Probably old but I need to ask, Leica M vs Leica MM

[Jimmykjimmy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Primarily convert all of my images to BW. That is 100%. Rarely do I print in color. So I've been trying to figure out which way to go. I process in LR, that is convert into BW. Sometimes using Silver Efex. I like the fact that I can use the filters in LR to modify the different colors as I would with BW filters. I know with the MM this would not work. Apparently Silver Efex would work better for post processing.

I know you can shoot higher ISO with the MM, that means faster shutter speed on the streets and of course better for low light. But some flexibility is gone in post processing.

The M is on order but I've been vacillating lately for the MM. I'm sure someone has thoughts?

[gpwhite]

If all of your prints are BW, I think your decision is straightforward-- the flexibility of the files is quite a bit greater from the MM, just as the useful ISO is 2 stops greater.

 

There are user advantages to the M240, such as improved focus precision and EVF for non-coupled lenses. The M also feels better than the MM, unless you like the nostalgic feel

 

Perhaps you are in a quandary because you are undecided between image supremacy (MM) and maximum camera utility (M240)....

[sanyasi]

I am not a technician. I don't look at MF charts, I don't know how digital cameras work, I don't care about sensor specifics, etc. I do own both the M and the MM. I like them both. This weekend I carried both of them with me for an architectural open house weekend (150 buildings in Chicago). Last year, I had the MM and the M9 with me. Last year, everything I did was outputted and printed in black and white. This year, 3/4 was in color. I can't tell you why that happened (probably due to weather conditions), so both the MM and the "color" Leica make great pictures.

 

My impressions:

 

The MM photos are cleaner and crisper.

 

I carry color filters with me when I use the MM, but I find that Silver Efex is so good that I don't need to rely on the filters as much as I initially thought I would. For that reason, I don't view the ability to use the software filters with the M to be as big an advantage as I necessarily thought.

 

When I photograph in dark jazz clubs, I prefer the MM.

 

I find the MM to be a treat to use. More so than the M, but I really like the M.

 

Bottom line: You can't go wrong either way. The M obviously provides greater flexibility and it is slightly cheaper. But the MM is a lot of fun.

 

I have probably added to your uncertainty, but that is how I see it.

 

Here are some samples:

 

The Sanyasi-Aesthetic | Chicago Architecture (many of these are MM, but I think overtime some may be color conversions--so check the information tab to see which camera I used).

 

The Sanyasi-Aesthetic | Chicago Architectural Foundation These are from this year. All the color were shot with the M--don't freak out on the colors. I have been experimenting with a color palette so some may find the colors extreme and not representative. Some of the black and whites were shot with the MM, but some are conversions from the M. Check the info tab.

 

Good luck.

[marcg]

I looked through your collection and found three M240 BW conversions.

Whether or not I could have picked them out without seeing the exif info in the tab, looking at them, it seems to me that they were less precise in their lines - less present - than the MM images.

[sanyasi]

Well one point to keep in mind, although I won't be much help here because I don't remember--that is whether (or when) a tripod was used. With the exception of the photo of the water tower at Jones School, I don't think any of the photos taken this past weekend were shot off a tripod. As for the photographs from last year, I know the ones that I took during the open house were not shot off a tripod because I didn't bring one with me. However, there are other photos in that folder and some were shot using a tripod. My preference if I am doing a "landscape" or "cityscape" is to use a tripod, but some days I go out just to shoot what I find on the street. If the light is good, however, I will still shoot buildings.

 

Also keep in mind that last year I did not own the 21 mm Leica 3.4 lens. This year I did and I used it a lot last weekend, so lens differences could account for what you are seeing.

 

Lenses have the aperture sweet spot in terms of sharpness. Given that the aperture is an estimate for purposes of the EXIF data (at least that is my understanding with the Lecia system), it is hard to say whether I was in the sweet spot. In short, there are a lot of variables, which is one reason I don't get too excited about the technical details.

