downstairs Posted May 18, 2012 Share #221 Posted May 18, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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...........John I'm serious. I diddle skin tones with color channels because, downstream, the digital the tool happens to be there. But I also shoot a lot of Retro Tonal and TriX and never give it a thought - other than using a pale orange or a pale green filter upstream. So the answer is, yes no problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Hi downstairs, Take a look here Survey: Your opinion about the new LEICA M MONOCHROM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
likalar Posted May 18, 2012 Share #222 Posted May 18, 2012 2 good things about the M-M for us old-timers: 1. Finally we can go back to having two M bodies hanging from the neck, banging into each other, just like the old days. One for color, one for b&w. 2. I can't remember the second good thing. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted May 19, 2012 Share #223 Posted May 19, 2012 2. I can't remember the second good thing. haha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted May 19, 2012 Share #224 Posted May 19, 2012 I'm serious. I diddle skin tones with color channels because, downstream, the digital the tool happens to be there. But I also shoot a lot of Retro Tonal and TriX and never give it a thought - other than using a pale orange or a pale green filter upstream. So the answer is, yes no problem. Except TriX has its own variable spectral response, so you don't have to think about it except to add a filter now and then. What you can no longer do, with the MM, is pretty major in my opinion: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/238887-reason-m-monchrome-4.html#post2076346 But for those of you printing large, then tonality is maybe a straight tradeoff. I don't particularly want a portable Betterlight hanging around my neck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mugget Posted May 20, 2012 Share #225 Posted May 20, 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 Something to considering: even with the MM you don't give up the tonal control via colour channels. Via digital colour channels, yes. But it just means that you need to go old school and use lens filters. Some people actually prefer this. But it's inaccurate to say that you completely give it up. And given the forum that we're posting on, I'm sure we all know how important accuracy is... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 20, 2012 Share #226 Posted May 20, 2012 Those who like optical fiters will be happy with the MM i guess. Others might prefer to wait and see what the M10 will do with digital filters by comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted May 20, 2012 Share #227 Posted May 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I only ever shot black and white I would buy an M-Monochrom and put away my M4 for ever. Having worked on the DNG images that Jono made available, I am impressed by the resilience of the files and the amount of detail that can be extracted from them, even at high ISO. However, being able easily to switch a colour shot to black and white is, for me, one of the great benefits of digital photography. It’s not only that I appreciate that flexibility. I also like being able to manipulate the colour information in the file during the process of conversion in order to get the black and white result that I want. I applaud Leica’s boldness in producing this camera and I dare say there will be a good market for the M-M among specialist black and white photographers. It could be the digital camera that finally persuades some dedicated film shooters to switch. By the way, is there any prospect of Leica bringing out a monochrome version of any of their other camera models? What are the chances of an EVIL or an X-Monochrom, for example? I would have thought that might interest quite a few of us, if it brought similar benefits to those of the M-M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 20, 2012 Share #228 Posted May 20, 2012 Monchrome S2? Now that would be spectacularly niche, albeit shared with Phase One. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasGroendahl Posted May 20, 2012 Share #229 Posted May 20, 2012 There has been quite a bit a discussion about the price tag of the Monochrom camera. In this regard, I think it is relevant to consider the cost of film and development, that a busy BW photographer must calculate in the budget. Say e.g. 500 films per year at a minimum price of 10 EUR /13 USD per film developed without contact sheet. That's an annually expense of 5.000 EUR /6.300 USD. In this example the cameras return of investment would actually be less than two years. Keep in mind that pro MF camera systems costs a lot more, and that M9 / M9M must be regarded as professional tools. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 21, 2012 Share #230 Posted May 21, 2012 There has been quite a bit a discussion about the price tag of the Monochrom camera. In this regard, I think it is relevant to consider the cost of film and development, that a busy BW photographer must calculate in the budget. Say e.g. 500 films per year I'm not sure I find the economic argument for digital all that persuasive, Thomas? What about the keen B&W photographer that shoots a single roll per week or a couple of rolls each month (I know that unofficial forum rules dictate that anyone who shoots less than 10 rolls per day is not to be considered a serious photographer) – the sums don't look as good then. I've never really bought into these kind of calculations: for one thing, they usually overestimate the number of rolls that the photographer would have shot had he or she still been shooting film; for another, it assumes that saving on the cost of film and processing should be a major consideration when deciding to buy an expensive digital camera. Personally (although I suspect I'm far from alone here) I use a digital camera like the M9P simply because it is more convenient for me than film. The extra cost of the camera is worth it to me in terms of the convenience it offers and I couldn't begin to try and equate that to