Buy the M-Monochrom, or Wait for the M10?

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mitch,

 

I still think you're ultimately better off with a M9-P.

 

You had bad luck with the M9, I understand. But if you have the lenses, then it's fine for low light. And it makes wonderful BWs, without other limitations.

 

And colour if the story is there

 

Worst comes to worst you can sell it and get an M10 next year. There will still be a huge market for M9s.

Jamie, you may be right, have you experimented with processing some of Jono's files?

 

I must stress that my perspective has been framed by the sort of extreme contrast moves that I often want to make but am kept from doing because the files fall apart — it see. ms to me that the M-Monochrom files can withstand being beaten up like this much more than those of the M9. although I would feel more confident about this conclusion if someone else found the same thing. I would love to get Jacob Aue Sobol into a pub and see what he really thinks about this camera. Heck, having spent a large part of my childhood in Sweden, I could even "snakka [faux] dansk" with him.

 

—MItch/Pak Nam Pran

Pak Nam Pran

[SpiritShooter]

I must stress that my perspective has been framed by the sort of extreme contrast moves that I often want to make but am kept from doing because the files fall apart — it see.

 

—MItch/Pak Nam Pran

Pak Nam Pran

 

Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps the way in which you are working with the M9 files needs evaluation. Many excellent photographers have been making fine digital B/W prints for many years without the M9 or M9M. Many of which are extremely expressive and quite well done. I can see no reason why an M9 file can not hold up to even extreme adjustments if the workflow is well conceived and non-destructive.

[Rick]

Mitch,

 

You can ask for advise and have received some very well thought out replies. But, in the end they are what they are... logical analysis of your situation based on someone else's view.

 

I've followed you for a long time - way back to the original Ricoh GR (loved that little camera) in 2005 and the dpreview forum (that was a great group). One thing that I've noted about you through the years is that you develop a certain esthetic that begins with your style of street shooting. Your style of street shooting seems to very much depend on the camera you are using.

 

Based on this I think you should absolutely get the MM. It will return you to a certain aesthetic. I believe the MM is the only camera right now that delivers files that seem to have a very different tonal range. You don't get that with the M9. The M10 may have 36mp but, it still won't give the same kind of file as the MM. I base this on the files I've shot with the D800. They don't look at all like Jono's MM files. I like the MM files very much, more than the D800 files.

 

I think the MM would instantly feel right for you starting from your style of a sort of harsh equatorial shooting esthetic, from the moment you visualized and raised the camera to your eye right on through to how you like to PP and print. The way this camera delivers a certain type of file would become integral to your whole style of visualizing and shooting and developing files. And, of course, it is a RF which I know you are very comfortable with.

 

I think this camera was just made for someone like you and I don't think that anything that comes out with a Bayer filter is going to come close to what you want. This is it Mitch, they finally made a small B&W street camera that can make medium format quality files. And you are agonizing over comparing it to something (M10) that is conceptually designed to be something else, that won't be able to deliver the unique files of a Bayer-free sensor, and won't get you closer to your style of artistic expression.

 

Mitch, the MM is simply the camera made for your simple style of shooting and your unique PP style. This camera may be the last camera you buy for a looooong time.

[250swb]

 

I believe the MM is the only camera right now that delivers files that seem to have a very different tonal range. You don't get that with the M9. The M10 may have 36mp but, it still won't give the same kind of file as the MM. I base this on the files I've shot with the D800. They don't look at all like Jono's MM files. I like the MM files very much, more than the D800 files.

 

Definitely a different tonal range, one rarely seen before in monochrome photography

 

But it is based on somebody fiddling around with software. The fact that the MM files are 'better' than a Nikon D800 isn't necessarily saying much given 9 out of 10 cats think Olympus E-M5 files look better than a Nikon D800 file. It is a big outlay you are suggesting somebody make on the basis of a single sample evaluation, and with no prior knowledge of the next Leica offering. I'm glad I'm not asking you to spend my money.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Mitch, I find this quite fascinating. In style we are at opposite ends, our reasoning is completely different, yet we come to the same conclusion.

[luigi bertolotti]

MM is intriguing and many of the arguments here are valuable... but I stay almost the same mood as Lars - I simply never will pay that sum for a BW only camera, sorry... if "M10" will be priced along the trend of the Summicron AA , to say doubling, grossly, the today's price of a M9P, also it won't be for me... ... I'll consider in that case a used M9(P) ... or the rumored EVIL if it will be good.

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Definitely a different tonal range, one rarely seen before in monochrome photography

 

But it is based on somebody fiddling around with software. The fact that the MM files are 'better' than a Nikon D800 isn't necessarily saying much given 9 out of 10 cats think Olympus E-M5 files look better than a Nikon D800 file. It is a big outlay you are suggesting somebody make on the basis of a single sample evaluation, and with no prior knowledge of the next Leica offering. I'm glad I'm not asking you to spend my money.

