Jamie Roberts Posted November 20, 2012 Share #61 Posted November 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. No, you are mistaken: the lighting in the two shots is totally different and the capture on the M9 set for holding highlights. Naturally, this will be different. The files in this thread are lit entirely differently (and here the MM's colour bias (yes) has happily worked for skin). It *is* the lighting that makes the most difference. There are also dozens of MM cases where the lighting and inherent color bias doesn't work with the faces, at least not without filters over the lens at the time of capture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Hi Jamie Roberts, Take a look here M Monochrom - Scarily Good..... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dirk Mandeville Posted November 20, 2012 Share #62 Posted November 20, 2012 No, you are mistaken: the lighting in the two shots is totally different and the capture on the M9 set for holding highlights. And you know this because . . . ? The lighting looks very similar to me. Standard theater floods in a darkened theater. The only obvious difference appears to be that a lot of the lights in the pictures I linked to have color filters on them, whereas in the MM shots we don't really know whether they had filters or not. The M9 files do appear to be somewhat underexposed, if that is what you mean by "set for holding highlights." But interestingly, I note many more blown out highlights in those pictures than the MM pictures, not to mention the lack of shadow detail in the M9 shots. But the biggest difference I notice between the two is the huge amount of noise in the M9 pictures, which is entirely absent in the MM pictures. Since we know the MM pictures were shot between 1600 and 2500 ISO, I think it is fair to say that we would see all this noise had the M9 been shot in exactly the same lighting as the MM shots. The M9 is just incredibly noisy at those ISOs. The MM obviously is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted November 21, 2012 Share #63 Posted November 21, 2012 To add to this discussion, here is a post by the OP in another forum describing the differences between the MM and the M9 shooting in the same conditions (he described it as a "night and day difference" shooting under these conditions): [With the M9,] creatively I was pretty much limited to ISO 640, f/1.4 with the 35/50 Lux's and shutter speeds between 1/30 to 1/125 if I was lucky. I did on occasion use the Nokton 1.1 for a little more speed but really I felt anything I gained was lost in sharpness. With the Monochrom I'm in a different world, I can crank the ISO up, I can capture action in virtual darkness and the image quality is mind blowingly better. . . . Really I guess it depends what you want out of the Monochrom, if you only shoot daylight B&W's the M9 can deliver images that are superb, IMO. If you want to shoot in almost no light whatsoever the Monochrom is a showstopper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 21, 2012 Share #64 Posted November 21, 2012 I really like the MM and do prefer it over the M9 for B&W (although I recognize the validity of Jamie's argument) for the postprocessing workflow. For me it is the far less elaborate sharpening PP together with the better flexibilty in DR that wins out over the loss of color channels. However the quoted post is far too gushing imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted November 21, 2012 Share #65 Posted November 21, 2012 However the quoted post is far too gushing imo. Perhaps so, but remember he is talking specifically about capturing theater action shots in low light. He is the first to admit that the difference is not so stark in good light. Not having an MM myself, I can't speak from personal experience. But if the proof is really in the pudding, as they say, then comparing the OP's shots using the MM and his shots in the same theater using the M9, I have to agree with his statement that the former are mind-blowingly better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 21, 2012 Share #66 Posted November 21, 2012 Having the MM and the M9 (and the M8) I can say that words like mind-blowing do not really come into it. Yes - I think the camera is worth it next to an M9, but one can be very happy without it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted November 21, 2012 Share #67 Posted November 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having the MM and the M9 (and the M8) I can say that words like mind-blowing do not really come into it. Yes - I think the camera is worth it next to an M9, but one can be very happy without it. Interesting. Everybody's different, I suppose. For me, if I was considering the purchase of a $8000 camera that was limited to monochrome, in addition to the $7000 M9 that can produce excellent B&W conversions in its own right, I think I would have to see a mind-blowing difference in order for it to be worth it. Perhaps once I have the new M and assuming I am thrilled with it, I will consider selling my M9 down the road and buying a used MM. I think the low light capabilities alone are probably worth it for someone who enjoys shooting B&W. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 21, 2012 Share #68 Posted November 21, 2012 Maybe it is because I am Dutch, I associate mind-blowing more with Cannabis than with cameras.. Anyway, the attraction in the photographs of the OP lies for 90% with the photographer and 10% with the tool imo. The MM does a number of things very well, and whether that is worth the price is indeed an individual decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted November 22, 2012 Share #69 Posted November 22, 2012 Anyway, the attraction in the photographs of the OP lies for 90% with the photographer and 10% with the tool imo. And this is where I disagree. Because I am talking about comparisons of photographs by the same photographer in the same conditions, using different tools and reaching very different results. Compare the OP's theater photographs taken with the M9 in this post with the OP's photographs taken with the MM in this post. I find the MM photos much more compelling. Almost mind-blowingly so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 22, 2012 Share #70 Posted November 22, 2012 Dirty them up like sobol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2012 Share #71 Posted November 22, 2012 The Monochrom pictures look very good and noiseless. To me though they look a little bit too NICE and "Chocolate Boxy" Now this might be considered a bit of an odd thing to say but let me try and explain. In MY style of photojournalism where I would use B&W images, I want my pictures to have a bit of an edge. The Monochrom seems as though it would be a bit like going out and taking pictures on 6cm x 6cm 50 ISO film whereas I want that look of grain and immediacy that comes from using 35mm and TRI-X. I find that the M9 and especially the M8 give me that look when converted from colour to B&W, in fact I often will add