Monochrom vs M240 - benefits more than resolution?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still toying with the choice between Monochrom or M240. I can see the Monochrom has a bit more resolution, but I'm wondering if you also think there are other (more important) benefits to its image quality over the M240? To me, the Monochrom's images are very reminiscent of drum scanned medium format film like Acros or Delta 100 ...... whereas the M240 B&W conversions look, well, like digital conversions. The M240 image looks more "digital", whilst the Monochrom's image is very "organic" and natural (like well scanned MF film).

 

For those that have tried both cameras for B&W, is this something that many of you also think, or is this just what my eyes are personally telling me?

 

If you see an obvious difference, is this the CCD vs CMOS thing driving the looks, or is the more natural (film like) look in the Monochrom images due to the missing Bayer filter etc etc?

[skinnfell]

the Monochrom's images are very reminiscent of drum scanned medium format film like Acros or Delta 100 ...... whereas the M240 B&W conversions look, well, like digital conversions.

 

 

Exactly the reason why I got a mono instead of a M.

 

I don't care about the technicalities behind it. More than a year into MM ownership I am constantly assured about my decision.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rickp13]

i had an m9, and could have chosen either the MM or M. i chose the MM, and am still smiling everytime i review the latest photos on my computer. other people have said all the nice words about the MM regarding sharpness, MF look, subtle contrasts, extraordinary range, etc., so i'll just close with a recommendation to at least try the MM from a dealer for a day before choosing.

 

greetings from hamburg

 

rick

[Winedemonium]

Ming Thein wrote an article on this exact question, comparing M240 B&W conversions to MM files. A bit tricky to sort a link for you from my phone but PM me if you can't find it. He addresses the issue of dynamic range and tonality specifically.

[250swb]

The actual look of the finished picture is down to the skill of the person post processing the files and I don't think that from a distance you can tell the difference between a monochrome M240 or MM file. Right out of the camera MM files look pretty awful (IMO) but it does have higher resolution, and the smooth tonality stays in the image (if you want it to) right to the extremes of file processing where most people would have cried 'enough!'. With the M240 it is easy to rescue blown highlights (MM impossible), and there are the colour channels to play with. I think MM files always need post processing (which I'm happy doing), M240 files converted to B&W not necessarily (although I personally don't leave them alone).

 

I'm of the opinion that there are very few colour photographs in the world that wouldn't gain from being turned to monochrome, so I enjoy the B&W perfection of the MM. That said there isn't a lot in it on a day to day basis. The MM does move much further ahead in the competition if you regularly use higher ISO's at which it excels, but if you don't then an hour learning some post processing techniques will have anybody's M240 file looking very similar to film or indeed a well processed MM file.

 

Steve

Edited May 8, 2014 by 250swb

[dant]

I don't know if there is $8000 benefit difference. I like the MM a lot. But if I didn't have the $ I would not fret it.

 

MM reminds to shoot some BW as I'm mostly color nowadays. Here is what the MM produced for me the other day....

 

Daniel D.Teoli Jr - Current Work : Photo

 

That is the biggest value of the MM for me. A reminder to look for BW shots.

 

I shoot both M240 and MM and they each have a purpose each. I still shoot Fuji, but I use that system more as a disposable camera under hash conditions.

Edited May 9, 2014 by dant

[dant]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The actual look of the finished picture is down to the skill of the person post processing the files and I don't think that from a distance you can tell the difference between a monochrome M240 or MM file. Right out of the camera MM files look pretty awful (IMO) but it does have higher resolution, and the smooth tonality stays in the image (if you want it to) right to the extremes of file processing where most people would have cried 'enough!'. With the M240 it is easy to rescue blown highlights (MM impossible), and there are the colour channels to play with. I think MM files always need post processing (which I'm happy doing), M240 files converted to B&W not necessarily (although I personally don't leave them alone).

 

I'm of the opinion that there are very few colour photographs in the world that wouldn't gain from being turned to monochrome, so I enjoy the B&W perfection of the MM. That said there isn't a lot in it on a day to day basis. The MM does move much further ahead in the competition if you regularly use higher ISO's at which it excels, but if you don't then an hour learning some post processing techniques will have anybody's M240 file looking very similar to film or indeed a well processed MM file.

 

Steve

 

OP...Yes, MM or M240 is not a make or break deal. If you got a great shot it will work with both. If you got a crapper shot, just trash it and be done with it. MM wont fix it.

 

Here is a shot (nsfw) where Lightroom made the shot. Without 2.5 hours of LR it was crap. Therefore we can say LR was the founding father of this shot.