 

I also was highly distracted and exhausted this weekend due to two unfortunate personal events last week. I could tell that I was a little shakier than normal and had trouble getting into my zone.

 

In short, there are a lot of variables, which is one reason I don't get too excited about the technical details.

 

Best

[250swb]

But some flexibility is gone in post processing.

The M is on order but I've been vacillating lately for the MM. I'm sure someone has thoughts?

 

Here is an picture from the MM that I accidentally made at 8000 ISO in trying to set the camera up on the tripod quickly to catch the changing light. I don't feel I lost any flexibility in post processing the image, in fact it looks very much like B&W 4x5 film the way the tones render.

 

 

I can't recommend the MM more than an M if you like using the colour filters in Silver Efex, but you can use real colour filters on the MM as you would with using B&W film, and even IR filters work! I use PS and Silver Efex for all my post processing, and the MM's files are as mouldable as a lump of putty, you can stretch them in all sorts of directions before they start to break down. I don't think it's the same case with the M and converting to B&W, they break down very quickly even though they are much better than the M9.

 

Steve

[marcg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wonderful. Could a 240 do that?

[2wk]

Here is an picture from the MM that I accidentally made at 8000 ISO in trying to set the camera up on the tripod quickly to catch the changing light. I don't feel I lost any flexibility in post processing the image, in fact it looks very much like B&W 4x5 film the way the tones render.

 

 

Steve

 

Excuse me good sir, but what lens did you use for this beautiful photograph?

[250swb]

Excuse me good sir, but what lens did you use for this beautiful photograph?

 

Thank you for your kind comment. It was the superb and unbeatable 28mm Summicron!

 

 

Steve

[Jimmykjimmy]

The responses have been great. I do have the Sony RX 1 and could keep that for color work. I just traded. In my M9 and anxious to get back to my ol standard Leica. I just love the feel of the Leica with the Leica lenses

[01af]

Here is an picture from the M Monochrom ...

Gasp! That's mind-boggling! How can such a small web image be so ... luscious?

 

 

It was the superb and unbeatable Summicron-M 28 mm Asph!

At which aperture?

 

 

Primarily convert all of my images to black-and-white. That is 100 %. [...] The M is on order but I've been vacillating lately for the M Monochrom. I'm sure someone has thoughts?

I have the M and I love it ... but then, I am not primarily a black-and-white photographer. I used to be (back in the film days) but today I convert my digital files to black-and-white only occasionally.

 

However from what I see and what I hear—here and elsewhere—I'm convinced that any photographer who considers her- or himself a 100 % black-and-white shooter should get the M Monochrom. And those who are, say, 90 or 95 % black-and white should convert to 100 % and then get the M Monochrom. Seriously.

 

The one thing you should not do is to carry two cameras, one M Monochrom and another for colour just in case. Do not do that. Seriously.

 

 

But some flexibility is gone in post-processing.

Just the contrary is true. With the M Monochrom, you'll gain much more in post-processing flexibility than you'll lose.

[platypus]

Here is an picture from the MM that I accidentally made at 8000 ISO in trying to set the camera up on the tripod quickly to catch the changing light.

Steve

 

Steve,

Even when "made accidentally" your images are so effortlessly brilliant! It's so distressing...

[jaapv]

I have been trying - there is no way I can process the M files into anything like the Monochrom ones.

Having said that the M B&W output is pretty good - but I still would take the M8 if I did not possess a Monochrom.

[jaapv]

Wonderful. Could a 240 do that?

No But it would render something pretty good if Steve were handling t.

[marcg]

But why settle for - pretty good - if you have a Leica? :madgrin:

 

 

... and why doesn't my :madgrin: turn into a smiley?

[250swb]

 

At which aperture?

 

 

It was f/11, but the lens had an ND filter on so it doesn't record accurately on the EXIF file. And the filter caused the problem because I'd forgotten to take the camera off 'Auto ISO' from the day before, so it got bumped all the way up. By the time I had put the camera into manual mode and changed to 320 ISO the light had gone again.

