M240 or Monochrom for B&W: A personal Perspective

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any updates to this thread with reference to the M240 doing poor BW work?

 

It's the photographer, not the M, responsible for any "poor b/w work." I have b/w prints using film Ms, M8.2s and a new M. They all look fine displayed together.

 

Screen shots are meaningless for comparison. And worthy prints depend on many more variables than the camera alone. Anyone who thinks the M is 'poor' has other issues. Whether the MM can be incrementally better is another discussion, and that too goes beyond just the camera.

 

Jeff

[algrove]

OP

Jeff has nailed it. Now that I have experience with both cameras and using SEFEX Pro, I must say the differences are negligible. This also includes the RX-1 images I have converted to B&W.

[Londonmember]

OP

Jeff has nailed it. Now that I have experience with both cameras and using SEFEX Pro, I must say the differences are negligible. This also includes the RX-1 images I have converted to B&W.

 

I have both, and the differences are NOT negligible. They are however subtle, and its easy to make an MM image look like any other conversion by overcooking the contrast.

 

I've been looking at some pictures I just took on the New York Subway, 90% with the MM and a couple with the M240. The MM files have 'luminosity' created by a very fine tone curve that the M240 doesn't have. You can get very nice conversions with SEP, and I'm very used to the program, but the MM has more. Its like the difference between film and digital, the MM is 'film'.

 

None of this can be seen at reduced resolution jpegs here. It can be seen on a retina MBP screen, and most certainly on a print. The MM is making me want B&W prints as the final output of more and more of my images.

[algrove]

I print all my images that I like A3 size and to me the differences are not great. Sure the MM is better with the APO50, but not with all lenses and not against all cameras I shoot, RX-1 included even on the NY subway.

[MarkP]

The M240 produces beautiful B&W images but those from the Monochrom is still better. Would I cry if there was no Monochrom and I had to suffer the B&W conversions of the M240? - of course not, they are still fantastic images.

 

The Monochrom files demonstrate a more subtle tonal range, in particular a 'filmic' quality to the noise (that resembles film grain rather than the worm tracks of most digital files), better high ISO performance, and that the files are that more robust to torture with post processing. These are quite evident in print (I usually print A3+ and A2).

[rirakuma]

There is an unquestionable look that I regularly see from MM files. I've been using the M and its an amazing camera for black and white but it does not deliver the MM look. I also recently bought an M8 which creeps closer to the MM when used without the IR filter but its still not there. Damn why did I read this thread, I really want a Monochrom now

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone who thinks the M is 'poor' has other issues. Whether the MM can be incrementally better is another discussion, and that too goes beyond just the camera.

 

Of course the M240 is not poor for B&W, but neither is the M9 or M8. I enjoy the files I converted from my M9 to B&W, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them, I stand by them, they didn't turn to junk overnight by using an MM. But as you say in the bit of your post I quote above, it 'goes beyond just the camera'.

 

For many people B&W is a afterthought, what they see when they put the camera to their eye is a colour picture, and maybe later they decide it should be in monochrome. Some may even feel a B&W image is just a Greyscale version of a colour picture. So they take things as they come, and that's fine. And even using a Monochrom many people still think of a B&W file as something that pops out the camera ready to go, so they see no need to explore any subtlety about it at all. This is not about those people.

 

Somebody working in exclusively in colour, who not only see's a subject worthy of a photograph but also has an eye for colour and where it is placed wouldn't dream of converting their image to B&W, and would want the best camera to represent colour to fit into the way they work, so an M240 may be ideal. They are fanatical enough to take the big step and get the best bit of kit because it fits their vision. And equally if you are working in B&W, and what you see before you even pick the camera up is a B&W picture, then the generally perceived subtleties of the Monochrom are no longer subtleties, they take on far greater importance. I'll explain.

 

For me a 'red' in a colour picture is just 'red', I couldn't care less if the M240 does more subtle reds than an M9, people will obsess over it, but its all red to me. 'Red' is no longer a subtlety, it is essential to the way they work, to how they see the world, they need it to be 'right'. And being able to manipulate the tone curve of a Monochrom file may go over the head of an exponent of colour, but I can assure you this little trick makes the Monochrom what it is, without this ability it would just be an M9 devoid of colour, pointless. It is what allows the Monochrom to render any style of B&W image ever made, not to mention your own style. It's what makes the MM 'right' in the same way that the colour rendering between the M9 and M240 makes the M240 'right'.

 

So an M240 is good enough for B&W, but not as good for working in B&W, just as my M9 was good enough for colour I'd think differently about it if I was working in colour. And by working in the photographic context I don't even mean earning money, but the opposite of walking around waiting for something to happen.

