Survey: Your opinion about the new LEICA M MONOCHROM

[craigeilers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been using the M Monochrom for about six months now, doing mostly landscapes in the Pacific Northwest. Absolutely love the camera. The sharpness and detail are unbelievable for a camera of this size. I used to shoot large format 4x5 and 5x7 for several years, but am now 65 and enjoy the lighter weight gear. The Monochrom and Leica glass are pricey, but in my humble opinion, definitely worth the cost for someone who truly appreciates quality in both equipment and the work they endeavor to create.

[Peter H]

I couldn't agree more! Using my Monochrom is as close as I get to using my M4 and M6 but with all the benefits of Neopan100, Plus-X, Tri-X, Neopan400, Delta3200, etc., etc., all available for any shot.

 

The perfect camera [if you aren't interested in colour and don't worry about tables comparing features, etc.]

 

What a curiously self-contradictory message.

 

Apart from the fact that the live-view and video capabilities are entirely unobtrusive and need make no difference whatsoever to how the camera is used (if you didn't refer to the "tables comparing features" you'd forget they were there) surely the real point is this: if you are sufficiently serious about B&W photography to buy a B&W specialist camera, the most important thing by far when comparing two almost identical cameras would be the photographic results. To be so prejudiced against the performance of a camera that doesn't exist yet suggests that yet again it's the camera rather than the photography that is the real interest at stake.

[Advertisement]

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

[asiafish]

What a curiously self-contradictory message.

 

Apart from the fact that the live-view and video capabilities are entirely unobtrusive and need make no difference whatsoever to how the camera is used (if you didn't refer to the "tables comparing features" you'd forget they were there) surely the real point is this: if you are sufficiently serious about B&W photography to buy a B&W specialist camera, the most important thing by far when comparing two almost identical cameras would be the photographic results. To be so prejudiced against the performance of a camera that doesn't exist yet suggests that yet again it's the camera rather than the photography that is the real interest at stake.

 

For me it would depend on the look of the output. There are some M240 features I would love to have on the Monocrhom.

 

Better LCD for chimping (verify focus), water sealing, battery life, shutter mechanism.

 

Video I doubt I would use, but as you say, it doesn't intrude. Live view and focus peaking would be nice with longer lenses, though I rarely want anything longer than 90mm.

 

The feature of the M240 I want the most is actually the 2 meter frame lines.

[Leopold Green]

What a curiously self-contradictory message.

 

Apart from the fact that the live-view and video capabilities are entirely unobtrusive and need make no difference whatsoever to how the camera is used (if you didn't refer to the "tables comparing features" you'd forget they were there) surely the real point is this: if you are sufficiently serious about B&W photography to buy a B&W specialist camera, the most important thing by far when comparing two almost identical cameras would be the photographic results. To be so prejudiced against the performance of a camera that doesn't exist yet suggests that yet again it's the camera rather than the photography that is the real interest at stake.

 

I probably didn't explain myself that well - the M8 and M9 didn't connect with me in a way necessary to push me to afford them [i am not so well off that I can buy a £5k camera without real sacrifice]. The Monochrom did this for me and I fully accept this was and is an emotional not intellectual decision and therefore easy to hold up to ridicule [particularly if you go through a checklist of features]. So for example I have always used colour filters and I am so used to using them that the fact I would need to continue using them with the Monochrom was reassuring and comfortable as I didn't have to change. I do really like the histogram - that is a step forward from film - but that is all I use the screen for. I am sure that live view, focus by contrast [or whatever it is], are great if you want to learn them - but I don't. If I had had a R camera and lenses I would buy the M240 with joy but again I don't. So for me the Monochrom is the M6 but with the ability to use any B&W film I want to and as I get used to Lightroom it is quite magical what you can do with the files.

 

If I could upgrade the Monochrom with M240 features it would be the quieter shutter - this is the one area where the Monochrom is noticeably worse than the M6 and M4. The other feature would be the weather sealing. I would be lying if I pretended I wanted the other things - I [and maybe I am the only one in the world] am a 'luddite' and I want a digital Leica that is as close to a film based Leica as possible.

 

I am not trying to knock anyone who wants M240 - I hope that camera continues to sell well as it will fund Leica doing more niche things [like the Monochrom] - I was only saying it wasn't for me and this thread is about the Monochrom and one's opinion of it

 

 

Leopold

[Ulev]

The "upgrade" of the Monochrom, might be a "downgrade", in case it's output changes !?

As the images of the M240 vs the M9 changed ... and as a result people disliking it, prefering the "old" M9.

 

In other words, the next Monochrom might not be the Monochrom anymore !?

[thebarnman]

The "upgrade" of the Monochrom, might be a "downgrade", in case it's output changes !?

As the images of the M240 vs the M9 changed ... and as a result people disliking it, prefering the "old" M9.

 

In other words, the next Monochrom might not be the Monochrom anymore !?

 

The differences may only be noticeable with color images.

[Londonmember]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Buying an MM was a revelation. It is SO much more than just a B&W camera.

- Far far more detail than 35mm B&W film.

- Beautiful tones in the mid greys, far better than can be obtained from a digital bayer conversion.

- ISO 25,000, no problem...

- high dynamic range and amazing shadow detail

- Black, matt. restrained look

 

I stopped using my M9 for 6 months and when I went back to it, I noticed all its faults - mainly poor high ISO and less DR. I even delved into using my wife's Olympus OMD, and looked at the A7R. In the end they dont have the 'look' of Leica glass, and I don't read good things about the A7R's performance.

 

So I've just added a black M240 :-)

As to whether a 'new MM' with 240 enhancements would be good... No idea, it would all be about the output!

