The harder M240 vs. MM questions?

[dante]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think I have one more Leica to go - I've used them for 15 years and love the arbitrary focus, instant-shoot nature of them. And so after 6+ years with an M8, I ordered an M240 to replace it. Getting an M9 was not really an option so late in the game, and although it had a bigger sensor, it was essentially a bigger M8 (with the same somewhat ancient electronics). The M240 looked like a bigger jump up. But since I have some time (and I also have other cameras for color), I was looking at the MM as an alternative to the M240.

 

I am of several minds about the difference:

 

- The work I sell is primarily b/w and shot with modern 6x9 and 6x4.5 Fujis - and not shooting above ISO400. If MM files can deal with geometric correction and still enlarge well, an MM might be a stand-in for the 6x4.5. If not, the better solution may be a competent shift lens on an M240.

 

- I am not freaked out about b/w conversions, although some cameras convert better than others. Although I have 20+ years with contrast filters, and get things right most of the time, you really don't want to filter bracket while standing on a slippery mountaintop. That would be a point for the M240.

 

- I am trying to get to carrying one camera while traveling (as opposed to a GA645 plus an M8, X100, or something else that size for color). That would also be a point in the M240's favor (assuming, of course, that I wanted to take an $11K outfit anywhere abroad).

 

- I am not married to optical printing and am no stranger to LightJet and Frontier.

 

- The MM makes some very nice pictures.

 

- The choice of the M240 or MM will not make or break any capabilities. In other words, I am covered for contingencies like AF, video, etc.

 

Since it may not be a KO on gut reaction, let's let it go to a decision on points. So here are some questions for people who actually use the M240 and MM.

 

For the M240 people:

 

1. Is the M240 more responsive in playback/review than an M8/M9?

 

2. Does it suffer from any increased shutter lag in non-liveview mode?

 

3. Does it convert to b/w cleanly and without halos when you drop the blue channel?

 

4. Would it make 1990s-vintage lenses look bad, for example, a well-tempered 35 Summilux ASPH?

 

For the MM people:

 

1. Where there are architectural elements, is there enough resolution to do perspective correction and then print to 10x15 inches? This would be for display settings where people might be able to get close enough to grain-sniff.

 

2. If you need to cancel out the yellow-green bias of the sensor with external filtration (example: non-gritty people pictures), do you get focus shift?

 

3. Do high-contrast details (like the hair in Jono's test pictures from China) often cause problems in enlargements?

 

4. Is the magnifying wheel any less stiff and the mode switch any stiffer?

 

I would appreciate any insights, particularly from longtime MF film shooters.

 

Thanks,

Dante

 

P.S. And just to head off the inevitable, a film M is not a possibility, nor would I want both an MM and an M240!

[Advertisement]

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

[mwilliamsphotography]

I'm a M Monochromatic shooter. I have a M240 on order, but am still debating it, and waiting for more evidence as more people get the camera and play with color profiles. So far I am not convinced, but that could change overnight.

 

I am a fan of the MM, and think it is the best camera Leica have produced since some of the classic film cameras, all while significantly increasing the usable range of ISOs. Prior to the M digital cameras, I shot mostly M B&W film for "gritty" street work, and a Hasselblad 203FE MF B&W for more refined stuff ... both scanned on a Imacon 949.

 

The MM has nicely spanned both those formats depending on what ISO is used. Printed to a max of 17 X 22 on my Epson 3800 ... or mostly 12 X18 plus 1/4" bleed laser silver prints for wedding album spreads.

 

I would not evaluate the MM based on early beta images, understanding of the MM files has come along way in a fairly short time. There is a different learning curve with the MM compared to color sensor cameras, and that had to be factored in.

 

While I haven't severely manipulated architectural images, I have applied perspective corrections to a number of files and did not notice any obvious ill effects even a 200%. However, that would be a subjective call I think. At your 10" X 15" specification I seriously doubt even "nose pressers" would see anything.

 

So far, I haven't used any filters on the MM, nor have I missed them. Most of my applications so far have been non-gritty wedding photos and portraits up to ISO 1250 - 2000 ... and night hawk street photography at higher ISOs.