 

Steve

 

Sorry, I obviously touched on a nerve when I mentioned the D800. I've never seen the files from the Olympus E-M5 to know what they are like, only what I've shot on the D800 and the files I've PP from Jono. This is the only evaluation I have (don't have the E-M5 or even know what it is).

 

As far as the MM goes, again, for Mitch I think this is going to be a great camera. It is not what I want, I'm happy with the M9 for now. But, Mitch isn't your average cat.

[Guest malland]

Wow, just woke up this morning and found a range of fascinating and helpful views and comments — both ways really — on reasons to get this camera or to wait. Jaap's observation that we can come to the same conclusions from opposite ends in terms of style is fascinating, as is RickLeica's view that this camera will help, or perhaps, develop my style further. The striking thing is that on the web people may hate or love your style, but they do notice it and that is gratifying to see.

 

There is a huge emotional element in deciding on such a camera that has little to do with consumerism — Jaap: I was joking when I wrote the German sentence on your thread — although we are obviously affected by how the camera is promoted. Mike Johnston wrote on his blog some time ago a long argument for such a camera, and I thought at the time it was nonsense. But working with Jono's files made me change my mind.

 

Now, when I get it is up to chance — whether my trip to Paris in end-July will materialise, etc, etc.

 

I must say that I am grateful for everyone's response, and thus group can really be great, although I don't always contribute positively to its greatness.

 

—Mitch/Pak Nam Pran

Scratching the Surface©

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Mitch, I'd have to say that, after looking at your "scratching the surface" series, Rick might have a point.

 

Cheers

John

[Jeff S]

Seems to me the M8.2 and Ricoh served pretty well already in those pics.

 

The MM clearly excels using high ISO, but unless one uses that regularly to the max (which in daylight might require ND filters), or one adds noise/grain in PP, its strength appears to be in delivering prints with ultra smooth and subtle tonalities similar to MF, not the more gritty look generally associated with 35mm, which seems more consistent with the linked pics.

 

The robust MM files would of course provide extreme flexibility. In fact, allowing shadows to go black rather than flaunting shadow detail...just because one can...might be a refreshing change to what might I suspect might become commonplace with some MM users.

 

Jeff

[xrogers]

Take a look near the end of Ming Thien's blog post comparing the MM and D800e monochrome conversions, at the %100 crop of the girl's eyes. The D800e shows those unavoidable wormy artifacts in the midtone to the right of her nose, the same above the outer eyes, the iris edges, under the tip of the nose---anywhere you have a smooth tonal transition through upper gray. Compare to the MM. I've seen this artifact from all of my digital cameras, but I haven't found any similar artifact at any ISO from the MM samples.

 

Shadows provide depth, transitions to highlight create luminosity, midtones tell the story. Having the upper highlights go unevenly grainy catches the eye as it tries to follow the transition, stealing luminosity. I have to be more careful when I process and print the D800e version to avoid a problem here; the MM version gives me additional options.

 

Unusually sharp detailed output, freedom from interpolation artifacts, freedom from noise reduction artifacts, excellent sensitivity with simple, patternless digital grain at the highest ISOs. The photographer is free to introduce artifacts more as artistic choice, less as dictated by a camera.

 

In exchange, you give up using color to adjust grayscale during post-processing. The trade certainly seems worth consideration.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie, you may be right, have you experimented with processing some of Jono's files?

 

I must stress that my perspective has been framed by the sort of extreme contrast moves that I often want to make but am kept from doing because the files fall apart — it see. ms to me that the M-Monochrom files can withstand being beaten up like this much more than those of the M9.{snipped}

 

Hey Mitch,

 

Yes, I've played with MM DNGs now. I'm more convinced than ever that I wouldn't give up channel mixing, especially in low light. This is a personal thing, though--I'm not trying to make an argumentative point.

 

If you want to make extreme contrast moves then I totally understand; the files are certainly malleable enough, and will certainly give you more ISO ranges to choose from.

 

OTH, I'd have to have you step me through what you're trying to achieve, I think; extreme contrast moves tend to lessen the demands on the overall system (unless you're thinking about retaining certain kinds of midtone detail--but then we don't have M9 monochrome shots made with the 50 APO Summicron to compare with, do we? ).

[Guest malland]

Hey, Jamie, no problem with argumentative.

 

Although I don't currently have any good examples online, the look I think that I can get with the M-Monochrom is high contrast with the retention of some richness in the mid tones. Clyde states it well in post #51 above.

 

The type of look I am thinking about can be done to some with degree with the M9, but I think it would be easier to accomplish and probably better aesthetically (to my taste) with the M-Monochrom. I don't have any example currently online, but the examples that I could point to would all have been taken with the M6 and, mostly, Tri-X film and some HP5+.

