Jump to content

the M 246 a consumer toy


vhfreund

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just yesterday stumbled over a new essay on Thorsten Overgaard´s Leica pages:

 

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M-Monochrom-Type-246-Digital-Rangefinder-Camera-black-and-white-sensor-page-29A-The-Leica-M246-Dynamic-Range.html

 

It is my understanding that Thorsten´s assessment isn´t overly positive. I know it´s all about the grayish pictures (tonality) of the M 246 pictures when not heavily tuned in silver effex.

 

I personally appreciate that the pictures have plenty of milage for post processing and I like the tonality.

 

That beeing said, I am interested in the opinion of other MM or M246 users.

 

Thank you

 

Theodor

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

I have a Typ 246, and very much like the files it is capable of producing. It has shortcomings (handling of highlights, and long exposure limitations), but every camera I have has shortcomings. Add all of those shortcoming together, and they pale into insignificance when placed beside my own shortcomings.

 

I find the Typ 246 to be a great camera to use, and it inspires me to try to improve myself. If it's a toy...I like toys.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thorsten has written two negative articles on the M246. The second one was because he felt the first one was not taken by a few readers as negative but being positive. What Thorsten fails to see is what he said in both reviews (or any review for that matter) can be seen as positive by some readers.

 

I am a M240 & M246 user and the M246 is in my bag 90% of the time. But unlike Thorsten I use B&W filters. He is addicted to ND filters. He also dislikes the use of UV filters. Which I find odd as the same disadvantages of UV filters are within any filter used. The advantages of using a particular filter is are not negated by UV, they are just different as all filters have UV filter properties as well.

 

Anyway, I use the Noctilux f/1, often with an orange filter and find the images I get far superior to the M240 files processed in post. One reason is that any post processing degrades the image, but if your adjustments are in camera, there is no degradation.

 

I also use UV filters because, unlike Thorsten, the last time I sent my Noctilux in for adjustment it took six months and cost $800 us. I just can't drop it off in solms and pick it up the next day. But I figure if your going to use any filter at all you've already disregarded the recommendation in the manual, so why preach the filterless dogma?

Edited by Soden
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thorsten has written two negative articles on the M246. The second one was because he felt the first one was not taken by a few readers as negative but being positive. What Thorsten fails to see is what he said in both reviews (or any review for that matter) can be seen as positive by some readers.

 

I am a M240 & M246 user and the M246 is in my bag 90% of the time. But unlike Thorsten I use B&W filters. He is addicted to ND filters. He also dislikes the use of UV filters. Which I find odd as the same disadvantages of UV filters are within any filter used. The advantages of using a particular filter is are not negated by UV, they are just different as all filters have UV filter properties as well.

 

Anyway, I use the Noctilux f/1, often with an orange filter and find the images I get far superior to the M240 files processed in post. One reason is that any post processing degrades the image, but if your adjustments are in camera, there is no degradation.

 

I also use UV filters because, unlike Thorsten, the last time I sent my Noctilux in for adjustment it took six months and cost $800 us. I just can't drop it off in solms and pick it up the next day. But I figure if your going to use any filter at all you've already disregarded the recommendation in the manual, so why preach the filterless dogma?

Thank you, I am happy to be not alone with my opinion. I also don´t believe in the dogma that any adjustment should only be made with LR.

 

Best Theodor

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(Apart from the fact that overgaard's reviews radiate some sort of status, whereas he has made a lot of technical mistakes in the past and I just trust him actually less than for instance Steve Huff's loud voice), I can only speak for the MM: wonderfull camera, wonderfull files, no problems at all, very versatile. I use EfexPro2 less and less often because it tends to lead to over-postprocessed results. I develop my MM files in C1 with as few manipulations as possible.
BTW, I don't know how this works on the M246, but the JPEGs from the MM when set at one step more contrast, are very interesting too.

 

The link below directs to a series made with the MM1 with Summilux75 (lens detection OFF) and I can't imagine that the M246 can't produce such rich blacks if not better

 

http://lotwouda.zenfolio.com/p735541593

Edited by otto.f
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a fair summary, in Thorsten's own words:

 

"I don't want to be a judge on anybody else's camera. Think for yourself. ... I find that the final judgment of my lenses and cameras is often when I review my results after a while. ... The stats don't lie: No, [most of my successful monochrome images] were made with the M 240 (or Leica M9). ... It doesn't matter if it's monochrome or colors when I take it, that is a decision in the editing phase. ... A good camera is a tool and is made to help you as an artist or photographer to perform your vision. ... But the Leica M246 is a consumer good that is a quick fix of an existing camera to make it look like something you may desire."

