Overgaard Posted May 16, 2012 Share #201 Posted May 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's actually Monochrom without an e in the end. The word comes from greek monokhrōmatos ‘of a single color.’ Leica M Monochrom There seem to have been an idea till very late to call the camera Henri, but it doesn't appear anywhere on the website as it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here Survey: Your opinion about the new LEICA M MONOCHROM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted May 16, 2012 Share #202 Posted May 16, 2012 No it's not. The only thing similar about the M Leicas, is they are all Rangefinders. M1? MD? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 16, 2012 Share #203 Posted May 16, 2012 It's actually Monochrom without an e in the end. The word comes from greek monokhrōmatos ‘of a single color.’ Leica M Monochrom. Thank you. I'll make note of the proper spelling. There seem to have been an idea till very late to call the camera Henri, but it doesn't appear anywhere on the website as it is. Why Henri? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 16, 2012 Share #204 Posted May 16, 2012 M1? MD? Very interesting. I just looked it up. M stands for Messsucher. Not knowing what that means, I found that "messen" means "to measure". And according to someone else, Messucher is German for Viewfinder. I've also read M stands for "Manual" However after researching all that info, "to measure" or "viewfinder" seems more correct. At the same time, Leica Rs have viewfinders too. So, the "M" series is probably meant to be messucher. On top of all this, now knowing there's a M1 and a MD and the fact that they are not called something like M41 or M4D (or what ever Leica number was around during the manufacturing of the M1 and MD,) it's even more totally understandable the M Monochrom is nick named MM. M1, MD and MM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted May 16, 2012 Share #205 Posted May 16, 2012 I'm, no great technical buff but I do like B&W Photography and am therefore very interested in the MM. Up to now all the comparisons I've heard and read comment about are with the M9. For quite a while now I've been using my M8 without the UV/IR filters for B&W photography (after reading an article in LFI) and to my perception the M8 produces a far superior B&W conversion with greater dynamic range than a converted M9 image. I would therefore be interested to see a comparison between the M8 and MM but of course am not likely to unless I decide to 'splash out'. By the way, I do also own an M9 and therefore my comparison with the M8 is first-hand and not just based on some theory. _____________________ Regards, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 16, 2012 Share #206 Posted May 16, 2012 ... I found that "messen" means "to measure". That's correct. And according to someone else, Messucher is German for viewfinder. That's wrong. First of all, it's not Messucher but either Meßsucher (in good old spelling) or Messsucher (in the new fool's spelling [yuck]). And it means the integrated combination of viewfinder and range meter—i. e. rangefinder. A viewfinder in general is just Sucher. Note that ch in German is pronounced like a Greek x (except when preceded by an s—in German, sch is the same as sh in English). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted May 16, 2012 Share #207 Posted May 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you. I'll make note of the proper spelling. Why Henri? Henri Cartier-Bresson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 16, 2012 Share #208 Posted May 16, 2012 I note that the percentage intending to buy it is slowly creeping downwards. But I don't suppose that matters one jot as long as the number is creeping up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 16, 2012 Share #209 Posted May 16, 2012 I note that the percentage intending to buy it is slowly creeping downwards. But I don't suppose that matters one jot as long as the number is creeping up. Also, any positive correlation of the number of people saying they might buy one to the number of people who, in fact, do buy one would be purely coincidential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted May 16, 2012 Share #210 Posted May 16, 2012 It's actually Monochrom without an e in the end. The word comes from greek monokhrōmatos ‘of a single color.’ Leica M Monochrom {snipped}. Uh huh The English "monochrome" also comes from the Greek. Monochrom is the way the Germans spell it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 16, 2012 Share #211 Posted May 16, 2012 Henri Cartier-Bresson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Carl Well in that case, I'd like to call the MM Helmut. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 16, 2012 Share #212 Posted May 16, 2012 Uh huh The English "monochrome" also comes from the Greek. Monochrom is the way the Germans spell it. I'm glad you said that because my spell checker did not catch that. At the same time however, if Leica spells it Monochrom, I guess that's the way I would have to spell it out to be totally correct. If MM is sold in the states (and I'm sure it will be,) it will be interesting to see if they use the "e" or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 16, 2012 Share #213 Posted May 16, 2012 Now that I've read through this whole thread, I'd like to give my opinion of the new Leica M Monochrom (or MM as I prefer to type or spell it out.) For a number of years, I've been reading current digital SLRs have matched and exceeded the resolution and color fidelity of color film. I don't know if that's totally true as each new generation keeps upping the pixel count...so that bit of information has always been confusing to me. And, I don't know if this is totally true however...I've also been reading the race of digital camera manufacturers to increase the pixel count has always been at the cost of exposer latitude and/or possibly tonal range (for B&W imagery.) I've even read somewhere within this thread, someone mentioned the pixel count on the MM would have to be 40 megs to match the resolution of film. Again, I don't know if that's true or not. I'd love for someone to ring in on this. Coming from someone who loves B&W, I've been waiting for someone to design a digital camera that comes close to, matches and/or exceeds the dynamic range, tonality, resolution and latitude of traditional B&W film. I'm impressed with the design of Leica's new Monochrom camera. Because the MM can use every bit of the image sensor without having to compromise "at all" for color fidelity, there's definitely an increase of what looks to be more like what one would expect from traditional B&W photography. There even seems to be a grain structure that looks like film...even the "noise" looks more like film grain than anything else. I would love to have one and two (or maybe) three top Leica lenses to go with a MM. Unfortunately for me, that would be too much money to consider...even if I already had the lenses. Now that that's out of the way, if money was not an issue...I would want to buy a MM right away. On the other hand (even if money was not the issue,) the thing I can't stand about these digital cameras is the constant upgrades