Jump to content

Monochrom 1 v. Monochrom 2


Agent M10

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was printing out some of my past Monochrom pictures the other day and really began missing that camera. I still have a 50mm APO and was entertaining the idea of buying a Monochrom again. Question is, which one? My past Monochrom pictures were with the first version. I imagine the smart choice would be to buy the 246, but I am curious to know whether the 246's blacks are as good as the first version's. Can you reduplicate the first version's contrast in PP? Also, the CCD seemed to carry a bit more bite to it. Any problems with reduplicating that in PP? 

Edited by pcsmythe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 2015 there were few good comparison reviews, see at leasure and draw your own conclusions.

 

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

 

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/bw-iso-showdown-leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/

 

From my point of view M9 was flawed compared to M240, M246 followed as B&W companion.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the MM1 is regarded by some as being a tad sharper/harsher/more brittle than the slightly more smooth look to the MM2. I have the MM1, and I adore it but, especially at base ISO, it's almost too sharp. I prefer the look of black and white film when shooting in good light at low ISO's. But at ISO 1600-2500 ISO, the files from the MM1 are, for me, just beautiful. I couldn't want for more.

 

I've no experience of the M246 though.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of recent shots in Glasgow - MM1, fitted with the replacement sensor, at 2500 ISO.

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!

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Typ 246, and have no direct experience of the original Monochrom. If you look through the many photo's presented in the two image threads on this forum, you can decide if the difference is in the camera, or in the photographer.

 

For my part, the differences in image are too small for me to notice (YMMV), and so it comes down to variance in features, and in price. Are those features important to you? Do they justify the difference in price?

 

Being able to use an EVF and high ISO settings was important enough to me at the time I bought mine although, in actual use, only the EVF has turned out to be important (using T/S and Macro lenses).

 

Figure out what you want / need. Figure out what you are willing to pay for that. Find, and buy. They are both fine cameras.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I you have owned the first Mono then you should by it again. So did I this year after one year of absence. Sold mine in April 2015 and bought a merely used for less I got for mine in December. Form black to silver.... have a the sense of recently replaced. Was worth the waiting.

Nowadays you get the first Mono for reasonable prices. And if you don't need live few or video you should use what you can handle. The post processing with the M246 I'd different. This you can read in the forum here.

The M246 has the bigger sensor and new technology. Is slightly heavier but also has the better shutter. Is less noisy and does not get stuck, wihich still happens to my MM1 when shooting in secret mode.

So you can stick to what you know or you bite the cake and buy the latest version...!

Good luck!

I love the CCD look... ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the MM and have not used the 246 but have enjoyed many images I have seen made with it. My feeling is that ultimately it is the photographer that needs to learn and bond with his/her equipment. I do prefer the size and simplicity of the MM myself, and feel that the CCD provides a bit more edge; this can be pro or con depending on the image and how it is processed.  Also while I really like the look Colin is getting with high iso files, the base iso produces beautiful files. My results are closer to medium format film in terms of tonality and also deep rich blacks than what I recall shooting and processing my 35mm film. Whites are trickier but still less struggle than I recall shooting and developing negs made with my M2.

 

David

 

164493903.cdnIypfX.JillianatTable.jpg164040202.hgk77W9e.StandingTall.jpg

Edited by DwF
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The MM is by default much more film like in its rendition all the way through the ISO scale, but the M246 is just the better camera. The default files from the M246 are much higher quality and it hangs on to more highlight and shadow detail, but they are also a bit bland.  However with pp you can get the same effect as the MM, and as I always do some pp on my images anyway the winner is the more versatile M246. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When I had both M Monochrom models in my hands the other day, the difference that immediately struck me most was rangefinder accuracy. The Typ 246 clearly is easier to focus reliably and accurately. This difference alone is reason enough to prefer the new model over the old one ... but then, there are many more, including faster shutter, higher ISO maximum, higher pixel count, live view (useful for focusing in the dark and also for adapting non-M lenses), etc.

 

Regarding the CCD vs CMOS thing—you can replicate the CCD's apparent 'bite' by simply adding some very fine noise (or simulated film grain) to the CMOS images.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My journey has been MM1>MM246>MM1 (with new corrosion-resistant sensor).

 

I never bonded with the 246's images, despite it having certain obvious improvements over the MM1.  Subjective stuff, clearly.

 

So I am willing to put up with the 'clockwork toy' shutter and crap screen again to get the images I like.  And I'm happy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I owned the first MM and eventually sold it to buy the M246. To my eye the images are pretty much equal but when it comes to ease of use there is no comparison. Much better display, much better low light capability, larger buffer and significantly better resolution are just some of the advantages of the M246. And don't forget Live View. I don't use it much, occasionally when I'm using a 21mm lens, but for some it's a nice advantage.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of recent shots in Glasgow - MM1, fitted with the replacement sensor, at 2500 ISO.

