Jump to content

Monochrom or MP (film) - Help needed


red_dot

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

First of all, I apologize for the very long post. Second, unfortunately, there is no way I could post this in both forums, the film and the digital forums. So I chose the digital and hope it will reach the film users too.

 

Here we go: I am currently contemplating on getting a second body with which I will shoot only and exclusively B&W. I already have an M9. The main genre for the B&W would be fine art (including portraits), street and landscapes. 

I won't go through an endless description why B&W appeals to me. Let's just say there is something about B&W which sings a sweet song to my ears.

So, I am having a hard time now what to choose: the new Monochrom (Typ 246) or an MP (silver)? 

Here's what goes through my mind for each of the cameras listed (both pro and cons):

 

MP:

1. Film gives me butterflies to my stomach every time I think about it. I just have this feeling  going through my body (like an electrical current) when I see myself going through the process of developing my own photographs, from processing the film to enlarging and seeing the picture for the first time on photo paper. There's something magical about this.

2. Film could be dead in a few years and I could find myself being stuck with a completely useless camera

3. Film won't be dead but it will be harder and harder and consequently more expensive to process it.

4. Potentially less lost frames vs digital, due to being more careful on the subject selection, composition, exposure etc.

5. The Mp is about half the price of a Monochrom.

 

Monochrom:

1. It is a digital camera and it has all the perks of the digital medium, which we all know (instant feedback on composition, exposure etc.)

2. It potentially has a longer lifespan of the end result, which is the actual photograph, but this is not very important

3. Compared to film, it is cheaper to shoot

4. Compared to MP it is dependent on batteries. MP isn't.

 

So, what would be your suggestion with respect to this? What would you choose? The MP or the Monochrom?

Does any of you have both mediums?

 

Thank you all for replying and for helping me in reaching a decision.  :D

Sincerely,

 

Sebastian

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I can be of much help, but I have owned an M9 ever since it was released (M8 before that). My first Leica was an MP. I used to shoot exclusively black and white until the M8 was released. Then I switched to shooting color almost exclusively until I tried out the Monochrome when it first came out. I really enjoyed it, but didn't want to spend the money because I was shooting almost exclusively in color. But I dug up my MP again and starting shooting black and white film. I really enjoyed it tremendously and I promised myself to stick with it for at least a year and then I would revisit the Monochrom.

 

I just finally bought a Monochrom, but for a very specific reason: I take a lot of photographs of my kids and I need the freedom that the Monochrome provides. Being able to photograph freely without worrying about the labor and expense of film is truly a joy.

 

My advice is this: if you shoot mostly architecture, landscapes, set up portraits etc. buy an MP and shoot film. If you shoot mostly street, children, action, documentary, or in  low-light, buy the MM. That's the best advice I can give you. Other than that, owning a film M is always a good move. The Monochrom makes it more convenient for you to use it a lot, but if you don't use it a lot, you are better off with a film M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

First of all, I apologize for the very long post. Second, unfortunately, there is no way I could post this in both forums, the film and the digital forums. So I chose the digital and hope it will reach the film users too.

 

 

MP:

1. Film gives me butterflies to my stomach every time I think about it. I just have this feeling  going through my body (like an electrical current) when I see myself going through the process of developing my own photographs, from processing the film to enlarging and seeing the picture for the first time on photo paper. There's something magical about this.

2. Film could be dead in a few years and I could find myself being stuck with a completely useless camera

3. Film won't be dead but it will be harder and harder and consequently more expensive to process it.

4. Potentially less lost frames vs digital, due to being more careful on the subject selection, composition, exposure etc.

5. The Mp is about half the price of a Monochrom.

 

 

 

You have a seriously distorted view of using film, so buy a Monochrom.

 

Unless you use film you won't appreciate just how far wrong you are, but it can be a long and steep learning curve and there is nothing worse to later discover the latest greatest love of your life has a serious character flaw and you need a divorce.

 

For instance, you won't be able to claim you can't get film anymore for your divorce from an MP because film supplies are ever more healthy after the un-economic players have cut right back or gone out of business. If you ignore the fact that you can't buy film in the corner shop anymore then film has never been easier to buy and with a large inventory to choose from. Processing B&W film can cost pennies, you can even mix your own developers from raw chemicals, so no excuse there either. What may be grounds for divorce from an MP is your lack of success if you want to do street photography and be careful. There is a reason why street photographer Garry Winogrand had 4,000 unprocessed rolls of film when he died, and I wouldn't suggest to the Court everybody should go so far, but really, not seeing the resulting image in an LCD means you need to take a respectable amount of shots to cover yourself. Not treating the MP with respect and holding back isn't going to cut it, it's abuse plain and simple, so get the idea out of your head you can take fewer pictures and still get as many photographs. But it's the same for portraits as well, for every enigmatic shallow DOF portrait focused on an eyelash you'll need half a roll to be vaguely sure you got it spot on. It is simply how it works with 35mm film, it is a myth to think anything good can come from contemplating your navel by looking longer and shooting less, only disappointment can come and before you know it your camera will be serving papers on you as the philandering unfaithful partner, not the other way around.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was such a good post....

