MM, M240, MM246 comparison images

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am going to say this as clear as day, and anyone who disagrees is allowed to: the much talked about increase in dynamic range with new digital sensors does absolutely nothing to make the cameras look more like any type of film since it usually does nothing to change the way the highlights behave when they clip. Now, what increased dynamic range does is allow you to expose to protect your highlights and recover more of the shadows.

 

Here is the big caveat, and please prove me wrong on this: when you do this extensive shadow recovery, the photographs will take on a very unnatural HDR look that looks nothing like TriX. Even the old MM1 had enough dynamic range for people to take this shadow recovery too far and with an overuse of the clarity slider (or "Structure" and what have not) make their images look completely plastic and digital. 

 

There are reasons to prefer the M246 over the old MM1 but the new MM246 looks no closer to TriX than the old MM1. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that any increase in dynamic range the M246 may have over the MM1 will get you any closer to the look of highlights gradually fading into complete white with the help of film grain.

Edited May 22, 2015 by BerndReini

[Solidfuel]

I mentioned that the X-1 made similar images to 246 in B&W mode, I just shot this. It's right out of camera no post processing:

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

 

There are reasons to prefer the M246 over the old MM1 but the new MM246 looks no closer to TriX than the old MM1. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that any increase in dynamic range the M246 may have over the MM1 will get you any closer to the look of highlights gradually fading into complete white with the help of film grain.

Hi Bernd

I quite agree with you- neither the MM nor the 246 look like Tri-X . . . or any kind of film. To my mind if that's the look your looking for there's a pretty simple solution to it. Shoot Tri-X. Mind you, I don't think it's just the way the highlights clip - and I don't think it's at all necessary to make it look like HDR when recovering details from shadow areas . .. and it's certainly not necessary to overdo the clarity slider (tempting though ). 

 

Digital sensors just don't look like film. (as far  as I can see). 

 

 

But  -  personally I really like the results possible with these black and white sensors, I've long since learned about not blowing the whites, and I don't very often need to do much shadow recovery. I like to treat each different camera rather like a different kind of filmstock - get to know it and learn how to make the most of it rather than trying to turn it into something it isn't . . . 

 

I like Tri-X as well, and sometimes I give myself a fix with my M6

Edited May 22, 2015 by jonoslack

[Mike Rawcs]

Lovely photo, Jono. If this is from the 246 could you please make the unprocessed dng available for us? 

 

 

Mike.

[jonoslack]

Lovely photo, Jono. If this is from the 246 could you please make the unprocessed dng available for us? 

 

 

Mike.

 

HI Mike  it is from the 246 (as is this one). . . trouble is -  if I did that you'd know what a fraud I am

 

 

Oh - go on then - here is a link:  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3808779/MM050804.DNG

[adamdewilde]

I am going to say this as clear as day, and anyone who disagrees is allowed to: the much talked about increase in dynamic range with new digital sensors does absolutely nothing to make the cameras look more like any type of film since it usually does nothing to change the way the highlights behave when they clip. Now, what increased dynamic range does is allow you to expose to protect your highlights and recover more of the shadows.

 

Here is the big caveat, and please prove me wrong on this: when you do this extensive shadow recovery, the photographs will take on a very unnatural HDR look that looks nothing like TriX. Even the old MM1 had enough dynamic range for people to take this shadow recovery too far and with an overuse of the clarity slider (or "Structure" and what have not) make their images look completely plastic and digital. 

 

There are reasons to prefer the M246 over the old MM1 but the new MM246 looks no closer to TriX than the old MM1. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that any increase in dynamic range the M246 may have over the MM1 will get you any closer to the look of highlights gradually fading into complete white with the help of film grain.

 

I'm not sure if you were referring to my post.. And I won't get into different film stocks, as frankly I don't much care about film these days (as it's not viable for my business). I will however mention that increasing the dynamic range of an image, gives off a less contrasty appearance in both the jpg files and the raw files. So an M9M would look slightly more contrasty then a M246 by right. And it seems this way in the limited images I've seen on my friends computer. Nothing printed. Nothing edited. I've done extensive testing with the M9 and M240 and it is also the case in files between those two cameras. 

 

Honestly, I have a film M, and a film Canon DSLR w/a few left over lenses. I also have a Contax set left.. So if I wanted to shoot film, I'm completely covered. 

