Is M Monochrome really worth if still own M240

[Hamad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All.. you might think why and i am sure there are many reason for what i am about to ask to go yes or no.

So.... i have M240 and very happy with it. I love my lenses and images. But.. but the black and white started appealing me and now comes the big question:

Is it worth investing in Leica M Monochrome even if i have M240? Is this colorless filter which Leica says they have in M246 make that much of a difference that MM will be totally different then the M240.

I have non knowledge but if i convert the M240 images to black and white on computer or shoot B&W with my M240 will there be a huge difference? Difference worth paying for another camera?

 

At the beginning when it was launched I never felt the need of getting the black and white only camera and not having the choice of color images, but after reading all the difference between M and the MM is there anyone who can explain if it really matter to get M or shall i wait till the M10 Monochrome comes out we see what that has to offer.

Thank you

[Jager]

The short answer is... if you love black and white, yes, the M246 is a worthy upgrade over the M240.

 

The more nuanced answer is... your M240 already gives you superlative black and white conversions.  End of story.  Yes, the images you'll get from the M246 are superior, but not dramatically so.  The differences are always there, but are subtle.

 

The biggest advantage the M246 holds over the M240 is its high-iso performance.  The Monochrom completely blows it away.  If you like low light photography, it changes everything.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Luke_Miller]

Plus 1 for above.

 

When I added the M-246 I did a head-to-head comparison with my M-240 and the improvement in the resolution of fine detail in the M-246 was clear, but not dramatic as Jeff noted. High ISO performance is outstanding over the M-240.  Even my M9 Monochrom  is better than the M-240 in that regard..  Speaking of the M9 Monochrom, my impression is that the improvement in resolution over that of the M9 is somewhat more than that of the M-240 vs M-246.  When I bought the M-246 I thought I would sell the M9 Monochrom, but I can't bring myself to do so. Both produce exceptional results.

[Ko.Fe.]

It is all very personal.

IMO.

Monochrome is nice to have if you like BW. Especially if you like BW prints. This is what I hear not from amateurs but from professionals who takes pictures for living and getting their prints accepted by galleries.

Currently I as amateur have no money for M240 and Monochrome. I'm using M4-2 for bw film and M-E which I often switch to BW JPEG1 and I also decided to try M8, which is glorified for BW. I like BW film, I like M-E SOOC BW as well. But I also like the idea to ditch all of the film bodies and bw films and have just Monochrome.  

[mmradman]

I am an amateur who learned photography back in the days when doing your own B&W development was the norm, that first love never went away except I don't have facilities now to do my own development.

 

Fast forwards some 30+ years and MM mk1 was launched, I was genuinely intrigued but at the time M9 was providing mixture of joy and frustration due to primitive electronics (poor handling of SD card, loosing files etc) so I was not interested and M240 was launched about the same time, I sort of guessed that M246 will follow and it did, a year later after it was made available I jumped on a good post Christmas offer and got it (together with APO Summicron 50mm) it is now my most used camera.

 

I think for a patient shopper there are always good new or secondhand deals around.

 

If you like Black and White photography, maybe live and shoot in poor light and prefer digital flow give either mk1 or mk2 consideration, I bet there will be mk3 later but that is some time off.

[vhfreund]

If you are committed to B&W, yes the M 246 is worth it. Yes quality is superior to the M 240 but that dosen´t count ! Key is that that it is important to shoot B&W. That is a different experience than shooting colour and deciding later whether to convert into B&W. If you are into B&W go get the Mono or even better a film Leica !!

 

Best Theodor

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Find a second hand M9M. You'll love it and the best price-quality ratio

[Jeff S]

One of the advantages of the M240 is that one can make use of color channels in PP.....separately or together....whereas the Monochrom will require a color filter on the lens at time of capture for similar effect, and that's typically one filter at a time.

 

Like so much else in photography, a lot depends on the eye/skill of the user, not just the gear itself.  Some folks make gorgeous prints with minimal gear, while others struggle using the latest and greatest.  There are loads of variables in the camera to print workflow, yet the most important tool remains between the ears.

 

Having said that, the Monochrom can work in lower light conditions than the M240, if low noise and greater DR suits your objectives.

 

Jeff

[pico]

If you understand very well how to use B&W contrast filters, then a monochrome Leica is okay, but not really good.

 

Converting color dmg to B&W in an ordinary editing program (I use Photoshop) yields far, far greater control to B&W.

Edited February 15, 2017 by pico

[Hamad]

Thank you everyone for your detailed replies.... i will go for MM ... will wait for M10-M to arrive and jump on it. Your replies convinced me that for B&W its only Monochrome .

Thank you every one for your time

Hamad

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jaapv]

If you understand very well how to use B&W contrast filters, then a monochrome Leica is okay, but not really good.