 

The MM is the only camera I have ever felt happy about using Auto ISO anyway. The files look so good even when they are made at a high ISO. I'd been using it for interior photographs, photographing a very dark corner one minute and sunlight streaming through a window the next. So I choose the aperture and let the camera choose the ISO after I set the slowest speed I want to hand hold at. That wouldn't work with the M9, or at least only within a very narrow restricted ISO band. I suspect it would be similar with the M. But the 'grain' (noise) of the MM is so film like and attractive that it can be used as a feature, like putting a fast film in and taking pleasure in the grain when looking at the print.

 

Steve

[skinnfell]

You shoot 100% black and white, and still cant decide??

 

No I am just kidding with you. There are several good resons for either camera, and being the Monochrom actually costs more, this needs to be well thought out. Here are my considerations that influenced my decision:

 

Color channel conversion:

I think the ability to play with color mix is overplayed. In fact, I think most black and white photos online suffer from exactly this: too much playing with contrast mix, particularly to "bring out the sky".

This is of course personal, but I think that straight up (panchromatic) pictures look better, more organic if you will.

In the very few cases I need a little extra pop, i put on a yellow filter.

 

Live view:

If you do a lot of architecture this will be useful, but if you do a lot of architecture you will probably want the monchrom for its incredible detail rendition. You will probably have to make small perspective corrections with either camera, LV or not.

 

Price:

M240 is slightly cheaper, but not by so much that it should make a big influence on your decision. They are both painfully expensive.

 

BAttery:

Again, I think this is overplayed. I have two batteries for my MM, and can never go through both of them in one day of shooting. They charge pretty fast.

They are expensive but small and light.

 

LCD.

The LCD on MM is suffcitient for its use but compared to (all) other cameras, it is sh!t. Who's the screen to tell you how your picture should look like? All you want to know is how the historgram looks like, and roughly how the composition look like. the LCD is crap on MM compared to 240. No doubt about it. However, a true professional doestn chimp, right?

 

Image quality:

Everybody is talking about the latitude of this and that camera. But one thing you will immediately notice is the incredible details of the monochrom. It literally looks like a film of wax paper has been lifted off compared to bayer filter sensors. My friend has the M240, and it still has the kind of muddy, smudgy look on the fine details as I see on my canons. Of course better, but still. The Monochrom has just pure, crisp details. In fact, with the monochrom I have completely stopped adding any sharpness. Especially when you print big this will be evident.

 

 

Mojo:

MM! I have never used a camera which makes me so exited as the Monochrom. It is such a pure, concentrated, no nonsense experience.

 

 

I mean, you do not buy a Triumph Rocket and then bemoan all the things it does NOT have. You just go out and have a hell of a time. Take the bus the rest of the year...

 

Good luck and remember to post pics!

[jonoslack]

Well

I have both the M and the MM . . . . and I do shoot a lot of black and white (but not exclusively).

 

I think my feeling is that if you do landscape, then the ability to use the channel mixer is enough of an advantage to use the M,

 

Whatever - If someone nailed my head to the floor and said I could only have one it would be the M, and truth is, most of my black and white work is done with the M

 

Here's two from yesterday converted to black and white using silver efex pro.

 

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!

 

 

There are the other obvious reasons which make the M a delight to use:

 

Better Rangefinder

Weathersealing

Nicer shutter noise

nicer shutter release

bigger buffer

much better LCD

 

You'll notice I've not mentioned Live View/evf/anything like that

[algrove]

Get the Monochrom if you use the RX-1 for color. You can always get an M someday, but maybe not a Monochrom.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jimmykjimmy]

You guys and gals have supplied some terrific answers. I'm going to go with the Monochrome. I'll use the Sony RX1 for landscape, when I feel the need. Most of my stuff is in the street, a faster shutter speed with the MM makes a lot of sense. Thanks