 

You know I got my Q the other day and tried some pics straight out of the box with no adjustments. The images came out grainy like those pics. Straight away I thought there was something wrong with the camera :unsure::).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I got my Q the other day and tried some pics straight out of the box with no adjustments. The images came out grainy like those pics. Straight away I thought there was something wrong with the camera :unsure::).

The Q is really nice for producing b/w converted images, but it ain't a monochrome. I have the Q also. Great camera for what it does. I find those initial settings from the factory are not what I want. But back to the monochrome, you can make it work so you get what type of image you are after. It loves post processing. I never shoot for getting what I am after without post processing. If you aren't into that, is probably not the camera for that person I suspect.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Olaf is quite right about the advantages of the 246 - they are much the same as the M9 vs. the M240.

But, IMO, it is not worth the extra money to upgrade. The MM1 is that good a camera.

 

To me this sums up why any Leica is such a good investment. Maybe most enhancements or minor perfections of an already very good camera comes in small increments, hence any digital Leica will always be a good camera. It seems like most Leica owners keep their cameras instead of always go for the last model. New models doesn't make the old a lesser camera. I plan to keep my 246 no matter what Leica will churn out in the future :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I got my Q the other day and tried some pics straight out of the box with no adjustments. The images came out grainy like those pics. Straight away I thought there was something wrong with the camera :unsure::).

 

Perhaps you had the ISO up too high. Perhaps you got the exposure wrong. Perhaps you mean noise, rather than grain. I'd persevere, if I were you - the Q sensor is supposed to be sensational.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

New MM9 (sold) > Used M9P (sold) > New M240 (sold) > Used MM9

 

I recently purchased a MM9 with barely 200 clicks taken, which was purchased new from a store less than a year ago, and I couldnt' be happier. I've still got several years of warranty left, and when the sensor craps out I'll get a free replacement and CLA anyway. I see it as an advantage in that regard as I have an MP (film) which is my main camera to use while the MM is being serviced.

 

I never warmed up to the M240's weight, controls and handling. The B&W files from the MM9 is also to my preference. I never bothered to try the M246 as it's basically an M240 without the CFA - so it's not interesting. Changing ISO on the MM9 is much better. Using the MM9 with gloves on is much easier (the buttons are rounded and stick out more, so they are easier to feel). I only use the screen to check metering anyway, and in that regard the MM9 is the best since it has a raw histogram with zones.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the difference between the two MM versions much more subtle than the differences between the M9 and M240 due to the obvious absence of a different color signature. I was in a situation recently where I would have really loved being able to check critical focus with my MM1, which is impossible with the old LCD screen. I was shooting something very critical at ALMOST infinity with a dark orange filter. I bracketed my focus and I ended up being ok, but it was not a reassuring situation being out there on assignment and having to guess whether what I was doing was going to hold up for a big print. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both.

 

When the original MM appeared I was instantly smitten.  It became my favorite camera of all time, my constant companion.  Later, when the M240 arrived, I fell in love with the haptics and overall form factor improvement of that camera.  But the MM remained my absolute favorite.  I figured the perfect camera would be the MM married to the more up-to-date internals of the M240.  So I was jazzed when Leica announced the M246.

 

Does it live up to those expectations?  I'd say... mostly.  No question the camera itself is superior.  Better body design, better battery, better shutter, better rangefinder.  And the ability to use Live View or the EVF can prove invaluable, even if used infrequently.  All the physical improvements promised by the M240 are there, in other words.  When I pick up my MM (or M9) after using my M246 (or M240) for awhile, I'm instantly reminded of how far Leica travelled, between those two generations.

 

But from an imagery standpoint, I prefer the original MM images to those of the M246.  Though flatter out-of-camera*, they seem more 'organic' to my eye, for lack of a better term.  That image superiority is slight, however.  Images from the M246 bring most of the magic of the original MM, but in a vastly improved camera.  

 

I continue to routinely use both cameras.  My heart still lies more with the original MM.  My usage, though, tends to favor the M246.  I realize that's probably not helpful.

 

 

* When the MM was first introduced there was much to-do about its "flat," "muddy" files.  I surely hope that canard has been put to rest.  Like having a "flat" negative in the film world, retaining all the image information without having blown up either the shoulder or the toe is a _good_ thing.  Either version of the Monochrom requires a quick bit of PP.  That the M246 files are somewhat 'less' flat is pretty meaningless.  Users desiring nice out-of-camera imagery should look elsewhere.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have a question. Of those that prefer the original MM to the 246, which lenses are you using? Reason I ask, I find I much prefer the older non Aspherical lenses on the 246 as they render more of that 'organic' look to my eyes. I am just wondering if using the modern lenses between the two monochromes, maybe those that have the M9 version are comparing the two with Aspherical lenses? It's just a guess. I haven't had the original MM, but I see such a difference in the old vs newer lenses, am getting rid of all my Aspherical lenses eventually. The older lenses, to my eyes, are much better on the 246. The same might not be true on the M9 version.

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...