 

A lot of people on here could do with spending time with a respected and established photographer and see how many 'takes' it takes to actually get the images needed...

 

My first camera was a Instamatic 50 when I was eight in the early sixties... My parents would buy me a cassette allowing 12 pictures and I would have to make it last all through our two week vacation... That's less than a picture a day..!

 

Unfortunately, that carried on when I started doing photography seriously years later... I used to do photos for bands, either at gigs or for album covers and interiors. Looking back I took FAR too few shots on each session... Yes, I got a few decent photos, enough to put together a reasonable portfolio, I have had quite a few published in magazines and books, but I know that my natural, or rather learned, behaviour of photographing far less than I should have hampered me. There should have been a far larger body of work from those times...

 

The real shot selection happens after the session is long over. If you are really working as you should and are actually 'in the moment' you don't have the time to check exposure, check composition and to check you have the right angles... So you have to shoot much faster and do all the real work afterwards. Getting the picture matters... Everything else can be dealt with later.

 

You engage with your subject, not with your camera.

 

If you really want to photograph in black and white and need the discipline of having a black and white sensor, whether film or electronic, in order for you to think black and white, then you have a choice to make.

 

Much as I love the romance of film, I wouldn't use it today.

 

I have developed my own film, I have printed and adjusted in a darkroom and I have stored the negatives. And every now and again, in order to satisfy a client or friend, I would try to emulate a print they liked that I had dodged and burned, by hand, by guesswork and 'feel' in a darkroom when a friend or a client wanted a copy...

 

I know what a complete pain in the arse it can be... Especially if you are trying to earn a living from it and have to do everything yourself.

 

Not only is digital far less expensive and far more conducive to getting the shots you need, it is repeatable and it is consistent, it is in most respects technically superior and it is easy to copy and duplicate - sounds incredibly dull and boring, doesn't it..?

 

If the purpose of photography is photography itself... The history, the romance, the endless hours working with a chemical and manual process to produce a 'work of art' after 'capturing the moment', then you should shoot film and, preferably, with a Leica M.

 

But remember, like all the rest of us, even the very best, most of your photos will not be works of art, most of your prints will be pretty terrible, particularly early on.

 

You will need to spend the next few years learning how to process and print properly and that takes REAL dedication and even after all of that, to actually use them in today's real world, you will have to scan them all and email/share them anyway.

 

Slow, slow, slow... And ultimately the risk is that you will get fed up with the whole slowness of the process and the romance will disappear not long after the ecstasy of actually buying the equipment you need... and you will discover that to get the images you want will take a lot of work and that the outcome may not be that great.

 

Buy a Monochrom... And use it!

 

It may not have the romance of a pair of black M3's loaded with Tri-X in the middle of a firefight in Vietnam in 1968, or even at a doctors surgery in the fifties... And certainly not walking around photographing kissing Parisians in the fifties and sixties...

 

But you are not travelling in time.

 

You are photographing and documenting YOUR world, in 2015 and forwards... It is your creativity that matters, your life, your friends, your imagination... And photography is not just a way of connecting your vision of the world to others... It is also a way of communicating your vision of the world to yourself too...

 

Photography, like music, at its best is a universal language of communication.

 

The means that is achieved is unimportant. It could be an iPhone or it could be a black paint M4.

 

Use what you will likely use the most...

 

If it was me, today, with your choice, I would buy the M246, but in your position as an M9 user, the idea of a used MM would be an option simply due to the fact it is the 'same' camera in terms of how you use it and all accessories... Getting a 246 would probably make you want a M-P and so could be an expensive option unless you have much more financial discipline than I have!

 

Much as I love film Leicas, for all the reasons stated above, I would not go to the expense and hassle of going back to film now...

 

Results matter... the final image matters, anything that gets you there as quickly as possible has to be considered...

 

Unless of course photography and the use of cameras, the equipment and the process itself is what interests you, then do what gives you the most pleasure. There are terrible photographers who adore the whole process of photography, talking about cameras, lenses and all the technical or historical aspects of their hobby.

 

There are also great photographers who feel exactly the same way... And there are photographers who really don't care about anything apart from the image and why they took it...

 

Buy a Monochrom and take photo's. Life is too short and there is so much to see...

 

 

 

(Reading all that back, it seems incredibly patronising - it isn't meant to be, so apologies. However, to rewrite it all now would take too long and I think most of you will will get where I am coming from).

Edited by Livingston
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, I am blessed with both types of cameras and enjoy both.  For me, Leica is about enjoying the shooting process.  I also own several film cameras of other brands, mostly 70's and 80's cast-aways, and almost never shoot a roll through them, but the MP gets exercised every few weeks.  I've taken vacations with an M6 or an M7 with one lens and felt my needs met - just pack 1.5x to 2x the amount of film you plan to shoot.