necessary to correct what was not right with the previous generation. And, within my lifetime...I think that's going to be a constant issue and problem. Constant improvements needed to get closer and closer to what we already have with over 100 years of improvements with any of the film cameras and film technology. I love my R9 and the great Leica lenses I use with it. With my R9, I shoot B&W negatives and have them reverse processed to get B&W transparencies and enlarge them through my Leica slide projector onto a really big screen. So far, not even the Leica digital projector can come close to the fidelity I'm used to seeing on that huge screen...let alone a computer monitor. A image projected from a MM file may not fully reproduce what I'm used to seeing with a real transparency, HOWEVER, I'd be really interesting to see the quality of a image shot with the MM reproduced with a ink jet printer and how that would compare to a traditional B&W print. I bet you it would be very close and in that case, the MM could be a game changer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearoido Posted May 17, 2012 Share #214 Posted May 17, 2012 A view worth considering The Leica M Monochrom: Is Leica Pricing Out Its Loyal Customers with an $8,000 Black-and-White Camera? - Imaging Resource GaryO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted May 17, 2012 Share #215 Posted May 17, 2012 {snipped}HOWEVER, I'd be really interesting to see the quality of a image shot with the MM reproduced with a ink jet printer and how that would compare to a traditional B&W print. I bet you it would be very close and in that case, the MM could be a game changer. And I'm betting that without a *lot* of digital diggery-pokery (you can do almost anything with enough effort, don't forget), it won't even be remotely close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliveruss Posted May 17, 2012 Share #216 Posted May 17, 2012 Bravo Leica. This B&W was a surprise for me and I think quite a risky production choice for Leica, but if it is what I hope it is, then it is a fantastic choice for me. Making B&W from an M9 camera is okay, but the image has already been beaten up by the interpolation algorithms for making the color image from the color sensor. Both the M8 with its IR sensitivity and the M9 are very fine cameras for making color images, but the possibilities with a pure B&W sensor are enormous for their speed, tonality and dynamic range. If the MM gets the information off the TrueSense sensor as I hope, the information is likely to be superb. What I am not clear about is the processing algorithms. The tone part makes me nervous that they are using M9 processing technology, RGB, instead of making it pure B&W and leaving toning to an editing application. It would also be interesting if the IR filter has been left off the sensor so that a filter can be used on the lens, like an M8, if chosen. Leica usually makes good choices so perhaps my concern is not justified and of course this information may already be known, but not to me. I use a BetterLight scanning back in a 4x5 view camera so I have experience with Kodak CCD sensors. The digital data does not have to be interpolated and if I make a B&W conversion, the image from any or all of the three layers, RGB, is so much better than any film that I would never go back (I have used lots of B&W film with pyro developer). If the new Leica sensor gives the tonality and dynamic range that I think is possible from the superb sensor I think this camera will be a giant leap forward for B&W photographers. There would be no reason to use film again. I still use a view camera for the tilt because stopping a lens down may increase the depth of field, but the diffraction ruins the image quality. The MM will reveal that for sure. If the image allows the use of wide apertures with Leica lenses, this B&W camera will be an essential tool, in addition to an M9. I am hopeful that the image processor software is new and B&W specific. Thank you Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 17, 2012 Share #217 Posted May 17, 2012 And I'm betting that without a *lot* of digital diggery-pokery (you can do almost anything with enough effort, don't forget), it won't even be remotely close. Well, a straight dark room print...even with a well exposed negative...without any dodging, burning, flashing, filters (or split filtering for that matter,) selenium toning etc looks pretty crappy too. What I've noticed most about the MM, is the resulting image WITHOUT sharpening looks to have the same amount of detail as a regular print. And that's before any "digital diggery-pokery." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 17, 2012 Share #218 Posted May 17, 2012 Is Leica Pricing Out Its Loyal Customers with an $8,000 Black-and-White Camera? Not the way I see it. In the article, there's lots of talk about buying used equipment for less money...something that still can be done today. From January, 1972 -- list prices new VS cost with inflation for the year 2010. Leicaflex SL ($675) $3477.90 in 2010 M4 ($450) $2318.60 in 2010. M5 ($627) $3230.58 in 2010. March 1973 Leicaflex SL ($798) $3871.61 in 2010. M5 ($795) $3857.06 in 2010. The differences between those two years (for the brand new prices) has more to do with the inflation that really started to take hold during that time. Another note, I read where $1 in 1972 is about $5 for 2012, however the inflation calculator I use only goes to 2010 and only shows that same $1 being about $4 today (so there might be some truth to that) since in this case, there's a full two years missing from the inflation calculator I used for these calculations. Still, with the differences in brand new prices between 1972 and 1973 show, Leicas have always been priced a bit higher than the rate of inflation...with even greater jumps in prices for the recent digital equipment. The way I see it, the prices are not unusual based on how Leica has always priced their equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted May 17, 2012 Share #219 Posted May 17, 2012 Well, a straight dark room print...even with a well exposed negative...without any dodging, burning, flashing, filters (or split filtering for that matter,) selenium toning etc looks pretty crappy too. {snipped} No, it doesn't look crappy at all, actually. I could print a well-exposed neg straight to fibre paper (with fixed contrast--no filters) and it looked pretty damn great. Could it be better? Always; as I've said elsewhere, the art of printing is about compressing DR a lot of the time. But at least I didn't have to dodge and burn to get skin tones or grass in the right zone, sorry. I also don't have to do that with an M9 transform. I agree with you on detail. It's very good indeed. But detail is only one dimension here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwolf Posted May 17, 2012 Share #220 Posted May 17, 2012 Serious question to all you serious B&W shooters: would you really be willing to give up the grayscale tonal control offered by color channels? I could not imagine doing so. Also, I wonder if Leica considered the option for in-camera digital colored filters. Seems possible and would be handy. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.