 

However, I am a long time user of Nik Silver Efex software, and know all the various tools, presets, film types, brushes, and how to use them in an interactive manner ... I use Nik as a P/S plug-in because, unlike as the LightRoom plug-in, it produces layers. Separate layers allow you to blend different Nik processing approaches and responses using the layer palette sliders in PS.

 

Hope this helps.

 

-Marc

[wattsy]

For the MM people:

 

1. Where there are architectural elements, is there enough resolution to do perspective correction and then print to 10x15 inches? This would be for display settings where people might be able to get close enough to grain-sniff.

 

2. If you need to cancel out the yellow-green bias of the sensor with external filtration (example: non-gritty people pictures), do you get focus shift?

 

3. Do high-contrast details (like the hair in Jono's test pictures from China) often cause problems in enlargements?

 

4. Is the magnifying wheel any less stiff and the mode switch any stiffer?

 

1) This obviously depends upon the amount of correction necessary (and the resulting amount of interpolation and loss of 'real estate' as the distorted file is cropped back to a rectangle) but I wouldn't expect "grain-sniffers" would find problems with a 10x15 print.

 

2) Yes, particularly with a red filter but not enough IME to be a problem in practice.

 

3) If you mean stair-stepping and similar artifacts then I haven't noticed a problem with continuous tone prints up to approximately 12x16 (I haven't printed any MM files larger than that). I guess there cannot be a definitive answer – it all depends upon the degree of enlargement and the method of printing (RIP, etc.).

 

4) The Monochrom feels just like an M9 hardware-wise (and is just as slow in operation).

[dante]

Thanks Marc and Ian for the straightforward answers! I am mainly trying to feel out whether the MM has any features (or quirks) that are going to make it less useful than I would want an $8K camera to be. Or make me hate it (toward the end of my M8 years, its sluggishness and quirkiness were starting to get on my nerves).

 

The perspective correction is not very many degrees - just what you would run into doing verticals with an optical finder that lacks an operative level in that orientation (something that may not be a problem with an M240...). It's not much more than you would do in a darkroom (where that kind of thing can be far more destructive to sharpness).

 

I guess filtration may be an issue if G filters are too strong to maintain good focus - there is a point at which I don't want to turn good lenses into bad. The point is hopefully not to buy a camera to use existing lenses and then have to replace those lenses with new lenses. Maybe I just need to find one of these and test it.

 

Now... does someone want to weigh in on the M240?

 

Thanks!

Dante

[algrove]

[quote name=dante;2363746

- I am trying to get to carrying one camera while traveling (as opposed to a GA645 plus an M8' date=' X100, or something else that size for color). That would also be a point in the M240's favor (assuming, of course, that I wanted to take an $11K outfit anywhere abroad).

 

 

For the M240 people:

 

1. Is the M240 more responsive in playback/review than an M8/M9?

 

2. Does it suffer from any increased shutter lag in non-liveview mode?

 

3. Does it convert to b/w cleanly and without halos when you drop the blue channel?

 

4. Would it make 1990s-vintage lenses look bad, for example, a well-tempered 35 Summilux ASPH?

 

For the MM people:

 

1. Where there are architectural elements, is there enough resolution to do perspective correction and then print to 10x15 inches? This would be for display settings where people might be able to get close enough to grain-sniff.

 

2. If you need to cancel out the yellow-green bias of the sensor with external filtration (example: non-gritty people pictures), do you get focus shift?

 

3. Do high-contrast details (like the hair in Jono's test pictures from China) often cause problems in enlargements?

 

4. Is the magnifying wheel any less stiff and the mode switch any stiffer?

 

I would appreciate any insights, particularly from longtime MF film shooters.

 

Thanks,

Dante

 

P.S. And just to head off the inevitable, a film M is not a possibility, nor would I want both an MM and an M240!

 

240--

1&2. In classic mode it is fast, but in the advanced mode where you can use spot metering and other metering methods it is SLOW since all choices under advanced are by nature LV, which is a shame.

3. Have a MM so leave B&W to the expert.

4. It could but Monochrom likes old Mandler lenses and the 40/2.0. Have only used R lenses and newer M lenses so far.

 

MM--

1. Resolution to spare for me. Grain sniffing on 13x19,17x22 and 24x36 only amaze the sniffers.Have no experience with smaller prints.