 

Addressing some of your concerns:

1.  As to the availability of film, I would bet a very nice dinner that batteries for first and second generation digital M's will become unavailable before film becomes unavailable.  Ask a Digital Module R owner how many new batteries they can buy today.

2.  As to the price of processing, B&W will always be cheap as it can be processed via bulk, commercial chemicals.  C-41 is cheap here because a local Costco offers processing for under $2 per roll.

3.  Less lost frames is about a mindset.  I agree with the other gentlemen that you should have a compose well and shoot a lot technique for maximum success.

 

Another factor is depreciation.  A properly cared-for, pre-owned film M is often a no-depreciation prospect, digital M's drop ~35% per 3 years down to a floor at approximately 35% of the original price.

 

A different thought:  Set your M9 to DNG + Fine JPG, color settings to B&W, and shoot like a Monochrom shooter for awhile.  You always have the DNG file to pull color or B&W images from, and the B&W only experience is informative.

 

Eric

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same comundrum some time ago: have the M240, have the MP and thought about swapping it for the M246.

 

In the end I decided that:

1) Film, given enough light, produces results that far surpass anything digital. I think this comes from its 3D structure (it has thickness).

2) I do street & documentary photography. For this type of photography, most (90%) human social interaction takes place during daytime, hence the ISO capabilities of the Monochrom variants are not needed

3) When I need higher ISO I use the M240.

 

So, I decided to rest my search :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

MP=exquisite mechanical gem; apex of film camera design. Does it shoot any different that an M6 or M7?  :huh:

 

MM=double the price of the MP but comes with an unlimited roll of really nice B&W "film". No nasty chemicals to muck up the environment. Get a neutral density filter and the high base ISO is mitigated.

 

Still yearn for film? Get an M6 for a grand. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

James, the M7 is different in good ways. It is Leica's ultimate film camera.

 

I agree. 

 

I have the Monochrom v1, M7 and M240 (previously an M9).

I cannot advise you as to whether you should chose film over digital but you may well end up with both.

There are some arguments that I don't think are valid, for example your M9 will probably be unusable well before film is dead!

 

The Monochrome is a fantastic camera (the best I've ever owned but I too like shooting film from time to time).

I specifically chose the M7 over the MP. and have no regrets. I suspect that the decision to chose an MP over other film Leicas is sometimes made for romantic rather than true practical reasons (no offence to the romanticists and purists out there as I too was sorely tempted by the MP) but if you want a matching film camera to the M9 you may be better with an M7.

 

The M7's ergonomics and features are identical to your M9 (although it's a bit thinner and nicer in the hand, but not light).

1. Auto is very convenient and may well be missed not for P&S but because one can find the shutter speed  one wants by panning around the  scene, lock it in, recomposing and shooting - very fast.

2. The shutter speed dial on the M9 and M7 moves in the same direction, whist it is opposite on the MP - this was the deal-breaker for me!

 

Regards,

Mark

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

 No nasty chemicals to muck up the environment.

 

 

 

You can still wear your sandals and eat muesli, here is a recipe for Caffenol developer

 

  • 1000ml (1l) Water
  • 24g Washing soda
  • 20g Vitamin C
  • 45g Instant coffee

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A different thought:  Set your M9 to DNG + Fine JPG, color settings to B&W, and shoot like a Monochrom shooter for awhile.  You always have the DNG file to pull color or B&W images from, and the B&W only experience is informative.

 

This is what I would say too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people on here could do with spending time with a respected and established photographer and see how many 'takes' it takes to actually get the images needed...

 

Totally agreed.

 

So come hang out with me and see how quickly I get several great shots in the bag on a single roll of black and white film, then quickly get that film souped, dried, contacted ( if I even need to ) and a great silver gelatin print made in the darkroom. 

 

Using film is just not as hard or of a chore as you are making it out to be. Really.

 

And for the original poster....it's more than fine in terms of long term viability and health, especially since it is really catching on fast as a niche in the fine art market in going forward. Get a Monochrom if you want, but don't do it because you get the idea that film is harder, not worth the time or some kind of root canal-esque chore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I will attract enemies but never mind !

 

MM digital, not for me thank you ! some photos are like computer synthesized images (lines and smooth edge "razor cut"), transform a picture at night to dayAn unreal side, no thank you !
A real night shots for example in Kodak TX is a night shot, why change ?  This is the charm of a night picture !

Other reasons : No soul, flat, no consistency.
Pixel against the grain, it gives this kind of pictures for fog:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/243794-the-photographers-who-refuse-to-abandon-traditional-film-cameras/?p=2800758

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/223948-what-are-the-reasons-we-shoot-film-today/?p=2761400


This is the major reason, so for me, after 5 years of M8, M9, I turn to my MP and M7. :)
Another thing , compare the digital color (need correction with LR or PS) and analog (no need in most cases)
Look at this thread
:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/page-256

 

Best

Henry

Someone who use only Leica gear since 1970.

Edited by Doc Henry
  • 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...