamiya lenses that I need to list).

Between the Monochrome and the 240 I feel confident with the results and also has the benefit of working faster and lighter. At one point I had a Cambo tech camera that gave spectacular results, but it took 5-10 minutes to really set up a shot. Now when I run out of the house for a day or a few minutes I grab a Leica and throw it over my shoulder. I usually take one lens which simplifies things. Photography the way it used to be for me... grab a camera, head out, take some shots and have some fun doing it. Boom.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica M lens profile i Lightroom 5.3

I am the lucky owner of a number of M lenses and they all have the 8 bit code in the mounting so that they are recognised by the M body. In Lightroom/Development mode there is a section for lensprofile adjustments. It can be set to "enable" and the lens is detected from the metadata in the file. All other lenses are recognised, but not the Sumilux 50'mm. So I have to select it manually from the lens profile list provided by Adobe. Does any one have a clue why this lens is not recognised ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question specifically for MF film users who have transferred over to the Monochrom.

 

 

Have you, as an ex-discerning MF B&W user been completely satisfied with the Monochrom to the point where you no longer use MF, or indeed have sold it all ?

 

 

I use MONOCHROM 4 months and during that time never touched the film. I think that now my film cameras will just lie on the shelf. The basic genre - cityscape and genre portraits

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I use MM 90% of time, the rest is spent between my M8 and my Hasselblad with Portra roll films.

The MM is just magical but, as said before here, i don't shoot the same way with square and 24x36 bodies. So I would say the MM won't replace your MF body, it's just as complementary as you could wish. You won't probably do portraiture with the MM or in a different way i suppose...

I also plane to use LF roll film soon (with the Travelwide 90).

I believe each product give you it's own way to see and take pictures.

Check my Tumblr if you want to see the mixity of my work will all mediums...

 

PS : i made prints with my MM to 50', that just shine... but for the most of it i find 30' to be the best size for MM prints

Edited by MOZ
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your input and some links to excellent images.

 

I've decided that I must have an extended experience with the Monochrom as I anticipate that it'll become important in my artillery. I've already shot one for 3 hours, but that provided no conclusions, so I agree that more time than a rental would allow is essential. A nice black one is now at the side of me.

 

Whether it replaces all, or most, need for MF film in my case, is quite secondary. Tbh I don't think it will, but it may prompt the release of my little used 35mm film cameras, an MP and Canon EOS c/w 6 lenses. They'll more or less fund it, but nothing will be done in haste though.

 

Hope more of your experiences are posted here. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have rid myself of all of my MF film equipment and am completely satisfied with the M Monochrom. Literally the only drawback I've found is that the sensor is hard to keep clean. On a couple of occasions I've had to trash some very large lab produced prints because I didn't examine sky areas quite closely enough. A speck of dust on the sensor looks pretty bad on a 20x30 print.

 

The tonal range of the Mono images is outstanding, but it sometimes takes a bit of effort to pull out the best. The information, however, is definitely present in the MM files. I'd suggest getting very familiar with the supplied Silver Efex Pro II. The program almost seems made to order for the MM.

Edited by fotografr
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...