 

In other words, he puts a lot of polish to the common reaction: "It doesn't suit my purposes, therefore it is trash." Sigh.

 

I respect Thorsten's work, but if the M 240 is a specialist tool that suits his needs, and the M 246 is nearly identical but with a modification for slightly different applications, then the M 246 is a specialist tool for other needs and his conclusion does not follow even his own reasoning. I respect that he wants to use his position of influence with integrity, that he felt the need to clarify his opinion of the Monochrom cameras, and that we all use words poorly sometimes, but I think his language here should be reconsidered. Perhaps, "for me, the M246 is no better than a common camera."

 

But, if he meant what he said, then I would rebut: We're all consumers, professionals and amateurs alike. And the job of camera companies is to supply what people want to buy and consume. In fact, I'd argue that professionals consume more than amateurs, precisely because they spend more time using their gear. Either way, I have no problem with a camera being labeled as "consumer." I just don't understand, if that's the case, why the M 240 doesn't fall into the same category. Nonetheless, I'll continue to enjoy my own modest kit for as long as I'm able to.

 

Cheers,

Jon

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(Apart from the fact that overgaard's reviews radiate some sort of status, whereas he has made a lot of technical mistakes in the past and I just trust him actually less than for instance Steve Huff's loud voice), I can only speak for the MM: wonderfull camera, wonderfull files, no problems at all, very versatile. I use EfexPro2 less and less often because it tends to lead to over-postprocessed results. I develop my MM files in C1 with as few manipulations as possible.

BTW, I don't know how this works on the M246, but the JPEGs from the MM when set at one step more contrast, are very interesting too.

 

The link below directs to a series made with the MM1 with Summilux75 (lens detection OFF) and I can't imagine that the M246 can't produce such rich blacks if not better

 

http://lotwouda.zenfolio.com/p735541593

Wonderful pictures ! Yes, I think the M 246 can also produce rich black. I also agree with your attitude towards silver effex as in some cases I observed some artifacts obviously produced by silver effex.

30689120991_98a4930179_b.jpgStockholm shadows by Theodor Kierdorf, auf Flickr

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(Apart from the fact that overgaard's reviews radiate some sort of status, whereas he has made a lot of technical mistakes in the past and I just trust him actually less than for instance Steve Huff's loud voice), I can only speak for the MM: wonderfull camera, wonderfull files, no problems at all, very versatile. I use EfexPro2 less and less often because it tends to lead to over-postprocessed results. I develop my MM files in C1 with as few manipulations as possible.

BTW, I don't know how this works on the M246, but the JPEGs from the MM when set at one step more contrast, are very interesting too.

 

The link below directs to a series made with the MM1 with Summilux75 (lens detection OFF) and I can't imagine that the M246 can't produce such rich blacks if not better

 

http://lotwouda.zenfolio.com/p735541593

 

 

Those photos are superb. Very well suited to b&w and handled beautifully my the MM. The monochrom is unsurpassed on certain types of photo. You need to play it to it's strengths and that is what you have done so admirably. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Overgaard is entitled to his opinions and prejudices, just as the rest of us. I don't take too seriously and I don't use it as reference or a guide in my own decision processes. Is just interesting reading. I much prefer b/w files out of my M246 compared to equivalent out of the 240 I sold soon after acquiring it. Never going back. Doesn't need over analyzing why that is or an explanation or justification. It is a specialized camera, no mistake about it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those photos are superb. Very well suited to b&w and handled beautifully my the MM. The monochrom is unsurpassed on certain types of photo. You need to play it to it's strengths and that is what you have done so admirably.

 

Thank you!, I owe it to my Summilux75, or to my dear relationship with her. It's a 'she' in my view because she handles the relations to people so well. But indeed the MM1 is a very dedicated horse, that seems to know what you want, especially when mounted with a 35Summicron iv or this 75. Edited by otto.f
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

While Thorsten does produce excellent B&W photographs (many of them converted from digital colour images), he still is no B&W photographer at his heart. And he has no use for B&W pictures as an commercial photographer—magazines want colour pictures. So his use—and enthusiasm—for a monochrome-only camera naturally is limited.