 

File:'Left Vintage Silver Gelatin Print - Right Inkjet Print' Copyright 1973, 2013 Daniel D. Teoli Jr..JPG - Wikimedia Commons

 

You wont find any kind of drastic difference like this when you convert color digital to BW.

 

Basically...you got $8000 and want a MM buy one, you will love it. You have to scrimp and stretch for the MM, then don't lust after it. If your not a genius at BW with conversions you will still not be a genius with the MM. You see this all the time with the used MM's on EBay with low shutter counts. People buy and think they will be the next HCB, but after it arrives reality sets in. A great photog can use a Brownie and still produce. (At least in the sunlight!)

 

Now if your making giant prints, then the MM is about 20% sharper than the M240, so it may be worth it if you print big. (20% is just a rough estimate, don't hold me to it.)

 

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/77677349888

 

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78143626409

 

Here is M240 vs MM with tight crop. On the left look for Freeze. There is 0 with a line under it.

Look at the line and compare the 2 images. This shows the difference pretty well when it comes to sharpness. For conversions you will have to find another test. I'm too busy with projects to fool around with more tests for now.

 

Here is full rundown:

 

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

 

M240 and MM as well as many other cams...6 to 40 mp and film compared.

Edited May 9, 2014 by dant

[colint544]

If you love black and white images, then I firmly believe that you can't beat the M Monochrom. The M240 is more versatile, and a more mature product. But it won't do monochromatic images quite as well as the MM. We all know that.

 

I've been shooting pictures for 35 years now. I've used everything from 110 cartridge film to 5x4. I shoot a Canon EOS 1DX and 5D mk3 for a living. They're soulless computers, machines I simply can't engage with. They get the job done, and that's all. But a Leica M, any M, is a different story.

 

I've had an M6 since the mid-nineties. The M9-P I bought in 2011 was, for me, the digital equivalent (give or take). I sold my beloved M9-P and bought an M Monochrom as soon as it was available, in August 2012. I've never looked back.

 

The M Monochrom is the best, most inspirational, most exciting, most rewarding camera I've ever used. It matters not what you shoot with it, it's capable of making art. The tones, the transitions, the malleability of the files. When darkness falls, it's still useful. It makes you want to just get out and create.

 

If, deep down, you think the MM might be for you, then it probably is. And you know you want it. Nothing else today can touch it.

 

Some recent photos around my home town of Glasgow, shot on my MM. I don't know about anyone else, but I just can't put mine down.

 

Best wishes all,

 

Colin

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 9, 2014 by colint544

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Still toying with the choice between Monochrom or M240. I can see the Monochrom has a bit more resolution, but I'm wondering if you also think there are other (more important) benefits to its image quality over the M240? To me, the Monochrom's images are very reminiscent of drum scanned medium format film like Acros or Delta 100 ...... whereas the M240 B&W conversions look, well, like digital conversions. The M240 image looks more "digital", whilst the Monochrom's image is very "organic" and natural (like well scanned MF film).

 

For those that have tried both cameras for B&W, is this something that many of you also think, or is this just what my eyes are personally telling me?

 

If you see an obvious difference, is this the CCD vs CMOS thing driving the looks, or is the more natural (film like) look in the Monochrom images due to the missing Bayer filter etc etc?

 

 

To my eyes and taste, there is a difference between CCD and CMOS.

 

I also see the difference when I'm processing the files

 

I had the same dilemma and got the M240 but soon sent it back in favor of my trusty 4 year old M9

 

I then got the MM and am much happier - also because I have the M9 for color shots

 

Here are some images, as 250 said above, you could probably spend enough time on digital processing tools to get these results with the M9/M240 as well

 

Since I rarely print, the extra resolution is a nice to have for me

 

 

 

 

[jcraf]

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I just can't put mine down.

 

Colin

 

Likewise. I have never had a camera whose images make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up quite like this one.....and that includes my M240.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jeff S]

The MM does move much further ahead in the competition if you regularly use higher ISO's at which it excels, but if you don't then an hour learning some post processing techniques will have anybody's M240 file looking very similar to film or indeed a well processed MM file.

 

We've had discussion in other threads about the merits of the 2 cameras for b/w. Am I mistaken or does this comment reflect any different view on your part regarding the capability of the M 240 for b/w. I understand your prior comments about the MM's distinction and benefit as a dedicated b/w instrument, but I also thought that you felt that it was also the first digital M that could approach film-like (or medium format) quality….tonality, etc.

 

Maybe I'm confusing your thoughts with another member, or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment here. Just curious, is all.

 

In any case I totally agree that PP is far more important than most folks consider, especially those with no prior darkroom experience.

