Monochrom owners, what's your though about the M240 reviews?

[macjonny1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read the new reviews out about the M240 today. It's great to have such top-notch writing about this great new camera (especially with forum members!).

 

Seems the Mono still holds it's own in detail and high ISO performance is still top notch.

 

Do any of you have thoughts of going back to a color camera and adjusting color sliders and such or are you happy with the pure approach that only the Monochrom offers? I'm very happy with the Monochrom and I won't replace it until the next one comes if that!

[Tony R]

I have been shooting my Monochrom for about a month and, I must say, I really have not missed working in color. The images I'm getting are startling, but it is difficult to describe.

 

What was funny to me was when I first got it, I was seeing all these BEAUTIFUL color street shots everywhere. It was like Murphy's Law!

 

My recent pics can be seen at: Flickr: Tony Rowlett's Photostream if you want to take a look.

[Advertisement]

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

[macjonny1]

I have been shooting my Monochrom for about a month and' date=' I must say, I really have not missed working in color. The images I'm getting are startling, but it is difficult to describe.

 

What was funny to me was when I first got it, I was seeing all these BEAUTIFUL color street shots everywhere. It was like Murphy's Law!

 

My recent pics can be seen at: Flickr: Tony Rowlett's Photostream if you want to take a look.

 

Thanks for sharing your nice images Tony!

 

It's very interesting how not worrying about color actually liberates one to concentrate on lighting, patterns, shapes, etc. I know one can so this all in post with a color image but its just different and hard to describe.

[andyedward]

Judging by Sean Reid's objective studio comparison, the MM nudges ahead of the M240.

[Guest borge]

The MM makes me focus on what I want to do.

It's very liberating to have limited options. I didn't buy it for the IQ mainly.

 

It's better trying to do one thing really good rather trying to do everything - which usually ends up being mediocre.

 

Photography is a hobby and a passion so I don't have time photograph that much. So when I have time I want to focus on the thing I enjoy the most: B&W photography.

[jaapv]

It may push my M9 from the first spot - as a colour camera. I carry both the M9 and MM anyway.They are complementary, not replacements for one another. The M won't be different.

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, Andy's report is right. I looked this morning at what Jono and Ming Thein posted, and for the first moment since I got the Monochrom faltered...wondering if it made sense to bring both Monochrom and M (if it arrives on time) on vacation in late March. But then Sean's studio comparison -- and I don't think I'm spoiling anything Sean charges for, though this is the moment to say I believe today's post by Sean justifies the annual subscription -- does show a meaningful edge the Monochrom has over the M, at higher ISOs.

 

And then later I thought, do I want to take my Monochrom or M9 out on a walk from work at lunch? And honestly, I like thinking that way. Is this a black and white day, or a color day? Obviously with the M, or M9, it could be both. But as Thorsten Overgaard wrote on May 11th last year, it is wonderfully liberating -- in sort of a counter-intuitive, maybe perverse way -- to go back to thinking in terms of, today I want to use my black and white film/camera.

Edited February 22, 2013 by johnbuckley

[macjonny1]

Yes' date=' Andy's report is right. I looked this morning at what Jono and Ming Thein posted, and for the first moment since I got the Monochrom faltered...wondering if it made sense to bring both Monochrom and M (if it arrives on time) on vacation in late March. But then Sean's studio comparison -- and I don't think I'm spoiling anything Sean charges for, though this is the moment to say I believe today's post by Sean justifies the annual subscription -- does show a meaningful edge the Monochrom has over the M, at higher ISOs.

 

And then later I thought, do I want to take my Monochrom or M9 out on a walk from work at lunch? And honestly, I like thinking that way. Is this a black and white day, or a color day? Obviously with the M, or M9, it could be both. But as Thorsten Overgaard wrote on May 11th last year, it is wonderfully liberating -- in sort of a counter-intuitive, maybe perverse way -- to go back to thinking in terms of, today I want to use my black and white film/camera.[/quote']

 

I think that's a good way to describe it! It's difficult to explain until you own one.

[Jeff S]

And then later I thought, do I want to take my Monochrom or M9 out on a walk from work at lunch? And honestly, I like thinking that way. Is this a black and white day, or a color day? Obviously with the M, or M9, it could be both. But as Thorsten Overgaard wrote on May 11th last year, it is wonderfully liberating -- in sort of a counter-intuitive, maybe perverse way -- to go back to thinking in terms of, today I want to use my black and white film/camera.