 

Converting color dmg to B&W in an ordinary editing program (I use Photoshop) yields far, far greater control to B&W.

yes, bit with a considerable loss of acuity and a limited tonal range. If one has the skill to get it right in the camera there is nothing that beats the MM. ( or film)

[Jeff S]

Thank you everyone for your detailed replies.... i will go for MM ... will wait for M10-M to arrive and jump on it. Your replies convinced me that for B&W its only Monochrome .

Thank you every one for your time

Hamad

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You should be able to produce lovely b/w prints starting with your M240. If not you should ask yourself why....before expecting an MM to work magic.

 

Jeff

[R3D-D0T]

If you shoot at high ISOs and you can live with 320 base ISO on the MM2, then it's a great option.

 

I'd be more hesitant in selling off the MM2 than the M240, since there are not many cameras like it.

[pico]

yes, bit with a considerable loss of acuity and a limited tonal range. If one has the skill to get it right in the camera there is nothing that beats the MM. ( or film)

 

I disagree. Loss of acuity to what degree?  Tonal range can certainly be extended a great deal using color to B&W. How can it not be with separation and mixing of color layers? Methinks we need a challenge.

 

There are some things, in particular color to B&W that we cannot do in-camera.

.

Edited February 16, 2017 by pico

[Joshua Lowe]

I switched and was shocked by how much the absence of color decreased my interest in photography.  I had no idea until I gave it up that it was so important to me.  It was a valuable but expensive learning experience.

[mmradman]

I switched and was shocked by how much the absence of color decreased my interest in photography.  I had no idea until I gave it up that it was so important to me.  It was a valuable but expensive learning experience.

Everybody has different needs and preferences, if i had California sunshine on tap colour (or color) would be perhaps my first choice.  

 

My experience is opposite once i acquired M246 my interest in photography has gone from strength to strength. When not using camera my mind is evaluating scenery for B&W capture all the time and my M240 is pretty much collecting dust, and yes i use B&W contrast filters all the time.  Before getting M246 I used B&W film, despite unique film rendering I find digital workflow straightforward and may I say good value for money despite high cost of digital camera.  

[fotografr]

I disagree. Loss of acuity to what degree? Tonal range can certainly be extended a great deal using color to B&W. How can it not be with separation and mixing of color layers? Methinks we need a challenge.

 

There are some things, in particular color to B&W that we cannot do in-camera.

.

I'm with Jaap on this one, based on nothing more than my own experience. I have never been able to make files converted from color match the tonal range I get with my M Monochrom. In particular, the shadow detail present in MM images exceeds what I can get with converted files. I've wondered if part of the reason is due to the CCD in the MM versus the CMOS in later versions. I did not own the M9, but I know people were able to make superb conversions from that camera. I did own the M8, also a CCD sensor camera, and found the B&W conversions from it very appealing.

 

The only way to accurately assess the difference between Monochrom and converted files would be to shoot the same subject with the same lens on each camera, then make high quality prints to compare side by side. This will never be settled by looking at images posted here.

 

Three years ago I did a solo exhibition consisting of thirty 20x30" metal prints. All of the images were shot with the M Monochrom. It was viewed by a number of long time professional photographers and I got repeated comments about the tones and detail in the prints. Many thought I'd used a large format camera. This was due far more to the MM than to anything I did.

Edited February 16, 2017 by fotografr

[pico]

[...] The only way to accurately assess the difference between Monochrom and converted files would be to shoot the same subject with the same lens on each camera, then make high quality prints to compare side by side. This will never be settled by looking at images posted here. [...] please see author's post.

 

You are right, of course. We dearly need a pool of publicly available DNG files made with each camera. Thank you for the reminder.

.

Edited February 16, 2017 by pico

[fotografr]

I switched and was shocked by how much the absence of color decreased my interest in photography. I had no idea until I gave it up that it was so important to me. It was a valuable but expensive learning experience.

My experience was the exact opposite when I got my first M Monochrom. I could never shoot another color image in my life and it wouldn't bother me in the least. For me, good b&w images arouse a photographic passion that I never feel with color. I once walked alongside National Geographic photographer Sam Abel as he judged a large photo competition. His main criteria was to imagine the color images as b&w then look at how they were constructed, foreground to background. He immediately dismissed any photos that relied mainly on color for their impact. I agree with that bias and am never overly impressed with images like pretty sunsets (even though I've shot my share) in which the color itself is the primary point of interest.

Edited February 16, 2017 by fotografr

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fotografr]

You are right, of course. We dearly need a pool of publicly available DNG files made with each camera. Thank you for the reminder.

.

I'm not convinced that would settle anything. We would need to compare DNG files shot under the same lighting conditions and of the same subject. Then, of course, the pp would have to be done using the same software and in an identical manner. Maybe we need to get several people together for a few days of shooting and comparing (and throw in some good scotch while we're at it).