[lct]

I might certainly consider getting a BW-only body based on the M240's "classic" features if blown highlights were easier to recover than with the MM and if i could use digital color filters but it's asking for the impossible i guess...

[pop]

I might certainly consider getting a BW-only body based on the M240's "classic" features if blown highlights were easier to recover than with the MM and if i could use digital color filters but it's asking for the impossible i guess...

 

The MM can not tell one color from the other because it has no color filters in front of the sensor. Hence, digital color filters can not possibly work with that arrangement.

[lct]

Then my vote would remain the same: interesting but nothing for me.

[thebarnman]

I might certainly consider getting a BW-only body based on the M240's "classic" features if blown highlights were easier to recover than with the MM and if i could use digital color filters but it's asking for the impossible i guess...

 

I had no idea highlights were hard to recover. With it's wide dynamic range, I don't understand why that would be an issue.

[thebarnman]

The MM can not tell one color from the other because it has no color filters in front of the sensor. Hence, digital color filters can not possibly work with that arrangement.

 

Yep. If colored filters were to be used, one would have to get used to using the filters in front of the lens itself.

[wattsy]

I might certainly consider getting a BW-only body based on the M240's "classic" features if blown highlights were easier to recover than with the MM

 

I had no idea highlights were hard to recover. With it's wide dynamic range, I don't understand why that would be an issue.

 

It's not. I must admit I had my doubts when I saw some of the early launch samples but the reality is that the camera has a huge usable dynamic range and highlight loss is not a problem. The trick is not to try and recover highlights but to expose with your end photograph in mind. In truth, I've found that the roll off to white is not as abrupt as I feared and, depending upon what end result I have mind, I don't always choose to keep the histogram from clipping. With practice you tend to get an idea from both the histogram and LCD preview whether you have the right exposure or not.

[MarkP]

It's not. I must admit I had my doubts when I saw some of the early launch samples but the reality is that the camera has a huge usable dynamic range and highlight loss is not a problem. The trick is not to try and recover highlights but to expose with your end photograph in mind. In truth, I've found that the roll off to white is not as abrupt as I feared and, depending upon what end result I have mind, I don't always choose to keep the histogram from clipping. With practice you tend to get an idea from both the histogram and LCD preview whether you have the right exposure or not.

 

Agreed

[thebarnman]

It's not. I must admit I had my doubts when I saw some of the early launch samples but the reality is that the camera has a huge usable dynamic range and highlight loss is not a problem. The trick is not to try and recover highlights but to expose with your end photograph in mind. In truth, I've found that the roll off to white is not as abrupt as I feared and, depending upon what end result I have mind, I don't always choose to keep the histogram from clipping. With practice you tend to get an idea from both the histogram and LCD preview whether you have the right exposure or not.

 

From what I remember seeing, all of the early image samples from the MM were very flat gray. So I've been under the impression to get good contrast (or the look from most of the samples I've seen from the "Leica monochrome shots (Post them here)" thread is with the use of either

 

A: A colored filter in front of the lens

B: Post processing

C Or both

 

Again, I'm not so sure the quality I'm seeing from the images in that thread is straight out from the camera.

 

On a positive note, I do get the impression there's very little need for any sharpening...that the image from the camera is detailed enough.

Edited January 15, 2014 by thebarnman

[wattsy]

I'm not so sure the quality I'm seeing from the images in that thread is straight out from the camera.

 

Yes, this is true but I think it also the case that at least some post processing work is necessary with all digital cameras if you are to get the most from them.

[lct]

But blown highlights are not recoverable in PP are they.

[thebarnman]

Yes, this is true but I think it also the case that at least some post processing work is necessary with all digital cameras if you are to get the most from them.

 

I get your point. The same is true working a print in a dark room.

[dent]

For me the real eye opener was editing the MM files on a good monitor and seeing them printed on my Epson R3000. My MBP 2009´s monitor by far was not showing the detailed midtone nuances. On the laptop monitor the files mostly had this “greyish” look some seem to complain about.

 

Still (at least in my workflow) the MM RAW files need the most post processing of all digital cameras I have used. The MM RAW files´ tonality just does not have any build in interpretative aesthetics. They are just huge and immensely flexible heaps of pixel data. Their primary tonality is not pleasing at all (at least to my eye) even in terms of a RAW file.

 

I still feel clumsy with the MM files. To achieve my desired bw tonality I have to apply a dose of post processing that I would call abusive with other cameras´ RAW files. I just would not do this much dodging and burning and tonality correction to my M9 or 1DX files. It would be against my visual ethics because I would alter the visual content of the original scene too much.

The wonder is: The MM-files take the brutal treatment gracefully and with almost no detoriation. They ask for it. I spend more time with PP now but it´s utterly rewarding. The whole PP appoach to these files seems different.

 

Things I still have to explore:

 

1. I´m still working on optimal midtone contrast / midtone separation. Perhaps I´ll try filters.

 

2. The PP often is on the dangerous edge of this digital plastic pseudo HDR look (or whatever You call it) I hate so much. It makes no sense editing/finishing these files on my laptop.

 

3. The vast amount of micro detail sometimes is disturbing. Sometimes the high detail resolution distracts from the main visual message. I find myself adding grain more often than I did before. The whole visual feel of these files is new. Something between 35mm film, 35mm digital and MF film. Very exciting but not at all easy to control.

 

 

I find the high ISO performance of the MM a huge liberation. Now there is no difference in low light performance between my 1DX and my M-system. I shoot both with fixed focals, stopped down and mostly zone focused. Pure joy.

 

Cheers

 

Jochen

 

MindfulPhotography

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

But blown highlights are not recoverable in PP are they.

 

Why do you keep going on about recovering highlights? I've already explained that this is not a problem in practice.