Jump to content

Is the M246 better than the M240 at B&W...


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...with the M240 RAW file, and with a suitable post processing tool, eg SEP2, one has the oportunity to apply filters retrospectively, such as enhancing the contrast between a blue sky and the 'fluffy' fair weather cumulus clouds. Unless I'm missing something, to achieve the same effect with the M246, I would need lens filters, possibly a fair selection if I wanted to achieve the effects available digitally.

 

On the plus side, however, the monochrome M246 sensor records more tonal information compared to the M240 since the bayer filter has been removed. But looking at recent comments in the monochrome photo thread, I read someone's comments about muddy tones, and trying to get to grips with producing a more pleasing effect to the individual in question.

 

So if I were to get myself an M246, is there a new technique required, or would I need to get myself some suitable lens filters for the effects I'm after.

 

What other aspects of the M246 should I consider on the + and - side, if any?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if I were to get myself an M246, is there a new technique required, or would I need to get myself some suitable lens filters for the effects I'm after.

 

 

 

You are either able to adapt or you aren't, only you know how much you want something.

 

For most people using the Monochrom the only thing needed by way of effort is to know what they want from an image and some simple post processing skills to achieve it, but effort isn't in everybody's vocabulary. Filters, or using a different slider in SEP, they aren't really things to learn, they are things most photographers should already know, so it is difficult to comment when you've been reading things that seem to exaggerate your worries. It is fair to say that using a Monochrom isn't as newbie friendly as bashing the colour filter sliders using an M240 image. But a Monochrom is about getting the most from B&W and for that you need to appreciate the subtleties in much the same way as film photographers would go to ever bigger negative sizes to appreciate the subtleties of tone and detail. There comes a point of diminishing returns however, as with any technology, so I'll refer you back to my first sentence. 

 

 

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

the monochrom file does not have RGB information and this leads to the fact there isn't much we can even think about as post processing.

 

Around the base ISO the difference is minimal, so if color filtering including that of post processing is important, you should be happier with M240.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

the monochrom file does not have RGB information and this leads to the fact there isn't much we can even think about as post processing.

 

Around the base ISO the difference is minimal, so if color filtering including that of post processing is important, you should be happier with M240.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, I find plenty to postprocess on Monochrom files - best to convert to RGB anyway, if you want to do some toning.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...with the M240 RAW file, and with a suitable post processing tool, eg SEP2, one has the oportunity to apply filters retrospectively, such as enhancing the contrast between a blue sky and the 'fluffy' fair weather cumulus clouds. Unless I'm missing something, to achieve the same effect with the M246, I would need lens filters, possibly a fair selection if I wanted to achieve the effects available digitally.

 

On the plus side, however, the monochrome M246 sensor records more tonal information compared to the M240 since the bayer filter has been removed. But looking at recent comments in the monochrome photo thread, I read someone's comments about muddy tones, and trying to get to grips with producing a more pleasing effect to the individual in question.

 

So if I were to get myself an M246, is there a new technique required, or would I need to get myself some suitable lens filters for the effects I'm after.

 

What other aspects of the M246 should I consider on the + and - side, if any?

 

There are more techniques to get the effect you are after - I am no fan of faking filters by colour sliders anyway, I think it reduces the overall dynamic range.. Masks and local contrast and luminance manipulation, or even basic dodging and burning, will go a long way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll drop into my local Leica store and ask to take some test shots with the 246 and make a judgement when I get home. I did this before purchasing my M240; very helpful people - especially as they know it could lead to a sale. Who knows, prices might drop in September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

grEGORy Simpson did an excellent pair of articles on the MM246 that addressed its imaging compared to both the MM9 and the M240: 

 

http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/

 
To sum up: The real advantage of the MM246 is for B&W work at very high ISO settings, which I tend to do somewhat rarely. The advantage of the M/M-P240 is that you have in-camera B&W filters (Yellow, Orange, Red, Green) and more post-processing options due to having full RGB data available in the raw files; imaging qualities at low and medium ISO settings are very very similar. 
 
I had ordered an MM246, but it was taking so long to arrive that I decided to cancel the order and put it on hold for when they were more available. Then the SL was announced and I put the money into that instead. I have no regrets. 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is correct in my view.

Some reviews said the m240 and m246 looked similar at 100%. Perhaps they do.

But enlarge to a very big size (say 50") and the m246's resolution benefits over the m240 become very very noticeable indeed. The m246 just seems to resample in post really well to large image sizes, much more naturally, like film does.

When I compare (very unscientifically) images I took outside a dealer with an S006 and m246 (and 50 APO), I find the resultant 50" prints look really very similar, not to snub the superb S given i was comparing it casually to the highest resolving M camera and finest M lens ever made ......

Both the S and m246 at that print size were way ahead of the "look" I get from my m240, the latter looking flatter and more digitised at that print size.

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

Does it meaning that for people who don't have very good post processing skills the MM does outperform 240's convert bw files?

It is funny that people who have excellent post processing skills might not need MM in most of the situations.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is correct in my view.

When I compare (very unscientifically) images I took outside a dealer with an S006 and m246 (and 50 APO), I find the resultant 50" prints look really very similar, not to snub the superb S given i was comparing it casually to the highest resolving M camera and finest M lens ever made ......

Both the S and m246 at that print size were way ahead of the "look" I get from my m240, the latter looking flatter and more digitised at that print size.

So in most of the time, MM VS 240 are very close maybe can't tell the differences, only when you want BW images at the same time enlarge to 50s or over ... I just got my 246 not so long ago, I wish it can tell the difference vs 240 but it seems not able to do that

Link to post
Share on other sites

A vanishingly small niche of users print at such enormous sizes. I guess it's important to them that the MM246 might excel there, but it's completely, totally irrelevant to my photography. Virtually all but a handful of my prints made over the past several decades are between 6x8 inch and 13x19 inch in size. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until you take photos with a 246, your not likely to realize how it is different than the 240.  Having taken a lot of b/w with my 240 and then switched over to the 246, the tonal range is very noticeable.   You will see, or at least I can, a huge difference.  For me is a plus plus as I prefer monochrome photography.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer monochrome as well. 

 

Having thought about it, I'm a bit confused about Jaap's post in #5 above. With a colour file out of the M240 you can play to heart's content with channels and things - SEP for example offers a whole spectrum of control - but take the colour data away and you've lost that ability. Dodging and burning won't do it, or luminance manipulation. As I see it I would need filters at the time of capture to do the stuff I'm doing to my 240 images in post.

 

As has been said, you could write all day about this but the best way is to try it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the differentiation between the greys is far better off a Monochrom file, for the simple reason that it does not stem from interpolation. The level of light of each individual pixel goes directly into the data, no red, green or blue  Bayer filter in front that has to be compensated for by interpolating from the neighbouring pixels.

And yes, if you want to change the overall tones of an image you will have to use a filter on the lens. What's new?

We've been using filters for tone control since the dawn of photography.

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...