 

Different strokes. Some will want a camera that can do both, and use it that way on any given day. Some will have the MM, but carry another digital M for color, just in case. Some will only use the MM if b/w is their singular mode. And some, like me, will often use the M8.2 (or M9) as a b/w only camera on a given occasion, if that's the mode we decide to focus our brains. After more than 40 years shooting b/w, I don't need the camera to force my thinking; I can do that on my own, although I understand many others cannot or will not.

 

I don't find this much different than using one lens for the day versus two or more. Even if I have an extra in my pocket, I can still think in 35mm terms all day, if that's what I choose to do. I don't need a fixed lens camera to force me into that, but I do need to have used that 35mm lens countless times first.

 

Or, no different than in my M film days, when I decided to load the camera with b/w or color film (or carry both). I had no trouble being a b/w only guy when I chose, and to think, act and see that way. Of course, it takes an understanding of color to do that, too.

 

Jeff

Edited February 22, 2013 by Jeff S

[AlanJW]

I am not a MM owner but was thinking about it. The reviews, read together, led me to the conclusion that for my kind of photos, the M(240) is the better choice because the converted BW files are good enough. I have been reasonably satisfied with M9 conversions in Silverefex2, and it looks like the M240 is going to be capable of as good or better. Not as good as a MM and not at high ISOs but that is okay with me.

[Jeff S]

And I'll gladly replace (or supplement) my M8.2 with the M240 if the IQ, b/w and color, suffices. For me, the b/w doesn't need to replicate the MM (which it won't), but ideally blend the best of the M8.2 (a bit of 'grain' doesn't hurt IMO) with some improvements approximating the MM's capability.

 

For my style of shooting and printing, that will be just fine, and the added benefits of weather sealing, 2m frame lines (as on the M8.2), quieter shutter, longer battery life and faster processing will be welcome. More importantly, though, in addition to the obvious ability to shoot color, I'll appreciate the use of color channels for b/w processing. Anything else, like the ability to use longer lenses will be gravy.

 

But the jury is still out, and will remain so for me until I test by making my own prints. So far, the signs are encouraging...for folks like me. For MM users, I suspect they'll remain quite satisfied, having already chosen the best tool for their style and needs. Choices are good.

 

Jeff

[MarkP]

I have an M9 and Monochrom, with an M on order to repelace the M9.

 

Reading Sean's review, I also faltered for a minute as the M is impressive for B&W:

did I really want the Monochrom if I had the M as the M does dish up a pretty good B&W file?

did I really want the M over the M9 as up to ISO 640 the M9 is still outstanding?

would two Ms be even better and more versatile?

did I really want to change what I have?

 

However, I mainly shoot for B&W (although like Tony, when out with the Monochrom Iwould then sometimes see things that I thought needed colour:rolleyes:).

 

I find the tonal range of the Monochrom, and the versatility of it's files, so extraordinary that I really wouldn't want to part with it.

Studio testing or not I have yet to see anything from the M that would make me want to part with the Monochrom.

 

If needed I can keep pushing the ISO without pushing the image quality which is still superior to the M. I thought that I may not need my fast lenses with the Monochrom but it's very exclting that they just let me push hand-held low-light boundaries with the maintenance of excellent IQ even further!

 

Now I'm more experienced with the camera I think that overexposure is a greatly overrated.

 

I think the need for on-lens filtration (except ND or maybe a PL for increased tonal effect) is greatly overrated. I now have no problems getting the luminance and tonal ranges I want from Photoshop.

 

I too love the discipline of thinking and working in Monochrom from the start.

 

 

 

To digress, regarding the M I'm not yet convinced about the base-ISO benefits over the M9 but there are enough other benefits for me (some of which do offer some advantages over the Monochrom):

Higher-ISO IQ

2m framelines

Quieter shutter

Live-view for the 2.8/28mm Super-Angulon-R or 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar

Faster processing

Focus peaking at times

Video (OMG ) for some of those family and kid things

Don't yet know about the practical benefits of moisture-proofing (as the lenses aren't, but I guess it does help protect the electronics from moisture & dust)

 

 

Mark

Edited February 22, 2013 by MarkP

[thighslapper]

I'm with Jaap.

 

An M will be an M9 replacement and the MM will stay ..... probably forever....

 

I've developed a particular attachment to this camera ..... you can basically ignore ISO and the images produced have an unquantifiable quality which is very different to colour conversions. The files produce superb prints.....

 

The discipline of being forced to think in B&W promotes greater selectivity and more care in composition and lighting .... which can never be a bad thing as far as taking photos is concerned.....