 

Personally, I like the look of the M246 (Jono's 90macro shot earlier swayed me), but I'm not sure if I like taking black and white images. 

[asiafish]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Bernd

I quite agree with you- neither the MM nor the 246 look like Tri-X . . . or any kind of film. To my mind if that's the look your looking for there's a pretty simple solution to it. Shoot Tri-X. Mind you, I don't think it's just the way the highlights clip - and I don't think it's at all necessary to make it look like HDR when recovering details from shadow areas . .. and it's certainly not necessary to overdo the clarity slider (tempting though ). 

 

Digital sensors just don't look like film. (as far  as I can see). 

 

 

But  -  personally I really like the results possible with these black and white sensors, I've long since learned about not blowing the whites, and I don't very often need to do much shadow recovery. I like to treat each different camera rather like a different kind of filmstock - get to know it and learn how to make the most of it rather than trying to turn it into something it isn't . . . 

 

I like Tri-X as well, and sometimes I give myself a fix with my M6

I agree on the sensor as film stock.  Back when I wanted a DSLR and zoom lens for travel (don't worry, I'm past that stage) I fell in love with the Nikon Df's sensor.  There is just something about the color that I find very appealing.  I sold the Df and bought a Leica M-E and it is like switching from one much-loved color film to a different, also much-loved color film.  Back in my slide-shooting days I went back and forth between Fuji Velvia 50 and Kodachrome 64, ultimately preferring Kodachrome.  While the Nikon Df and Leica M-E are nothing like those two films, the way I feel about the results is similar, with subtle differences in color and each have aspects that I prefer over the other.  The move to the M-E was mainly on account of the rangefinder and nothing to do with "better" image quality, which it does not have.

 

Black and white is the same.  Different looks from different films.  I love Tri-X and Ilford HP5+.  Before I bought the M Monochrom I also shot a lot of Pan F and some Delta 100.  The M Monochrom saw me cut back on my film shooting by about 90%, though I still reach for M5 when I want the unique look of film, or more likely just the visceral experience of shooting it.

 

M9, M240, X series, noting compares in mechanical pleasure to the M5, but most of the time the convenience and yes, the image qualities of digital win out.

[Mike Rawcs]

Brilliant Jono, thank you very much.

 

With regard to different digital sensors being like different film stock, I agree. I used to use Nikon and Kodachrome 64 back in the day and I remember receiving my first slides of K64 taken on my first Leica (R4s Mod 2). I was surprised by the results - in a good way - they looked like they were taken on an entirely different film type. The nuance of the colour very very noticeable.

 

Mike.

[BerndReini]

 

So an M9M would look slightly more contrasty then a M246 by right.

But from what I have seen this is not the case. The M246 judging from different reports seems to provide you with a more contrasty image straight out of the camera. Of course this is just a matter of how Leica chose to interpret the capture. I wasn't really referencing any specific post. I was commenting on the blanket statement I keep hearing about how the increased dynamic range of the M246 solves the problem of highlight clipping of the former MM1. I do not think that this is the case, and I believe that only careful exposure can prevent highlight clipping with either camera.

[Likaleica]

Hi Bernd

I quite agree with you- neither the MM nor the 246 look like Tri-X . . . or any kind of film. To my mind if that's the look your looking for there's a pretty simple solution to it. Shoot Tri-X. 

 

+1  I often wonder, if sensors had preceded film, would anyone be looking for that magic film that had the characteristic nostalgic look of a particular sensor.  For me, it's not what film a given sensor may "look like."  I can push a button in SEP2 for that.  But rather what format.  To my eye prints from modern FF sensors look like prints from 4x5 negatives in terms of crispness and tonal gradation.  And I'm coming to the realization that 24mp is the ideal size for me.  I'm fortunate enough to have a S, which I always use on a heavy tripod with mirror pre-release and cable release, but my percentage of keepers or "wows" is much lower than with the handheld M.  I like Jono's idea of a chrome 240 M-P and a black 246.  

[BerndReini]

People like film because it had an abstract quality built in. It hides imperfections. I agree that modern digital cameras have a 4x5 look. Except that the reason I shoot 4x5 is for the rendering of the lenses on the big negative and for perspective control. Adjusting architectural lines in PS cannot compensate for rise and fall on a technical camera, and no 50mm full-frame lens draws like a 150mm or 180mm on 4x5. Horses for courses.

