epompei Posted May 14, 2012 Share #121 Posted May 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is quite a nice camera and I like the cathedral shot. However, until there is film available, I think I will continue with that. David mentioned a "Kodak/Nikon offered a monochrome/digital many years ago.". What was it? Thanks, Emanuela Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 Hi epompei, Take a look here Survey: Your opinion about the new LEICA M MONOCHROM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted May 14, 2012 Share #122 Posted May 14, 2012 David mentioned a "Kodak/Nikon offered a digital monochrome many years ago". What was it? It was hardly more than a prototype (or a series of prototypes) that never actually made it to the dealers' shelves. Umm—for that matter ... as of now, the M Monochrom hasn't got any farther than those Kodaks, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 14, 2012 Share #123 Posted May 14, 2012 I see it exactly the other way around. The closer photography gets to the real world, the more effectively artificial (deceptive) it becomes. Black & White is not a layer of artifice, but a layer of abstraction. By taking a step farther away from my native perception (with my eyes, in color), B&W is less literal and more poetic. It embraces artificial illusion of the world a little less, and the truth of the image a little more. Agree 100% ... lot of philosophy can be discussed about, but B&W is by its own right a declination of photography, which is an INTERPRETAION of reality through a media, not a REPRODUCTION (which NEEDS color by definition). And this is valid even if one doesn't take in account the historical heritage of BW in photography (well into '70s-'80s there were still art' theorists who spoke of two distinct disciplines of art : "photography" and "color photography"... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 14, 2012 Share #124 Posted May 14, 2012 David, when I look at a photo of a tree, I see many things, and not always the same each time I look at it. It would be disingenuous to say either I see a photo, or I see a tree.This is the sort of question that artists have considered for a very long time. I feel B&W is often appealing, frequently beautiful, and provides some analytic qualities that are harder to discern in colour, and that there are many wonderful B&W photos still to be made. But I find the point about it being an abstraction that gets closer to "reality" is not persuasive, except in a small number of specific cases. And this is my main contention. There's a host of ways of abstracting elements of what you might consider "reality" or a way of perceiving something, a host of different ways of approaching a subject. The starting point is the closest of the no-doubt superficial representations we have available viz a colour photo. From that starting point we are free to go of in any of the various ways we can imagine, B&W being just one of them. So I find it hard to imagine that B&W is genuinely the preferred method of abstraction when all the possibilities are taken into account. I do suspect that it is as popular as it is for reasons more to do with its history, the ease with which it is almost instantly available, its dramatic impact and so forth. Nothing wrong with any of that of course. But I do think its a rather narrow but very deeply worn path. I certainly have no problem with people enjoying B&W photography David, and I hope no one misinterprets this as a moan about the Monochrom. I find it tempting for its reported abilities, but I personally find the world of colour deeper, relatively less well explored and more interesting to me. That's all, really! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewsweeper Posted May 14, 2012 Share #125 Posted May 14, 2012 I don't understand the polarization in this discussion. B&W doesn't need to be "the" preferred method. It is, however, an undeniably viable method, and for reasons having nothing to do with objective reality, history, or technology. I photograph a tree to capture the negative space around the tree, the interaction of the tree with the air around it, the roughness of its bark, the way its leaves filter light, the way it embraces and holds space, the way it creates a sense of arrival, place, barrier or invitation. I don't want you to see a tree, usually. I want you to feel something, as if you were in the place where I first encountered the tree. It isn't the brown-ness of its bark or the green-ness of its leaves that creates the impression. It is the mass, the air, the interplay of shapes and texture, the light. Not its yellow-ness or green-ness, but its luminance, trancendance, intensity. I start with black and white so that I am looking at these things. (And, yes, sometimes a layer of color drives the impression home, but I get to that later.) I don't need it to be "the" way others work, however, and I find it curious that this discussion of the technology has turned into an challenge of the validity of black and white as a medium. Seriously? I'm disappointed with all the advance sneering when many of those who have seen the thing first hand seem pretty enthused. I'd like to hear more discussion among those who shoot b&w about what they'd want in a dedicated b&w camera, and whether they think this is it. The MM as a potential new tool with a unique palette of dynamic responses is as exciting to me as a new range of film or paper or developer. I'm not doing cartwheels over it, until I check it out. I want others to check it out., too. I'm also hoping that other photographers will delight me with new ways of seeing because of it. Viva la difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootTokyo Posted May 14, 2012 Share #126 Posted May 14, 2012 I love it... I was lucky enough to get to shoot it last night at the launch in Ginza (Tokyo, Japan) and I instantly fell in love. I think it is also a sign of what's to come with the M10. I really enjoyed shooting it and really loved the new 50mm APO. I can see me buying the lens first and then maybe the M-Monocrom a bit later... shots are posted up at Das Wesentliche in Tokyo @ Leica Ginza | ShootTokyo if anyone is interested. It's a cool camera... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredSF Posted May 14, 2012 Share #127 Posted May 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm really puzzled here... OK, I've been "shooting in BW" for the past 28 years, yet... I feel just fine and flexible with the M9. All of a sudden, shooting BW native sounds weird to me, even though I think BW... For one : White balance and filters (hmmmm... easier to figure out in post processing). I'm not convinced on the supposedly extra sharpness (Sharpener Pro does that ultra well). Besides, I used to be able to stick a roll of color film, when I pleased with my old Leica film cameras, so why should I be stuck with "just" BW? