M Monochrom - Scarily Good....

[janrzm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a different opinion...I think they would be pretty much indistinguishable.The images stand however for what they are...great images taken by a good photographer.

The clean files at high ISO are a trait of todays high tech digital cameras, Leica included.

A matter of taste, technically perfect if thats what you like.

 

good shooting

 

andy

 

I understand what Andy and Ian are saying.

 

In my previous comment I am referring to the technical abilities of the camera.

 

Had I shot these on my M6 say, with a roll of Delta 1600 I would still like them because the fundamentals of the shots are there.

 

I totally appreciate how these files could be too clean for some tastes.

 

My tastes are quite broad and they seem to be continually evolving too, it may be that these same images shot and processed by me in a year from now would look quite different.

 

Cheers

 

Jason

[Advertisement]

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

[janrzm]

Hi,

 

Your shots do look stunning - but I'm getting a '403 Forbidden' error, whether I try http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2012/11/14/monochrom-scarily-good/ or http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2012/11/14/monochrom-scarily-good.html (which is what this post initially seems to redirect to).

 

I know my crap UK ISP sometimes gets blacklisted - anyone else getting this?

 

Thanks,

 

Nick

 

PS Walking the Hollyford Track in January - wondering which camera to take...

 

Hey Nick

 

Apologies, this is annoying the life out of me at the moment, my host has taken down my site because I'm generating too much load on the server. Please bookmark the link, I have moved host this morning but my nameserver change is yet to take effect (24-48hrs)

 

Thanks again

 

Jason.

[jaapv]

=1 !!! (except I had no doubts- I had tried it before ordering)

Hi Dirk

 

Absolutely correct, I have the M9 and the MM, I adore the M9 but it can't touch the MM in a shooting scenario like this one. I know this because I have tried it.

 

I had my doubts about buying the MM because I was already delighted with the B&W conversions I was getting from the M9 and for many people it will be more than adequate.

 

I have to say I am so thankful that I proceeded with the purchase of the MM because the end results are infinitely better and the system allows me to shoot action in levels of light that from experience the M9 is not capable of.

 

Cheers

 

Jason.

[janrzm]

My M9 certainly doesn't produce clean files at high ISO. I find anything over ISO 800 fairly unusable in dim light, unless I am going for a super grainy look or don't much care about clarity of details, particularly in the shadow areas. I am expecting / hoping the new M will be much better at this.

 

Agree, 640 is my max ISO on the M9.

[Jamie Roberts]

Agree, 640 is my max ISO on the M9.

 

Um, I have to push back on this a bit. Maximum ISO is 640? Why? For pulling out details in overall underexposed shadows? Is that what you guys are getting at?

 

I shoot the M9 at ISO 1600-2500 all the time. I shake my head when people say the camera doesn't do well there.

 

It is true it has much less overall exposure latitude than an MM (or a D3 for that matter) at those ISOs but except for shutter speed advantages, I'm not sure I see the point. If you need those ISOs, it's usually because it's, ah, really dark

 

I guess if I want to pull shadow detail from areas where I couldn't *see* shadow detail, that's perhaps a creative advantage. I'm not sure how much I'd use it though, except in case of pilot error (which for myself, I admit does happen).

 

But the camera performs extremely well over ISO 640, IMO, if I've exposed properly and can live with the shutter speed.

 

For your work, Jason (I think?) I can see where having a faster shutter makes sense, so in that case, I see the case for higher ISO with less noise.

 

But limiting yourself with the M9 to ISO 640 just seems needless to me, and I shoot in really dark conditions a lot of the time.

[janrzm]

Um, I have to push back on this a bit. Maximum ISO is 640? Why? For pulling out details in overall underexposed shadows? Is that what you guys are getting at?

 

I shoot the M9 at ISO 1600-2500 all the time. I shake my head when people say the camera doesn't do well there.