[scott_233]

At least on this comparison the MM is actually disappointing. The whole picture looks somewhat flat, the altar tapestry in particular looks dead.

Very interesting comparison.

[adamdewilde]

But from what I have seen this is not the case. The M246 judging from different reports seems to provide you with a more contrasty image straight out of the camera. Of course this is just a matter of how Leica chose to interpret the capture. I wasn't really referencing any specific post. I was commenting on the blanket statement I keep hearing about how the increased dynamic range of the M246 solves the problem of highlight clipping of the former MM1. I do not think that this is the case, and I believe that only careful exposure can prevent highlight clipping with either camera.

 

No the M246 does not solve the highlight clipping problem. BUT the security blanket of knowing you can bring up the shadows in a non-detrimental way, means you could theoretically shoot on base ISO and what ever shutter/aperture you like, and later bring the image back in post. 

[thompsonkirk]

"The M246 judging from different reports seems to provide you with a more contrasty image straight out of the camera."

 

Is there a consensus about this?  I'd formed the opposite impression.  

 

Kirk

Edited May 23, 2015 by thompsonkirk

[BerndReini]

 

 

BUT the security blanket of knowing you can bring up the shadows in a non-detrimental way, means you could theoretically shoot on base ISO and what ever shutter/aperture you like, and later bring the image back in post. 

Theoretically yes, but in reality, you will end up with the HDR looking mush I was talking about. You can do the same with the original MM, but if you overdo it with either camera, the results are ugly. Ugly with less grain in the case of the M246, and ugly with a little more grain from the MM1. By the time you have pushed the files of both Monochroms so far that the extra dynamic range of the M246 over the MM becomes apparent in the shadows, the rest of the image already looks like garbage in either case. Try pushing the shadows in Lightroom with either camera by the same amount and you will see what I'm talking about. In the example below with the MM, there is no clipped black left, and it is farther than I would want to go because once you separate the mid tones you will end up with the overused HDR look.

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 23, 2015 by BerndReini

[BerndReini]

And then you can end up with this if you want, but at which point is it too much? My problem is that I always have a hard time deciding what information to throw away with the Monochrom.

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 23, 2015 by BerndReini

[Likaleica]

The higher DR on the Monochrom allows me to print something that looks closer to what I saw.  Here I exposed for the highlights outside, yet I could see details in the furniture inside with my own eye.  I knew the unprocessed file would be very dark.

 

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!

 

But after opening up the shadows the final image is very close to what I saw, which could be argued as unrealistic HDR, but it's very realistic to me.  Realism is often what I am looking for in photography rather than trying to achieve the look of a certain film types  The beauty of the medium is that it is different things to different people.  It's hard to define what is good or bad, right or wrong with respect to any aspect of photography.  We've all seen some pretty awful pictures sell for tens of thousands of dollars.  

Edited May 23, 2015 by Likaleica

[thighslapper]

I posted a 2 shot HDR of the church interior with the 21/3.4 the day after I got the camera ..... and it looks prettty natural to me ..... at least with B&W you don't get garish unnatural colours ..... 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/188046-leica-monochrom-shots-post-them-here/page-57?do=findComment&comment=2814532

Edited May 23, 2015 by thighslapper

[BerndReini]

Timothy, your example is with the old MM correct? My argument is that if you go even further with the underexposure and compensation in post, it definitely looks unrealistic. And to my eye, it would have been nice if you could have eposes the outside a stop brighter without clipping the highlights because the outside looks somewhat flat and lacks contrast.

 

 

 

I posted a 2 shot HDR of the church interior with the 21/3.4

 This HDR shot is a good example of a natural looking one because it does preserve the mid tone contrast that you would loose if you just recovered the shadows from a single exposure.

Edited May 23, 2015 by BerndReini

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Likaleica]

Timothy, your example is with the old MM correct? My argument is that if you go even further with the underexposure and compensation in post, it definitely looks unrealistic. And to my eye, it would have been nice if you could have eposes the outside a stop brighter without clipping the highlights because the outside looks somewhat flat and lacks contrast.

 

 This HDR shot is a good example of a natural looking one because it does preserve the mid tone contrast that you would loose if you just recovered the shadows from a single exposure.

 

You're correct.  I actually bracketed and was doing it mostly to see how far I could push the camera.  And you're right about the outside looking flat, but I wasn't processing for that.  Just wanted to use the shadow slider to see how far up I could bring the deep shadows.