Steve Ricoh Posted May 1, 2016 Share #1 Posted May 1, 2016 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 Hi Steve Ricoh, Take a look here Is the M246 better than the M240 at B&W.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted May 2, 2016 Share #2 Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) 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 May 2, 2016 by 250swb 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morry Posted May 2, 2016 Share #3 Posted May 2, 2016 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 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 2, 2016 Share #4 Posted May 2, 2016 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. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 2, 2016 Share #5 Posted May 2, 2016 ...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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted May 2, 2016 Author Share #6 Posted May 2, 2016 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted May 2, 2016 Share #7 Posted May 2, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The biggest difference comes at ISO 1600 and up, the M246 is much cleaner. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted May 2, 2016 Share #8 Posted May 2, 2016 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/ http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/05/sentences-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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pechelman Posted May 2, 2016 Share #9 Posted May 2, 2016 i would also suggest, that another real benefit of the m246 over the m240 is when you want to print very large 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted May 2, 2016 Author Share #10 Posted May 2, 2016 Reading jaap's response, I think I need to try one and then post process - it'll be helpful for me I'm sure. Removal of the Bayer filter should on paper provide significant improvement - the higher ISO performance mentioned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted May 2, 2016 Share #11 Posted May 2, 2016 i would also suggest, that another real benefit of the m246 over the m240 is when you want to print very large 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted May 2, 2016 Share #12 Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) 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 May 2, 2016 by Jon Warwick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted May 3, 2016 Share #13 Posted May 3, 2016 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted May 3, 2016 Share #14 Posted May 3, 2016 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted May 3, 2016 Share #15 Posted May 3, 2016 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted May 3, 2016 Author Share #16 Posted May 3, 2016 Personally I can't see me going much beyond 12x8, so from what's been said not much benefit (M246 cf M240) unless I'm shooting higher ISO beyond 1600. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 3, 2016 Share #17 Posted May 3, 2016 It is not just about resolution/print size or high ISO - the tonal range of a Monochrom is much more subtle that that of an interpolated/converted image. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted May 3, 2016 Share #18 Posted May 3, 2016 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. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted May 3, 2016 Author Share #19 Posted May 3, 2016 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 3, 2016 Share #20 Posted May 3, 2016 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.