2. No need for anything, but as I like drama I most often orange filters for landscapes and occasionally a red.

3. Not for me although you sound like more of a nit picker than I-no criticism just fact.

4. There is no magnifying wheel on the MM only the M. Mode switch feels about the same for both even though I understand the M has a new fly-by-wire one.

 

If you want one camera and care about color images, you have no choice, but to get the M. Maybe it's time for a visit to a dealer who has both in stock for demo use so you can try them out for yourself.

 

You didn't ask about the M shutter versus MM. It is WAY better.

[deliciouspizza]

I'm in the same pickle. I'm lucky enough to have one of the new M 240s and I love it. The dynamic range and high ISO performance are the biggest improvements. As well as battery life, live view, LCD screen and weather sealing.

 

I was going to get the MM, but I held out for the M 240. I'll be happy with this camera, for sure, but I can't tell how much better the MM is for black and white. As far as resolution and DR goes, it seems like a toss up. The MM does seem to have better tonality, more like a medium format camera and better high ISO performance.

 

Tonality has been one of those things that's kind of hard to test and quantify, but it would seem to my eye that the tonality of the MM is more aesthetically pleasing, more like a medium format camera. Some people have complained that the MM creates "flat" images, which I think is a compliment. I think that just means there is more "tonal information" to play with in post. The tonal transitions are more gradual, soft and "painterly", which I think is what most people prefer, or should prefer. How much better is it though? Again, it's hard for me to tell. I hope there are more thorough comparisons in the future.

 

I look at all these MM galleries and I can't tell if the images are actually slightly better or if it's one of these "the grass is always greener" mind tricks. It's kind of driving me nuts. I'm going to find someone in LA who has one and compare it with my 240 with big prints, the right way.

 

I don't think you can go wrong with either camera though. That being said, and I'm surprised how rarely I actually use it, but LV really does come in handy and for someone who really puts their gear to the test, I feel much better having a properly weather sealed camera with the new M. And I mostly shoot B&W but every now and then I stumble across shots that could only work in color that I would feel quite sad if I missed. So, barring future tests that definitively reveal the true advantage of the MM, I'll probably stick with the M 240.

 

Now...if they release a de-bayered MM 240...

[macjonny1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm in the same pickle. I'm lucky enough to have one of the new M 240s and I love it. The dynamic range and high ISO performance are the biggest improvements. As well as battery life' date=' live view, LCD screen and weather sealing.

 

I was going to get the MM, but I held out for the M 240. I'll be happy with this camera, for sure, but I can't tell how much better the MM is for black and white. As far as resolution and DR goes, it seems like a toss up. The MM does seem to have better tonality, more like a medium format camera and better high ISO performance.

 

Tonality has been one of those things that's kind of hard to test and quantify, but it would seem to my eye that the tonality of the MM is more aesthetically pleasing, more like a medium format camera. Some people have complained that the MM creates "flat" images, which I think is a compliment. I think that just means there is more "tonal information" to play with in post. The tonal transitions are more gradual, soft and "painterly", which I think is what most people prefer, or should prefer. How much better is it though? Again, it's hard for me to tell. I hope there are more thorough comparisons in the future.

 

I look at all these MM galleries and I can't tell if the images are actually slightly better or if it's one of these "the grass is always greener" mind tricks. It's kind of driving me nuts. I'm going to find someone in LA who has one and compare it with my 240 with big prints, the right way.

 

I don't think you can go wrong with either camera though. That being said, and I'm surprised how rarely I actually use it, but LV really does come in handy and for someone who really puts their gear to the test, I feel much better having a properly weather sealed camera with the new M. And I mostly shoot B&W but every now and then I stumble across shots that could only work in color that I would feel quite sad if I missed. So, barring future tests that definitively reveal the true advantage of the MM, I'll probably stick with the M 240.

 

Now...if they release a de-bayered MM 240...[/quote']

 

Half the fun of an MM is having a camera with only B&W! RAW histogram , simple workflow, to name some others. I wouldn't buy an MM just based on some minor IQ differences only...