[IWC Doppel]

I haven't owned an MM, but will do at some point. Outside of the obvious ISO advantage and effective resolution I think the decider will be back to back rendering comparisons.

 

I note that unless I need pictures much bigger than A2 the net resolution with my M9-P is more than adequate

[jaapv]

I've been revisiting Jono's B&W shots in his M240 chapter. Excellent, no doubt about it. But at the same time they cannot be confused with Monochrom images. Completely different look.

I have an M9 and Monochrom, with an M on order to replace the M9.

 

Reading Sean's review, I also faltered for a minute as the M is impressive for B&W:

did I really want the Monochrom if I had the M as the M does dish up a pretty good B&W file?

did I really want the M over the M9 as up to ISO 640 the M9 is still outstanding?

would two Ms be even better and more versatile?

did I really want to change what I have?

 

However, I mainly shoot for B&W (although like Tony, when out with the Monochrom Iwould then sometimes see things that I thought needed colour:rolleyes:).

 

I find the tonal range of the Monochrom, and the versatility of it's files, so extraordinary that I really wouldn't want to part with it.

Studio testing or not I have yet to see anything from the M that would make me want to part with the Monochrom.

 

If needed I can keep pushing the ISO without pushing the image quality which is still superior to the M. I thought that I may not need my fast lenses with the Monochrom but it's very exclting that they just let me push hand-held low-light boundaries with the maintenance of excellent IQ even further!

 

Now I'm more experienced with the camera I think that overexposure is a greatly overrated.

 

I think the need for on-lens filtration (except ND or maybe a PL for increased tonal effect) is greatly overrated. I now have no problems getting the luminance and tonal ranges I want from Photoshop.

 

I too love the discipline of thinking and working in Monochrom from the start.

 

 

 

To digress, regarding the M I'm not yet convinced about the base-ISO benefits over the M9 but there are enough other benefits for me (some of which do offer some advantages over the Monochrom):

Higher-ISO IQ

2m framelines

Quieter shutter

Live-view for the 2.8/28mm Super-Angulon-R or 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar

Faster processing

Focus peaking at times

Video (OMG ) for some of those family and kid things

Don't yet know about the practical benefits of moisture-proofing (as the lenses aren't, but I guess it does help protect the electronics from moisture & dust)

 

 

Mark

[FrozenInTime]

Just curious, anyone confess to, or thinking about and using 2 Monochroms - something not uncommon with two film M6s etc. with e.g. 28, 50mm body and lens pair.

[Steve Ash]

I think the MM stands on its own and will be challenged by an potential MM240.

Steve

[AlanJW]

I've been revisiting Jono's B&W shots in his M240 chapter. Excellent, no doubt about it. But at the same time they cannot be confused with Monochrom images. Completely different look.

 

I would disagree with this to the extent the word "completely" is used. I saw files that at lower ISOs looked similar, not completely different. To be sure the MM has an advantage, in both acuity and high ISO, but to me it is more like a difference in film types, where different looks are produced by different emulsions. Like Panatomic X vs Neopan vs Tri-X. If you click on and preview the "film types" in Silverefex this is very easy to see on the same frame. For someone who sees and thinks B&W and converts a high percentage of shots the MM is without question a superior tool. If I had unlimited funds I might even get one just for the discipline. But for the most part, conversions from M240 (and M9 and m8 for that matter) can be excellent.

 

For that reason one of my quibbles with Sean Read's most recent piece is that he did not use Silverefex or another dedicated program for converting the M files, but just did it in ACR via greyscale. Silverefex IMHO is superior to LR or ACR/CS6 for conversions. If we want to compare the very best BW the M240 is capable of then the BW conversion should be something better than what was used, recognizing that the MM superiority in overall acuity and high ISO will not go away. But the differences in "look" may very well narrow.

[tomasis7]

hello bw lovers.

 

The question is how much I lose regarding IQ at bw if I pick the M instead of MM?

 

I think I cannot choose MM since I truly hate the rear layout. If M can do 95% of MM output if color images converted to bw, then it is very tempting camera!

 

Silent shutter, long lasting battery, sleek rear layout etc. It'd be definite big upgrade for me who never owned anything else except M3 and Rd1.

 

Option for colors is good to have even my photography is 90% bw, the rest color.

 

 

5k £ is something I have to deal, it is a bit horrifying to pay up, hence no ways with two new bodies

 

Anybody is in same situation as me?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tomasis7]

I think the MM stands on its own and will be challenged by an potential MM240.

Steve

 

it'd be interesting to see this!

 

All this due my complaint of ergonomics for the older body.