the number of film rolls not shot and processed. Sometimes I'm impressed with the sharpness and resolution of the digital file and sometimes (though not so often) I'm impressed by the colour or B&W tonality but, in the main, I use a digital M most of the time only because the all-digital workflow suits me better in logistical terms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 21, 2012 Share #231 Posted May 21, 2012 What about the keen B&W photographer that shoots a single roll per week or a couple of rolls each month (I know that unofficial forum rules dictate that anyone who shoots less than 10 rolls per day is not to be considered a serious photographer) – the sums don't look as good then. That'll be me, then. There is no way at all that I could ever justify an MM on financial grounds. I can't even justify an M9 on financial grounds - which is one of the reasons why I don't own one. Even on holiday, I don't shoot 10 rolls per week. If I go out "to take photographs", as opposed to wandering about with my camera, I might get through 10 rolls in a day, but that's pretty rare. But then again, the MM isn't pitched at people like me - perhaps it would have been nice if it had been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 21, 2012 Share #232 Posted May 21, 2012 Yes and we did not change our film camera every four or five years for sake of getting less grain at high asas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasGroendahl Posted May 21, 2012 Share #233 Posted May 21, 2012 Hi Ian and Andy, Please don't get me wrong - I think too that the Monochrome is a rather expensive camera. I didn't by any means wish to judge any photographer by the amount of frames he or she does, and these days I myself shoot much less frames than I used to. I just recalled the opinions of some colleagues who found themselves making better bottom lines in their businesses after moving to digital workflow. Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 21, 2012 Share #234 Posted May 21, 2012 There's a huge difference between someone who earns a living using a camera and someone who earns a living in order to use a camera. The vast majority of Leica users fall into the latter camp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted May 22, 2012 Share #235 Posted May 22, 2012 I just pray that the MM doesn't lead to a resurgence of hand and selective coloring. That would just be too much to bear. Even the thought of it is quite distressing. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahakalaka Posted May 22, 2012 Share #236 Posted May 22, 2012 I don't really have anything of importance to write, but I'm a member so why not join in? I think this camera looks very interesting! I've shot film since forever and apart from a brief flirt with a DSLR, I haven't really gotten in to digital yet, only because I've always preferred the look of film. I can probably count on my fingers the number of color rolls I've shot in the past few years too, hence why I think this camera looks interesting. I've been lusting for a digital camera because film is so time consuming and I'm not sure I'm willing to pay that price any more and also I hate that when it gets a little too dark, I simply don't take pictures anymore (sometimes I do change to a higher iso film and push it, but usually always have a roll of Ilford FP4 (125 iso) in the camera). I will however not get the MM, even though I greatly prefer black and white images and it would be nice to get the latest in camera technology, to not be as tempted when the next camera will be released. Today, I'm going to pick up a used M9, that I'm getting for a good price. But besides price, I do, although very rarely, need color for my work and I really want an all in one camera. I've got a few M lenses that I love and don't want to invest in a totally different system only for color, and those times when I need color, I would also really rather shoot digital to film, just to be sure right away that I've gotten the shots that I need. I'm also greatly looking forward to not having to bring along a bunch of extra color filters. Hate changing and carrying a bunch of filters! I bet the MM can take nicer BW images than the M9, and I'll probably convert almost all of my images to BW, but just knowing that I've got all I need for both work and for my own pleasure in one very compact system and the bonus of only having one filter per lens, feels very comforting and confidence inspiring to me. Ok, have I managed to convince you all to convince me that I'm making the right choice here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina Manley Posted May 23, 2012 Share #237 Posted May 23, 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. John I think most serious B&W shooters started with film and so would be very used to not using color channels. It won't bother me at all. Tina Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
William T. reedy Jr. Posted May 23, 2012 Share #238 Posted May 23, 2012 Another " collectable " ?..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted May 23, 2012 Share #239 Posted May 23, 2012 I think most serious B&W shooters started with film and so would be very used to not using color channels. It won't bother me at all. Tina I started with film and still shoot lots of it; it would definitely bother me, because I count on the spectral response of the film first, then filters, then print. In digital, the spectral response comes from channel mixing; in film, Kodak or Agfa or Fuji did that for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share #240 Posted May 23, 2012 There's a huge difference between someone who earns a living using a camera and someone who earns a living in order to use a camera. The vast majority of Leica users fall into the latter camp. If Leica ,Canon,Nikon relied on the pro market they would have gone bust years ago.surelly people can spend their money how they please. I would have though Leica production / sales is 5 pro market 50 % collectors 45% amateur / photo enthusiasts. As good as the Leica forum is I would also suggest that the vast majority of owners have never heard of it. Brian:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.