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 14, 2012 Share #128 Posted May 14, 2012 I'm really puzzled here... OK, I've been "shooting in BW" for the past 28 years, yet... I feel just fine and flexible with the M9. All of a sudden, shooting BW native sounds weird to me, even though I think BW... Black & white is like drawing with a pencil. Color is like painting with colors. Each has its value and beauty (I love both). Da Vinci's wonderful drawings are all black & white in a sense. Black & white describes a thing more simply, with just the essentials of lines, tones, textures and shadows. Ever since the invention of color roll film, film cameras could accept either color or black & white film. So having dedicated monochrome camera is strange in a way. It is like having a camera that only accepts one kind of film. Although I won't be buying an MM, I think it's great that they have offered something so unusual, and it may prove to be just the right tool for some photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Elwing Posted May 14, 2012 Share #129 Posted May 14, 2012 Having had to make an economic decision to buy M9 rather than upgrade from Canon EOS 400D with 10mp, I have been satisfactorily using the M9 as a platform for both UV fluorescent and polarised copying of aged original albumen and silvering out photographs, with Visoflex &65mm Elmar, despite Erwin Puts' fairly jaundiced view of its performance. (How cool would a Hermes Visoflex with high res redesigned macro be? ) I can see an advantage in using the Monochrom as a superior platform for this kind of work, really as ersatz fine grain film with the improved work flow of digital. Leica obviously has created a new product with minimal alteration of M9 design. I look forward to seeing how it performs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSV Posted May 14, 2012 Share #130 Posted May 14, 2012 Oh, well, Leica is a very brave company in thinking and trying to sell this kind of stuff. Congrats and... We'll see! Anyway, I'm not interested, I have an M6 and an M9, so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted May 14, 2012 Share #131 Posted May 14, 2012 Great concept, but on an antiquated platform (i.e. the M9). Should have released it on the M10 architecture. For now, I will continue shooting Across-100 and TMY-2 in my M6 and M4-P. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular Posted May 14, 2012 Share #132 Posted May 14, 2012 Elaborating my answer "I'd like to have one but too expensive...". I think that the Monochrom was a neat idea when we first heard about Leica "celebrating the essentials of photography". I was hoping it would be a "bare-knuckle" camera for photographers with strong ethics : black & white, no LCD ... affordable. The result is disappointing, and it feels like I have put more though into it than Leica did. For example, the base ISO is too high. The LCD is more useless than ever, as you dont need to switch between white balance settings anymore. Etc. The core of the sensor is identical to the M9, so I presume that DxoMark & co will measure unchanged dynamic range. Does it worth spending so much money when the M10 is out soon? no. Does it bring "the essentials of photography" ? no. Afterthought, I suppose I should have picked the "not interested" answer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangur Ban Posted May 14, 2012 Share #133 Posted May 14, 2012 This is the first new Leica camera that I've been interested in for quite some time. So much so that I'd be tempted to sell off my old camera collection and raise the cash towards it. Rather nice to be a the centre of a minimalist kit. I shoot mainly b&w film anyway, so definitely interested in this monochrome only camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danedit28 Posted May 14, 2012 Share #134 Posted May 14, 2012 Red-orange is not orange, and by the image posted, it is indeed over-exposed by my standard. So you like bleached or blown highlights. That's okay by me. As to the rest, if you find my post rude, then me thinks it is your problem. My first thought when seeing the image was that it was overexposed and blown out so it's not a fair comparison. But I do love me some Disney and I am quite intrigued by the M-Monochrome. If it weren't so expensive, I'd love to carry one around for low-light shots where I'd end up ditching the color in post anyway.... Hopefully the increased ISO is a precursor of what's to come in the M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 14, 2012 Share #135 Posted May 14, 2012 I think it is a quite daring concept, the images look really great I must admit. Nevertheless I fear that shooting exclusively B&W is not really for me. The price is a minor obstacle from an emotional point of view. It is more expensive than the M9, for which I see no technical reason. If it was identically priced - that would make more sense. OTOH probably Leica expects a smaller turnover than the regular M9 so they need to recoup development costs. Still the price relative to the M9 is a bit hard to swallow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irakly Shanidze Posted May 14, 2012 Share #136 Posted May 14, 2012 What do you think about the new LEICA M MONOCHROM? Vote and tell us your opinion in this thread! Until the day when B&W photography is extinct, there will be demand for the best tool to do it, especially if this tool provides advantages unattainable with color digital capture. Hence Leica M Monochrom is relevant. The issue, however, will remain dramatically polarized due to the fact that most people do not know what B&W photography really is. They will be adamantly trying to explain to the world that the kind is naked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted May 14, 2012 Share #137 Posted May 14, 2012 Sounds wonderful. 99% of my pictures are B&W, and the black w/ no red dot etc. is great. It is, however, VERY expensive, which likely makes my M2 and film the way to go for a long time yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mas Posted May 14, 2012 Share #138 Posted May 14, 2012 The price and the failure to fix bugs from previous M digitals are strong indicators that Leica is not marketing to professional photographers. This should be a $3,000 camera, and Fix the Framelines. Tschüss Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onley Posted May 14, 2012 Share #139 Posted May 14, 2012 The M8 is a superb B&W camera. When used with one of the excellent B&W software packages available it produces outstanding results. It's difficult to see that there is any use for the new Leica M Mono, especially at the price Leica will have to charge. Cosmetic niceties have no influence whatsoever on photographic images. So my advice would be get a used M8 and something like Silver EFex Pro and save yourself a small fortune. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 14, 2012 Share #140 Posted May 14, 2012 Not exactly. B&W doesn't step farther from reality, it just trades one reality for another. Color is a little closer to the illusory representation of the subject depicted, B&W a little closer to the reality of the image itself. Because (in the case of a photograph) the image is the photograph, B&W is a little less artificial to me. I love both, however, and don't mean to suggest that artificiality is wrong. B&W is color without hue. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.