 

One of these days I will have to try an MM, just to see for myself if the differences translate to print.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

Simply meant that the M240 needs a bit more work Jeff, the MM can look like film with a few curves adjustments. The M240 works in a narrower band but with a bit more work can be made to look like film. Push it further up the ISO scale and it doesn't match the MM. I see it like this, 320 ISO with the MM looks like fine grain medium format film, so does the M240 at 200 ISO, but without quite the same the full tonality of the MM. But he M240 starts to break down very much sooner than the MM as you go even a stop or two up the scale. So in its sweet spot the M240 is good, in its own sweet spot the MM is very good, and stays very good for a few stops more, then all it does at even higher ISO's is default to looking like higher speed 35mm film which the M240 can never achieve my opinion.

 

Steve

Edited May 10, 2014 by 250swb

[Jeff S]

I appreciate the follow-up, Steve.

 

I'm not a frequent high ISO guy, but will still likely give it a whirl at some point. I can also understand the appeal of an all b/w workflow.

 

Although not relevant to IQ, I am spoiled by the new M platform….not for LV or video, but for shutter sound and feel (more like my film Ms), etc…but that's another discussion.

 

Jeff

[sanyasi]

Right out of the camera MM files look pretty awful (IMO) but it does have higher resolution, and the smooth tonality stays in the image (if you want it to) right to the extremes of file processing where most people would have cried 'enough!'.

 

Steve

 

I think the whole point is that they are supposed to look awful out of the camera. My understanding is that you want to start the processing of black and white conversions using a linear (low contrast) curve, so it makes sense to me that RAW files out of the MM would be flat.

 

I own both cameras. I am not a technical guy and quite frankly, I don't notice flat corners and all the other stuff some photographers worry about. The photo either works or it doesn't.

 

Both cameras have their use. If I want a black and white photograph, I use the MM. I can't compare to the M, but the contrast and sharpness on an MM photo always are noticeably crisp to my eyes.

[dant]

I think the whole point is that they are supposed to look awful out of the camera. My understanding is that you want to start the processing of black and white conversions using a linear (low contrast) curve, so it makes sense to me that RAW files out of the MM would be flat.

 

I own both cameras. I am not a technical guy and quite frankly, I don't notice flat corners and all the other stuff some photographers worry about. The photo either works or it doesn't.

 

Both cameras have their use. If I want a black and white photograph, I use the MM. I can't compare to the M, but the contrast and sharpness on an MM photo always are noticeably crisp to my eyes.

 

MM RAW don't look that bad if you not into PP. If you a PP'er then you see they need work. But so do all my other files from every other system I have.

[dant]

Simply meant that the M240 needs a bit more work Jeff, the MM can look like film with a few curves adjustments. The M240 works in a narrower band but with a bit more work can be made to look like film. Push it further up the ISO scale and it doesn't match the MM. I see it like this, 320 ISO with the MM looks like fine grain medium format film, so does the M240 at 200 ISO, but without quite the same the full tonality of the MM. But he M240 starts to break down very much sooner than the MM as you go even a stop or two up the scale. So in its sweet spot the M240 is good, in its own sweet spot the MM is very good, and stays very good for a few stops more, then all it does at even higher ISO's is default to looking like higher speed 35mm film which the M240 can never achieve my opinion.

 

Steve

 

I think the problem with getting the film looks is based in the fact that digital is way sharper than film. If they could make a 6 mp sensor that had film grain and not pixels, then they may have something. Have the sensor blow up with grain and not pixels. I love the 'grain like' look that comes at ISO 200 with the MM. I don't like MM much above 2500 though.

 

See this link and compare MM to film:

 

(nsfw)

 

http://danielteolijrlep9.tumblr.com/

 

The '37th Minstrel Show' and the 'Irish Bagpiper' are with the Monochrom. The other digital shots are conversions from Sony 20mp, M43 / 12mp and Fuji-X 16mp. You can compare various digital BW to my older vintage film shots. 'Princess of Ross County' had some PP grain put in and was shot with M43. 'Lost Princess' was Fuji. 'Steeplechase' was an ancient Pentax 6mp in JPEG and probably low res at 3 or 4mp. I was just starting with digital and didn't even know what RAW was.

Edited May 11, 2014 by dant

[colin_d]

Some recent photos around my home town of Glasgow, shot on my MM. I don't know about anyone else, but I just can't put mine down.

 

Best wishes all,

 

Colin

 

 

I'm a 4x5 film photog, and a M3 lover but I have to say your shots make me desperately want one of those things, sublime stuff, the texture is so film like it is scary. The only thing stopping me from getting one is $$$

 

Colin d

Edited May 11, 2014 by colin_d

[Guest reis]

... I love the 'grain like' look that comes at ISO 200 with the MM. I don't like MM much above 2500 though.

 

Did you mean ISO 2000?