 

This, however, does not explain the nonsense he wrote about the Typ 246's 'dynamic range' which allegedly was severely limited. What he actually was talking about is exposure range. And as a matter of fact, the M Monochrom's exposure range is much wider than the colour M cameras'. So ... while Thorsten is a much better photographer—and writer, and blogger—than most of us, you still must not take everything he says for gospel, especially when it comes to the finer points of technology.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

What attracted me to the Monochrom in the first place (I thought it was a very stupid idea) was the resolution, dynamic range and flexibility of the files in post, provided you got the exposure about right. Playing with Jon's files from his China trip convinced me.

 

I haven't changed my mind. I have been mostly using it with the 50 Summilux ASPH, but this weekend I'm taking it to Sydney with the 50 Summitar.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful pictures ! Yes, I think the M 246 can also produce rich black. I also agree with your attitude towards silver effex as in some cases I observed some artifacts obviously produced by silver effex.

I can follow that, I can't easily show the results on print after an efexpro2 post-process, but it is really weird I can assure our readers, some sort of solarized blacks, very peculiar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my 246 as it makes me think differently about the shots I am taking. If the files were identical it would be worth it just for this aspect. My photographs are almost always better with the MM (I think!) than my 240 as I think about the shots differently. 

 

So the camera is still providing me with a better photograph even though the tech may not be that different. 

 

Beyond that, I do find that the files can be pushed much further as you don't get the strange posterisation effects that you can get with the colour sensor. Shadows can be lifted more successfully. Obviously you need to be careful not to blow the highlights though!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What he actually was talking about is exposure range.

 

For those who are interested in the finer points of technology—here's an article about the difference between dynamic range and exposure range. As photographers, we are concerned about the latter only.

 

Dynamic Range Is Not Exposure Range! Part I

Dynamic Range Is Not Exposure Range! Part II

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Don't take Overgaard too serious or see him as an equipment guru.

 

In my eyes he's just a happy amateur as myself and many others photographers.

 

The 246 is an fantastic camera which produces excellent quality files out of the camera who no other camera can compete with.

 

Period. No matter what the self claimed Von-photographer thinks or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For those who are interested in the finer points of technology—here's an article about the difference between dynamic range and exposure range. As photographers, we are concerned about the latter only.

 

Dynamic Range Is Not Exposure Range! Part I

Dynamic Range Is Not Exposure Range! Part II

 

Good reminder....I had forgotten about these particular Ctein's posts.  Too bad he and TOP (Michael Johnston) had a falling out.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the M246 tones when used with old lenses that produce less contrast but are as sharp as their modern equivalents. My collection is comprised of these three gems: 35/2 v1 (8-element), 50/2 v2 (Rigid) and 90/4 (Triplet). Don't like it that much with modern lenses, especially not with the latest and greatest that shine on the M240. I occassionally read Thorsten's longish write-ups when I need to kill time, but don't consider them anything to guide my equipment choices. Like any other "internet-enabled" entrepreneur, he has to take a a stance on something from time to time to keep the buzz on about his website, his workshops etc. Take it all with a pinch of salt would be my advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take Overgaard too serious or see him as an equipment guru.

 

In my eyes he's just a happy amateur as myself and many others photographers.

 

The 246 is an fantastic camera which produces excellent quality files out of the camera who no other camera can compete with.

 

Period. No matter what the self claimed Von-photographer thinks or not.

 

I think this comment says more about you than about Overgaard. Very disrespectful in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Apart from the fact that overgaard's reviews radiate some sort of status, whereas he has made a lot of technical mistakes in the past and I just trust him actually less than for instance Steve Huff's loud voice), I can only speak for the MM: wonderfull camera, wonderfull files, no problems at all, very versatile. I use EfexPro2 less and less often because it tends to lead to over-postprocessed results. I develop my MM files in C1 with as few manipulations as possible.

BTW, I don't know how this works on the M246, but the JPEGs from the MM when set at one step more contrast, are very interesting too.

 

The link below directs to a series made with the MM1 with Summilux75 (lens detection OFF) and I can't imagine that the M246 can't produce such rich blacks if not better

 

http://lotwouda.zenfolio.com/p735541593

I don't know, but I think that the M246 can produce more than enough "rich black". These photos are from a photo book I made in 2015:

 

https://flic.kr/s/aHskPjxWC6

  • Like 3
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...