 

Steve

[viramati]

Well of course the MM will produce a better B&W file that is what it is made for:) but I wouldn't buy one. The M is far more versatile and I perfectly happy with the images i can get from it when converting in Silverefex pro, also I wouldn't give up the power of being able to adjust the colour channels in the conversion process. OF course if Father Christmas gave me one I would use it but I just can't justify over £5000 for the small difference in quality and the step back in usability.

[250swb]

OF course if Father Christmas gave me one I would use it but I just can't justify over £5000 for the small difference in quality and the step back in usability.

 

And for a B&W worker the MM it is a big difference in quality and a leap forward in usability. I agree it gets less important if each time you stand at the forked path of a decision between B&W or colour you flip the versatility coin. The MM isn't for everybody by any means.

 

Steve

[wattsy]

Not sure why you so often feel the need to be so patronising, Steve? I'm pretty sure David makes decisions between black & white and colour that go beyond flipping "the versatility coin".

[Peter H]

Some photographers have the same serious attachment to colour as others have to B&W. Other equally serious photographers are interested in different visual qualities and the choice between B&W and colour is less significant than many of the other choices between visual elements of a scene/photo.

 

I'm not keen on the tone that sometimes emerges from these threads suggesting that the Monochrom (or the M, for that matter though it less often happens that way round) is somehow a more serious camera for more serious, dedicated or refined photographers.

[250swb]

Not sure why you so often feel the need to be so patronising, Steve? I'm pretty sure David makes decisions between black & white and colour that go beyond flipping "the versatility coin".

 

It's pointless teasing somebody if you stick a smiley on to tell them your teasing them.

 

Steve

[Londonmember]

Well of course the MM will produce a better B&W file that is what it is made for:) but I wouldn't buy one. The M is far more versatile and I perfectly happy with the images i can get from it when converting in Silverefex pro, also I wouldn't give up the power of being able to adjust the colour channels in the conversion process. OF course if Father Christmas gave me one I would use it but I just can't justify over £5000 for the small difference in quality and the step back in usability.

 

OK, side stepping the issue of affordability, there are reasons to use both.

I just spent the weekend in New York doing street photography. I mostly used the MM, but found use for the M240 as well. My kit was the M and MM, 35 and 24 Lux in a small crumpler bag, these were taken with the 24.

 

An example of each, which to me shows the value of the MM, and why I have an M240 as well.

The B&W images are the Subway at Times Square, the colour is a street portrait of Ernest, a homeless guy I got talking to down at DUMBO.

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!

[dant]

Of course the M240 is not poor for B&W, but neither is the M9 or M8. I enjoy the files I converted from my M9 to B&W, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them, I stand by them, they didn't turn to junk overnight by using an MM. But as you say in the bit of your post I quote above, it 'goes beyond just the camera'.

 

For many people B&W is a afterthought, what they see when they put the camera to their eye is a colour picture, and maybe later they decide it should be in monochrome. Some may even feel a B&W image is just a Greyscale version of a colour picture. So they take things as they come, and that's fine. And even using a Monochrom many people still think of a B&W file as something that pops out the camera ready to go, so they see no need to explore any subtlety about it at all. This is not about those people.

 

Somebody working in exclusively in colour, who not only see's a subject worthy of a photograph but also has an eye for colour and where it is placed wouldn't dream of converting their image to B&W, and would want the best camera to represent colour to fit into the way they work, so an M240 may be ideal. They are fanatical enough to take the big step and get the best bit of kit because it fits their vision. And equally if you are working in B&W, and what you see before you even pick the camera up is a B&W picture, then the generally perceived subtleties of the Monochrom are no longer subtleties, they take on far greater importance. I'll explain.

 

For me a 'red' in a colour picture is just 'red', I couldn't care less if the M240 does more subtle reds than an M9, people will obsess over it, but its all red to me. 'Red' is no longer a subtlety, it is essential to the way they work, to how they see the world, they need it to be 'right'. And being able to manipulate the tone curve of a Monochrom file may go over the head of an exponent of colour, but I can assure you this little trick makes the Monochrom what it is, without this ability it would just be an M9 devoid of colour, pointless. It is what allows the Monochrom to render any style of B&W image ever made, not to mention your own style. It's what makes the MM 'right' in the same way that the colour rendering between the M9 and M240 makes the M240 'right'.

 

So an M240 is good enough for B&W, but not as good for working in B&W, just as my M9 was good enough for colour I'd think differently about it if I was working in colour. And by working in the photographic context I don't even mean earning money, but the opposite of walking around waiting for something to happen.

 

Steve

 

Enjoyed your Flickr, beautiful!

[algrove]

Once I got my MM I went back to many locations over many months that I had gone with my M9. Then I went back to those locations a third time with my M240.

 

I found that after having used the MM exclusively for many months and then coming back to using a color camera, my appreciation for color became better and my color images had a better quality to them.

 

I did start photography with B&W and shot B&W for over 3 years before trying my first Kodachrome film. I guess B&W photography became liberating again for me.