 

And I don't think that I need the Summicron-50 APO with this. The Summilux 50 pre-ASPH is good enough (in a big way!) for what I want and I would also like to use my DR Summicron, but I guess the flanges would have to be filed down to use in the M-Monochrom.

 

The lenses that I would generally use are the Elmarit-21 ASPH, the Summicron-28 and the Summilux 50 pre-ASPH — though I would try out my Summicron-35v4.

 

—Mitch/Hua Hin

Barrier

[jaapv]

You will get that look, Mitch, don't worry. Leica very kindly provided their guests with a Baryt print by Whitewall of Sobol's "Arrival at Ulaanbaatar" and although it is not my favorite from the series it clearly shows all the characteristics you are looking for. The LFI issue 04/2012 has quite a number his images processed this way.

[Guest malland]

Thanks, Jaap. I'll have to try to get a hold of this LFI issue.

 

Several of the posts referred to my "Scratching the Surface" series as an example of my style. A lot more representative series is my book project "Bangkok Hysteria", which is no longer on my flickr site. If anyone wishes to look it you can download it here (49MB PDF file with the final edit. I have printed four copies by digital offset, but have no time these days to try to get it published, which under the best of circumstances is not easy.

 

—Mitch/Hua Hin

Scratching the Surface

[Jeff S]

Several of the posts referred to my "Scratching the Surface" series as an example of my style. A lot more representative series is my book project "Bangkok Hysteria", which is no longer on my flickr site.

 

My comments about the gritty, grainy, high contrast style (that one might associate with Tri-X in the film world) still apply. Obviously you took these, presumably to your liking, with another camera. No reason the MM wouldn't suit as well given its tonal range flexibility along with all the tools available these days for PP. That's just not the look one associates with a MF camera, which the MM seems to emulate in tonal range, detail and noise suppression (from what I've seen on an admittedly limited basis). The singular b/w mindset that comes with the MM of course is unique in the digital RF sphere.

 

Jeff

[Guest malland]

Jeff, yes, of course. But I am looking to the M-Monochrom to help me go in the direction of a longer, richer range of mid-tones, within a general context of relatively high contrast and rich blacks, without the needs to push the files as much. The latter sometimes can result in an "over-processed", forced look that I hope to be able to avoid with the M-Monochrom. However, I want to stop short of "exquisite", if you know what I mean.

 

It will also be interesting to see results that people, like Jaap, get by going in more or less the opposite direction that I am contemplating. Photography would be boring if people all shot with very similar styles.

 

—Mitch/Hua Hin

Pak Nam Pran

[Jamie Roberts]

Thanks, Jaap. I'll have to try to get a hold of this LFI issue.

 

Several of the posts referred to my "Scratching the Surface" series as an example of my style. A lot more representative series is my book project "Bangkok Hysteria", which is no longer on my flickr site. If anyone wishes to look it you can download it here (49MB PDF file with the final edit. I have printed four copies by digital offset, but have no time these days to try to get it published, which under the best of circumstances is not easy.

 

—Mitch/Hua Hin

Scratching the Surface

 

Mitch, it's great work, honestly. Thanks for posting it!

 

I don't see anything there that an M9 couldn't have done without any difficulty whatsoever. Channel operations in PS (not channel mixing) will be your friend there.

 

But I would also urge you to wait and check some mixed / tungsten light MM files before you invest. IMO, the yellow / blue mixing you will need for your urban and gritty work will require a *lot* of channel blending just to get decent skin; filtering isn't going to do it.

 

This is not landscape work where shadow detail is important, or studio work, where the light colour is predictable. You will not get a longer range of midtones with the MM over the M9, and since you're crushing the shadows in post, you are getting rid of the most interesting element of the MM.

 

So, again, not to sound like Chicken Little or anything, but for that kind of unpredictable low-light work I would get an M9 or M10.

 

@ Jaap--have you seen Baryta (ink-jet) monochrome prints from the M9 or M8? They're pretty fabulous. Lambda prints are even better IMO.

[Jeff S]

Photography would be boring if people all shot with very similar styles.

 

I couldn't agree more, which is why I said in an earlier post that your approach would be refreshing compared to how others may use the MM.

 

Styles are not only different and personal, but so are gear choices, which is why I think (based on what you've said) that the MM will suit you fine even though others (including me) might use a different camera or approach. The M8.2 is all I need for now. I decided to put my money into the after-camera workflow....software, printer, inks, papers, profiles, etc....to get the most from the camera I have (including color) rather than continually changing the camera. I agree with Jamie regarding prints on Baryta style papers....getting better all the time.

 

Vive la difference.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Yes Jamie, I have a Baryta print of the MM in front of me as I type. I like the quality. :) A Sobol shot; Mitch would appreciate it far more than I do

When I have the MM I will do a few side-by-sides with the M8 and M9 and post the DNGs in the forum..