 

It is true it has much less overall exposure latitude than an MM (or a D3 for that matter) at those ISOs but except for shutter speed advantages, I'm not sure I see the point. If you need those ISOs, it's usually because it's, ah, really dark

 

I guess if I want to pull shadow detail from areas where I couldn't *see* shadow detail, that's perhaps a creative advantage. I'm not sure how much I'd use it though, except in case of pilot error (which for myself, I admit does happen).

 

But the camera performs extremely well over ISO 640, IMO, if I've exposed properly and can live with the shutter speed.

 

For your work, Jason (I think?) I can see where having a faster shutter makes sense, so in that case, I see the case for higher ISO with less noise.

 

But limiting yourself with the M9 to ISO 640 just seems needless to me, and I shoot in really dark conditions a lot of the time.

 

Hey Jamie

 

Well I did say my max ISO....

 

For me, I have always felt there is just too much noise and if I can operate in a world where noise vs. no noise is effectively a matter of choice I'd prefer that.

 

Although that said, I'm happy to concede I have not persevered with the higher ISO's and having just looked at your images I am convinced that I ought to explore this further if I can ever put down the MM....

 

I'm certainly not so interested in extracting shadow detail from areas where I could see none although it's good to know that detail is there. I make all my comments based on the assumption that exposure is correct (I'm not saying it always is either)

 

Cheers

 

Jason.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

640 is my max ISO on the M9.

Oops!? You should send it in to Customer Care, to have it fixed. On mine, maximum ISO is 2500/35°.

[janrzm]

Oops!? You should send it in to Customer Care, to have it fixed. On mine, maximum ISO is 2500/35°.

 

It's looking like I should.....

 

Be good to see some examples from you guys to convince me fully

[Dirk Mandeville]

Um, I have to push back on this a bit. Maximum ISO is 640? Why? For pulling out details in overall underexposed shadows? Is that what you guys are getting at?

 

I shoot the M9 at ISO 1600-2500 all the time. I shake my head when people say the camera doesn't do well there.

 

I think it just has to do with what you expect out of an image. I can't put up with the amount of grain and noise in the shadow areas that you obviously don't mind. I think it detracts from the overall image. And yes, I do expect to see some detail in shadow areas. If it is not totally black, you should be able to make out some details. The smoothness of tonality between different shades of darkness is also important. If it starts to get a little blotchy, it ruins the image in my opinion. If those details are important to you, then you begin to realize just how good these photos are and, therefore, how good the M Monochrom must be compared to the M9 for this type of shooting.

[LikeMyLeica]

Hey Nick

 

Apologies, this is annoying the life out of me at the moment, my host has taken down my site because I'm generating too much load on the server. Please bookmark the link, I have moved host this morning but my nameserver change is yet to take effect (24-48hrs)

 

Thanks again

 

Jason.

 

Thanks so much, Jason - I'll give it a while and come back to it, as you suggest. Hope for your sake the problems get sorted!

 

All the best,

 

Nick

[Keith (M)]

I think it just has to do with what you expect out of an image. I can't put up with the amount of grain and noise in the shadow areas that you obviously don't mind. I think it detracts from the overall image. And yes, I do expect to see some detail in shadow areas. If it is not totally black, you should be able to make out some details. The smoothness of tonality between different shades of darkness is also important. If it starts to get a little blotchy, it ruins the image in my opinion. If those details are important to you, then you begin to realize just how good these photos are and, therefore, how good the M Monochrom must be compared to the M9 for this type of shooting.

 

Local Christmas Fair 2010, a month after buying my M9. ISO 1600. No blocked shadows. Does for me...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[andym911]

here is my M Monochrome ...

 

some people refer to it as an M7

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Dirk Mandeville]

Local Christmas Fair 2010, a month after buying my M9. ISO 1600. No blocked shadows. Does for me...