[Jeff S]

Of course the M240 is not poor for B&W, but neither is the M9 or M8. I enjoy the files I converted from my M9 to B&W, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them, I stand by them, they didn't turn to junk overnight by using an MM. But as you say in the bit of your post I quote above, it 'goes beyond just the camera'.

 

For many people B&W is a afterthought, what they see when they put the camera to their eye is a colour picture, and maybe later they decide it should be in monochrome. Some may even feel a B&W image is just a Greyscale version of a colour picture. So they take things as they come, and that's fine. And even using a Monochrom many people still think of a B&W file as something that pops out the camera ready to go, so they see no need to explore any subtlety about it at all. This is not about those people.

 

Somebody working in exclusively in colour, who not only see's a subject worthy of a photograph but also has an eye for colour and where it is placed wouldn't dream of converting their image to B&W, and would want the best camera to represent colour to fit into the way they work, so an M240 may be ideal. They are fanatical enough to take the big step and get the best bit of kit because it fits their vision. And equally if you are working in B&W, and what you see before you even pick the camera up is a B&W picture, then the generally perceived subtleties of the Monochrom are no longer subtleties, they take on far greater importance. I'll explain.

 

For me a 'red' in a colour picture is just 'red', I couldn't care less if the M240 does more subtle reds than an M9, people will obsess over it, but its all red to me. 'Red' is no longer a subtlety, it is essential to the way they work, to how they see the world, they need it to be 'right'. And being able to manipulate the tone curve of a Monochrom file may go over the head of an exponent of colour, but I can assure you this little trick makes the Monochrom what it is, without this ability it would just be an M9 devoid of colour, pointless. It is what allows the Monochrom to render any style of B&W image ever made, not to mention your own style. It's what makes the MM 'right' in the same way that the colour rendering between the M9 and M240 makes the M240 'right'.

 

So an M240 is good enough for B&W, but not as good for working in B&W, just as my M9 was good enough for colour I'd think differently about it if I was working in colour. And by working in the photographic context I don't even mean earning money, but the opposite of walking around waiting for something to happen.

 

Steve

 

I hope this isn't directed at me, trying to explain working in b/w. I could write my own tome on the topic after 40 years in b/w, 4 darkrooms built, countless hours 'working' at the craft, 30 years collecting b/w vintage prints and photo/art books, working with gallery and museum curators worldwide, and still always a student of the field.

 

To imply that one using an M can't 'work' in b/w is nonsense, pure and simple. Working is in the eyes and mind of the photographer, not just in the camera. And in the digital world, just as in the darkroom age, there are myriad tools, and myriad techniques, to allow one to work better in b/w. Some of the greatest workers in b/w used modest tools. Their camera was not a limiting factor.

 

Since switching to digital 5 years ago, my b/w prints have improved immensely without need to change cameras. Using the M8.2 over time, my prints got better and better with changes to printer, papers, inks, profiles, editing software, improved techniques, better lighting and display, and more. But the most important factor….the space between my ears….hasn't changed a bit. Only the tools have changed; my ability to think and see in b/w remains.

 

A surgeon gets paid for knowing where to make the cut, not the simple act of cutting. Same with photography…it's not the tools, it's knowing what to do with them. The MM isn't a prerequisite.

 

I'm off to take my 88 year old mom to a b/w exhibit by N. Jay Jaffee. Beautiful prints.

 

Jeff

[dant]

Has anyone here given up on the MM for BW and gone back to their full color Leica?

 

(Assuming you are a good BW shooter and printer any not one of the jpeg shooters that do no PP and only produce shades of gray BW photos.)

 

I was an old BW shooter from back in the day. In the 1980's I went over to mostly color. That is where I'm at now. I still love BW, but hate having to carry 2 cams (MM and M240)

 

That was why I was wondering of the actual benefit of having the MM in the area of outdoing the M240 when it comes to BW for prints.

[jaapv]

Since I got my MM I have been shooting B&W for about 30% of the time. The subject matter is the main divide. For instance on holiday it will be mainly the M, when out for "serious fun" I tend to take the Monochrom. Normally they sit side by side in the bag. So no, I have not moved back

The B&W prints I make all come from the Monochrom. It may be me, but I cannot match them on the M.

[Tonki-M]

in the end, i dont think there's any surprise to find that the MM produces better mono than M240..considering MM is specialized for that purpose. The question is whether the compromise in color outweighs the quality drop? i'm very happy with my M240 mono output.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I think you are quite right. Nobody should be unhappy with the B&W output of the M240, nor the ME, M9 or M8.

However, the dream team is of course the Monochrom combined with the colour digiM of your choice, and for a pure B&W photographer the MM is a no-brainer.

And Jeff is right, the postprocessing has vast potential for quality results.