[thighslapper]

Much as I love the MM.....

 

I have to say it's 90% psychology and 10% camera capability.

 

There is something very different about going out with a camera that only takes B&W images ..... you are suddenly very aware of tone and form and unconsciously see everything in a different light ..... subject choice becomes much more critical and considered....

 

Taking out an M or M9 is completely different ...... the 'convert to B&W' mindset is completely different and you tend to be too distracted by colour to make any critical choice about images.... B&W conversion of images originally taken because of your colour view of them will never be the same....

 

Image for image I am sure the MM B&W will always be better ... but that isn't the main factor....

[jaapv]

I fear you are right - but the next problem is that it is so much more fun to take out the Monochrom that it tends to eclipse the colour camera. At least has been for me this last nearly-year with the M9...

[Photoskeptic]

For those with the quandary of using one or the other - I spent two years carrying an M8 alongside an M3 loaded with Efke, one on a shorter strap than the other and shooting whatever as my mood dictated. Those were probably some of my most enjoyable years as a photographer as well as some of my most productive. There was no learning curve and I found I could switch effortlessly between the two.

I see no reason why the modern equivalent of what I did in the past could not use the two latest and greatest from the Leica scuderia in the same manner.

[Jeff S]

There is something very different about going out with a camera that only takes B&W images ..... you are suddenly very aware of tone and form and unconsciously see everything in a different light ..... subject choice becomes much more critical and considered....

 

For me, several decades of b/w film and darkroom experience has conditioned my brain to 'see' in b/w mode. I don't need the MM to do that, or any camera...as you say, it's a mental thing...but requiring experience to know how to translate the seeing into print. I recently calculated my approximate annual output of M film versus M digital (M8.2), pictures and prints, and find virtually no difference. 'Critical and considered' as you call it, always.

 

What I don't miss, however, is lugging around filters. The digital PP workflow is much more efficient, although not different conceptually from darkroom 'manipulations'....just another learned, yet quicker, more flexible and less messy/smelly, process. I love photographing; then and now.

 

Different strokes, as they say.

 

Jeff

[dante]

Ok algrove, so to recap (simply).

 

1. The MM makes [unquantifiably] better b/w with less work. No suprise bugbears (the reason I was asking about jaggies is that I have seen them occasionally with my Kodak 14n).

 

2. The M240 has fewer of the M8/M9 annoyances and does color.

 

(which leads to my conclusion it's too bad the MM wasn't done on the M240 electronic architecture... ). When I am in New York next month, I'll go take a look at both. I'm not sure that would really resolve anything, since ideally, you'd have to use both for about a week to really test them.

 

Jeff S, I am in the same boat as you. I too have shot and printed b/w for a couple of decades and don't really have any issues with "seeing differently." In fact, I see every scene in color in the viewfinder of my Fuji (if it's the 100mm lens), in a Leica Universal Wideangle Finder M (if I'm shooting the 50), or the Fuji 180mm finder. And when I'm on the road, I often shoot the same scene in color on digital so that I have a reference for film developing (N or N+2) and sometimes even printing. I think whether you need a monochrome-only digital camera to "see in monochrome" may be a question of individual psychology (just as some people don't struggle in disregarding extra automation and some do).

 

But at the same time, conversions to monochrome can be somewhat frustrating - they do not work particularly well when you have white objects up against the sky, the amount of cut you want to apply often exceeds what you can do before getting halos (with film and filters, it's pretty easy to knock certain colors right into the toe of the curve), and it always seems necessary to freeze the image as a TIFF before working on it. Some of the best b/w conversions I have seen are actually in-camera JPGs from the X-Pro1, and I'm sure that's aided by its higher proportion of contiguous green cells (and Fuji's still-secret decoding recipe). The Kodak 14n is great for mono conversions (it does not halo, but you have to live with 80-160 ISO), and M8 was no slouch either, especially in its ability to pick up IR (a capability that from the charts looks like it was taken away from the MM).

 

This has been an interesting discussion so far - thanks for all of the insights.

 

Dante

[batmobile]

The MM quite simply delivers better B&W files, especially if you are going to manipulate contrast and tones heavily.