a touch of grain to the M9 images to give them a bit more "realism". For commercial work though I fully accept that the Monochrom images are superior - only trouble is though that these sort of images are most often shot and used in colour so to me I just don't unfortunately think that the Monochrom would be for me - the images from the camera though do look very good but just a bit too good !! Too good does not exist - you can always take away from quality, but you can't add to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 22, 2012 Share #72 Posted November 22, 2012 Compare the OP's theater photographs taken with the M9 in this post with the OP's photographs taken with the M Monochrom in this post. I find the M Monochrom photos much more compelling. Almost mind-blowingly so. Wow! This is truely a convincing comparison ... not that I needed to be convinced but anyway, I am surprised how obvious the improved quality is even in those tiny web pictures (and, by the way, great photography to begin with). Still, I'd suggest the word 'stunning' rather than 'mind-blowing' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 22, 2012 Share #73 Posted November 22, 2012 the images from the camera though do look very good but just a bit too good !! At ISO 1250 and higher the Monochrom files have a nice texture. At speeds below that the files just don't look right. Leica bundled Silver Efex Pro with the camera for a reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted November 22, 2012 Share #74 Posted November 22, 2012 The Monochrom pictures look very good and noiseless. To me though they look a little bit too NICE and "Chocolate Boxy" . . . I want my pictures to have a bit of an edge. I understand your comment, but that is a question of style, not quality of output. In film days, you would choose a higher speed film to get a grainy look. But it makes no sense to use a less capable sensor in the digital era to achieve that look. Any processing program can provide realistic looking grain, which looks a lot more "film-like" than digital sensor noise. I think you could achieve better photographs with the MM in dim light, and still give them whatever grainy look you wanted in post, but they would still be higher quality than something shot with the M9 in dim light. I agree with Jaap on this one -- too good does not exist. Wow! This is truely a convincing comparison ... not that I needed to be convinced but anyway, I am surprised how obvious the improved quality is even in those tiny web pictures (and, by the way, great photography to begin with). Still, I'd suggest the word 'stunning' rather than 'mind-blowing' O.K., I'll go with "stunning." I agree it is a pretty convincing comparison. And I have no doubt from what the OP has said that he had some potentially great photographs with the M9 that didn't make the cut due to too much subject motion or noise and shadow banding, or simply didn't get taken at all due to the perceived limitations of the camera. I believe that is one reason why the MM pictures are so good. He got sharp photos due to a decent shutter speed, and was therefore comfortable to shoot away in that lighting, resulting in more keepers. At ISO 1250 and higher the Monochrom files have a nice texture. At speeds below that the files just don't look right. Leica bundled Silver Efex Pro with the camera for a reason. And Leica bundles Lightroom with the M9 for a reason. All RAW files need proper post processing, and Silver Effects Pro is a recognized leader in processing B&W files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 22, 2012 Share #75 Posted November 22, 2012 and Leica bundles Lightroom with the M9 for a reason. All RAW files need proper post processing, and Silver Effects Pro is a recognized leader in processing B&W files. Silver Efex Pro (which obviously doesn't process RAW files) is bundled in addition to Lightroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2012 Share #76 Posted November 22, 2012 And, I must admit, one that I do not like too much. It is all too easy to overprocess the files in SE. And if you do so they look rather ugly. I prefer ACR/CS6 or just plain LR4.YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 22, 2012 Share #77 Posted November 22, 2012 In MY style of photojournalism where I would use B&W images, I want my pictures to have a bit of an edge. The Monochrom seems as though it would be a bit like going out and taking pictures on 6cm x 6cm 50 ISO film whereas I want that look of grain and immediacy that comes from using 35mm and TRI-X. Theater photography isn't usually photojournalism. Regardless, a digital mimetic to earlier technology is now an affectation, for better or worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted November 22, 2012 Share #78 Posted November 22, 2012 If you shoot the m9 and fix the WB at 3500K images are much better than awb. There was a thread on this a while ago. I use it and it work amazingly well Also I find you really don't always need such high ISo because the highlight of what you are shooting is usually. Lot brighter than that. I generally end up taking te exposure down. The point of night photography is to capture the drama of light and dark not to make it look like its noon. IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 22, 2012 Share #79 Posted November 22, 2012 Thats what I meant Pico - there is no doubt about it the Monochrom images are brilliant but it comes down to style and for my style which is only my opinion and not in any way fact, the Monochrom is perhaps just too good, producing near perfect files. Just a bit off topic but it is relevant, I still use a Nikon D1H which at only 2.7 MP gives in my opinion the very best B&W for my needs. I cannot comment upon the Monochrom because I have never used one. I wish very much that I could. Perhaps next year if I can get my taxes straightened out. Your comment regarding the 2.7 MP agrees with a respected friend of mine's opinion. He is a hardware engineer for Apple. I simply do not understand, but there is so much I do not understand so I will have to try it myself. D1H? Thanks for the tip! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted November 22, 2012 Share #80 Posted November 22, 2012 Unfortunately i cannot post images from my d40 here... One of the best and cheapest slr Nikon ever made, with a cult following ,with reason. Then we could put things into perspective. If people want to spend thousands of dollars on a monochrome sensor then fine. I find it laughable but each to their own. A decreased DR is a step back however you look at it. My humble M8 will always win over the MM on DR and that is , for me, the most significant element in digital photography. A couple of squeaky clean images in the web means very little to users of other cameras who have had this capability for a few years already . All this fuss about the MM is unusual to say the least.. As I said earlier , it will be a short lived trend IMO. Just my simplistic view... Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.