Jump to content

A Quick Experiment: Does The M240 Deliver What The Monochrom Gives Me?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love my Monochrom, and it gives me enormous pleasure. But I did want to see if, in order to get pictures I most commonly will shoot, it is necessary to throw the Monochrom in the bag along with the M-240. Put differently, most of the time, in typical situations, will M files convert to black and white with sufficient results?

 

I'm not Sean Reid, and what follows is not a laboratory test with controlled conditions. But it happens that, one week ago, I took my Monochrom out in D.C. and took two photos I liked a lot. And then my M arrived, and I happened to be back in the neighborhood. I'll post the images, and then state my own conclusion.

 

Image 1: Monochrom, 50 APO, ISO 400, processed in LR4, then SFX Pro2, cloudy day.

 

Image 2: M-240, 50 APO, ISO 320, processed in LR4, then SFX Pro 2, sunnier day.

 

Image 3: Monochrom, 50 APO, ISO 800, ditto, cloudy day.

 

Image 4: M-240, 50 APO, ISO 640, ditto, sunnier day.

 

Again, not a rigorous test, not scientific, yadda yadda.

 

My conclusion: Much as I love, love, love my Monochrom, I think the M-240 does very well in competing with it in typical usage.

 

There still will be days when I will want to go out with my Monochrom only, but if I don't have it, and I have my M240, and I can retain the ability to "see in black and white," I will be happy.

 

Yes, much will come down to usability at high ISOs. But having wowed me with the Monochrom, Leica now wows me with the M-240 -- much as many suspected it would.

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!

Edited by johnbuckley
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I am bad with posting pics to the forum. But: the man walking in front of the sign is the Mono, the woman is the 240. The storefront at the right is the Mono, the storefront at the bottom is the 240.

 

Let the games begin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the MM would have to be better in significant ways (obviously based on my needs and preferences) to overcome the lack of ability to adjust color channels in PP.

 

Of course the M will never make up for the MM's b/w only experience that is important to many here, but having lived with film Ms and b/w darkrooms for decades, I have no desire to go back to filters, nor to make shooting or PP less flexible (or more difficult) in some important ways (to me) than using and converting color.

 

Since I don't shoot high ISOs (ASA 400 was plenty good enough for ages), one of the key factors for others is not so for me. But that's why choices are good. Each person will determine his/her own needs and preferences and some, like you, will take advantage of all options. Different strokes.

 

Thanks, John, for your thoughts. While encouraging, I'll of course need to make my own prints of my own pics to reach a determination. And that will involve a MANY more factors than the camera itself, given all the variables in the overall workflow from camera to print. Color results will also be part of that assessment, and lots of subjects and shooting conditions will need to be sorted out.

 

Enjoy your new toys...er, tools.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although outstanding the IQ over B&W conversion was not my reason for getting the Monochrom. ISO 10000 with clean noise is fantastic. If you don't need shots over ISO 400 then the M9 or M8 will produce a fine image on par with the new M I'm sure when printed.

Clarity of workflow and experience are my main reasons besides ISO. Use of color filters is not mandatory and a single yellow or orange do the trick 99% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hard to really tell from web files & given the different lighting conditions, but, like kcnarf, the main difference to me appears to be more contrast & deeper blacks on the Monochrom files. I think some some judicious curves adjustment, etc. could eliminate most of that difference, though.

 

Being familiar w/the shooting locations, I believe the old Monarch Novelty store is a prime example of why you'd want to have the 240 around. Its surreal weirdness begs to be shot in color.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice test. Thanks for sharing.

 

I much prefer the Monochrom here. There is a whole other layer of fine detail and micro contrast displayed here which is seen even in small compressed jpgs.

 

I agree. Look at the sweaters on the first photos and the detail on the Monochrom. The second set compare the fans and the signs below. Just by focusing on those details you can see a huge difference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting. I dont think these are exactly apples and apples becuase of light changes but the M240 seems to have more shadow detail, while the MM has got just slightly more detail (as expected). Not having a MM (but having thought about it), your views would coincide with mine to the extent the M240 is good enough for most purposes in BW with proper post processing. Perhaps not all purposes, and there are dedicated BW experts here who will want the MM -- but for those of us who do both color and BW but can't swing having both, the M240 will more than suffice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

240 images look 'flat' to me ...... MM look quite different, although there is an obvious difference in exposure which may account for this ....... As usual, getting exactly comparable images is well nigh impossible so I suppose I should defer final judgement ....:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my eye, the Monochrom images have more detail and look richer (poor explanation, I know).

 

Nice experiment. I agree that if you're not doing a detailed, side by side comparison, the M-240 images would be more than okay. I'm not sure that I agree with the comment that at ISO 320, the Monochrom has no advantage - it's not just high ISO grain that is different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the write-up and comparison. Great pictures.

 

Since you are in the VERY enviable position of owning both of these gems, would it be possible to ask for the following:

 

Downloadable DNG files of a complex scene, one from each camera, at base iso and a comparable high ISO , say 3200 ? Total four files.

 

I would even accept them by e-mail if possible. (Pm me)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the write-up and comparison. Great pictures.

 

Since you are in the VERY enviable position of owning both of these gems, would it be possible to ask for the following:

 

Downloadable DNG files of a complex scene, one from each camera, at base iso and a comparable high ISO , say 3200 ? Total four files.

 

I would even accept them by e-mail if possible. (Pm me)

 

Yes, happy to try. I'll post a link in this thread, when I can. And I'll post the files without any image processing -- just straight into LR and then exported as a DNG. May take a day or two, as we've a snowstorm hitting tonight...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...