 

If you shoot exclusively B&W, or feel you would benefit from doing so, there is no contest as long as you can live with the M9 derived nature of the MM.

 

I would love to have bought a M240, but happily spent more of my money on the older generation camera when I compared the files. I could not justify any other course of action because I have other solutions for colour and was not prepared to sacrifice quality on the B&W files. Coming from a wet printing background this mattered to me a lot.

[billo101]

If you shoot exclusively B&W, or feel you would benefit from doing so, there is no contest as long as you can live with the M9 derived nature of the MM.

 

 

+1!

[deliciouspizza]

I've taken around 3000 shots with the new M and I'm fairly smitten with the new features but not so much with the IQ, which is really only slightly better than the M9. And some of that improvement is subjective in my opinion. The only clear improvements IQ wise are the DR and high ISO, which only really come into play in rare lighting conditions.

 

I hate to say it, but I'm kind of cooling off on the new M. It's great, don't get me wrong. Maybe I just over-hyped it in my head. I love the new features. But there was something special about the CCD in the M9 that I feel we lost with the M 240. The new M feels like a 5D sensor plopped into a great M body. Which is fine, I'd be happy with this camera as I'd be happy with the old M9.

 

But, I like making big prints, I'm an IQ snob, I prefer working with light rather than color and I don't want the new features as badly as I want improved IQ, which I don't think we really got.

 

I hate to say it but I think I'm going to sell my M 240 in favor of a MM. I prefer B&W, I shoot a lot of it. I think I'd like to go through a period as a photographer where I can only shoot B&W. It would probably be fairly educational. I also plan on getting the new 50 Summicron APO, which the MM, as I understand it, is more ideal for. And right now, I could sell my 240 at a huge profit. Anyone want to pay $10K for my M 240?

[batmobile]

I'm not sure, personally, that I would bother with the 50 APO.

 

Perhaps pop a ZM 50 Planar on before you pay for that APO?

 

If you shoot a MM, please do try the 24 Elmar 3.8. I did yesterday, as I am looking for an alternative to the large 24 lux I have for walkabout work and wanted to see what I could do to the files in post to get a less modern look.

 

I was reasonably happy with what I could do with the images in post regarding look (such is the astonishing depth of shadow information with the MM, but the resolution had me astonished.

 

I've taken around 3000 shots with the new M and I'm fairly smitten with the new features but not so much with the IQ, which is really only slightly better than the M9. And some of that improvement is subjective in my opinion. The only clear improvements IQ wise are the DR and high ISO, which only really come into play in rare lighting conditions.

 

I hate to say it, but I'm kind of cooling off on the new M. It's great, don't get me wrong. Maybe I just over-hyped it in my head. I love the new features. But there was something special about the CCD in the M9 that I feel we lost with the M 240. The new M feels like a 5D sensor plopped into a great M body. Which is fine, I'd be happy with this camera as I'd be happy with the old M9.

 

But, I like making big prints, I'm an IQ snob, I prefer working with light rather than color and I don't want the new features as badly as I want improved IQ, which I don't think we really got.

 

I hate to say it but I think I'm going to sell my M 240 in favor of a MM. I prefer B&W, I shoot a lot of it. I think I'd like to go through a period as a photographer where I can only shoot B&W. It would probably be fairly educational. I also plan on getting the new 50 Summicron APO, which the MM, as I understand it, is more ideal for. And right now, I could sell my 240 at a huge profit. Anyone want to pay $10K for my M 240?

[fotografr]

You didn't ask about the M shutter versus MM. It is WAY better.

 

What's wrong with the MM shutter? Mine is smooth as silk and barely audible.

[Guest borge]

240--

You didn't ask about the M shutter versus MM. It is WAY better.

 

How many actuations is it rated for? Since it is so way much better?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

... and barely audible.

 

The shutter sound isn't the issue, the awful re-cock motor sound is, and the M solves that (without resorting to a half baked 'discreet' mode).

 

Jeff

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I'm not sure, personally, that I would bother with the 50 APO.

 

I agree +1.

For me if you are going to get the MM (like me) I want the best lens out there to screw onto it, so get yourself a new Noctilux 0.95 and be done with it...........thats what I am doing:D