 

Yep, for a snapshot printed 4x6 to put in an album you will never look at, that looks fine. But to print big on fine art paper to display in a gallery? I think not. Lots of grain is obvious in the shadows, even at this small size. Look at the pot on the stove, for instance. It should be smooth stainless steel. Instead it is very grainy. Again, it comes down to what you expect out of your prints. I expect more and am not satisfied with grainy, noisy prints. Which is why I don't shoot my M9 at high ISO when it matters.

[Keith (M)]

Yep, for a snapshot printed 4x6 to put in an album you will never look at, that looks fine. But to print big on fine art paper to display in a gallery? I think not. Lots of grain is obvious in the shadows, even at this small size. Look at the pot on the stove, for instance. It should be smooth stainless steel. Instead it is very grainy. Again, it comes down to what you expect out of your prints. I expect more and am not satisfied with grainy, noisy prints. Which is why I don't shoot my M9 at high ISO when it matters.

 

Well, it is seen here as an image that has been trampled on, squeezed and downsized into a small .jpg. As I had barely a month's experience with the M9 and LR3 at the time, perhaps I did not extract the best from the original .dng but nevertheless I still think that ISO 1600 is usable when the circumstances demand it.

[Peter H]

Well, it is seen here as an image that has been trampled on, squeezed and downsized into a small .jpg. As I had barely a month's experience with the M9 and LR3 at the time, perhaps I did not extract the best from the original .dng but nevertheless I still think that ISO 1600 is usable when the circumstances demand it.

 

The fact is Keith, that is a photo that the Monochrom would be entirely incapable of producing, no matter how skilful the photographer!

[Jamie Roberts]

I think it just has to do with what you expect out of an image. I can't put up with the amount of grain and noise in the shadow areas that you obviously don't mind. I think it detracts from the overall image. And yes, I do expect to see some detail in shadow areas. If it is not totally black, you should be able to make out some details. The smoothness of tonality between different shades of darkness is also important. {snipped}

 

And I think this has more to do with exposure and processing than anything else. I admit that without care and experience in both those areas, one can easily form the opinion that the M9 is not very good above ISO 640. I like shadows to be detailed as well, if I could see the detail in the scene, usually; otherwise, I'm happy for them to have but the slightest hint. I don't like blotchiness either, but that's very rare indeed.

 

It's funny, but we had arguments over this when the M9 came out with a lot of new users coming from Nikon and Canon. Those same users now use their M9 at 800, 1250, 1600 and 2500 and defend it It's a matter of working within the system limitations, and while I don't expect an auto ISO 160 shot to look like an auto ISO 1600 shot, with skill they're not actually much different in print, unless, as I said, you want to expand the lower quartertones somewhere either your eye or your capture failed to reckon with when you pressed the shutter.

[Dirk Mandeville]

. . . but nevertheless I still think that ISO 1600 is usable when the circumstances demand it.

 

And that is the point, I think. "Usable" is very different from "excellent." The photos that are the subject of this thread clearly show, to me, that the MM is capable of excellent reproduction at ISO 1600 and above. Again, if you don't really need that, then it wouldn't matter to you. But if you are a professional who mostly shoots in B&W, and the ability to shoot in low light and still have excellent file quality is paramount, then I think the MM is a clear winner over the M9. Now the M-240 may be a whole different ball of wax.

[Dirk Mandeville]

Anyone that really doesn't get just how good the quality of these shots are compared to what you get from the M9, should compare the shots at the beginning of this thread to the shots in this post, which were taken with an M9 under similar circumstances. The differences in quality of detail rendition, shadow retrieval, smoothness of tone, and noise suppression are painfully obvious.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

should compare the shots at the beginning of this thread to the shots in this post, which were taken with an M9 under similar circumstances.

 

I don't see any photographs in the other thread that warrant a direct comparison.

[Dirk Mandeville]

I don't see any photographs in the other thread that warrant a direct comparison.

 

Of course you don't. Just as you can't imagine any visible differences between photos taken in dim lighting from an MM camera and those taken from an iphone.