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

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, Lawman, just shot it as if I were going for the color shot, then converted in LR and SFXP2.

[IWC Doppel]

Interesting, thanks for posting

 

My distant impression on the M so far is very positive for B&W. I did test myself without reading the text and preferred the MM shots above. They look a little richer in tone. More 75 Summilux than 75 Summarit if you know what I mean, but very good all the same

 

Nice pics too

[Advertisement]

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

[Peter H]

John, have you tried any processing to see whether the M files can replicate the look Monochrom files without any significant sacrifice, or where the sacrifice would occur? (Whilst it may be anathema to some, the effect of processing could be a very important consideration for others, not least financially!)

 

Of course it will never be possible to make the files identical, but there are some indications in your photos that it may be a lot closer than I imagined.

 

Thanks for posting them, too. Very interesting.

[luigi bertolotti]

John, have you tried any processing to see whether the M files can replicate the look Monochrom files without any significant sacrifice, or where the sacrifice would occur? (Whilst it may be anathema to some, the effect of processing could be a very important consideration for others, not least financially!)

 

Of course it will never be possible to make the files identical, but there are some indications in your photos that it may be a lot closer than I imagined.

 

Thanks for posting them, too. Very interesting.

 

I join the thankings... is a very interesting topic : my feeling, quickly summarized, is that probably with a finely tuned (and time-consuming) process one can roughly equal the richness in graytones of the M... AT LEAST IN A WEB POSTED PICTURE, with the MM that keeps a plus in fine details. By the other side, I'd be curios to have the feeling of some expert Prinitng Lab, because a think that, passing from Monitor to printing, things can be different (and in favor of MM)

[batmobile]

When I processed a bunch of Monochrom and M240 images and made the best B&W files I could, the buying decision was much clearer than I had expected: Monochrom.

 

I'm a B&W shooter and the tonality and scope for a really organic look was very important to me. All I care about is being able to produce really flexible files that make beautiful B&W prints and the Monochrom seemed very clearly better to my eyes. The ability to pull up shadows on the Monochrom is astonishing. V important for a B&W worker working in high contrast lighting. While the M240 may have the edge at the upper end of the scale, with highlight recovery form the three channels, the Monochrom is in a completely different league in the shadows, which more than compensates.

 

In overall terms I felt I could make visibly more pleasing images from the Monochrom. I wanted to want the new M, for all the other advantages it has (including colour!) but at the end of the day it just was not as good at B&W and I felt the difference was not subtle. I've never been a fan of the typical 'Digital B&W' look we see everywhere now, with high contrast and structure used to compensate for the fact that the tonal scale is crude and plasticky. The Monochrom is different. It is subtle and the tonal scale can be made to give much more of what I associate with the best of film.

 

.... All just my opinion based on processing about five files of each camera, but enough for me to pay more for the Monochrom... an older camera with its quirks and all.

 

FWIW, the M240 files felt rather like working with my 5D III files and I have never been totally happy with that in B&W. Sometimes its possible to produce the right look, but as often as not you end up with a look that I find pales next to film. The Monochrom is the first camera to change that, although film is still a much better choice in extreme contrast.

[Photoskeptic]

John, thank you for posting these. I believe you have answered my question posed from an earlier thread of yours.

IMO, the Mono wins and easily. Look at the difference in the wall details. That was most convincing.

[skinnfell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've never been a fan of the typical 'Digital B&W' look we see everywhere now, with high contrast and structure used to compensate for the fact that the tonal scale is crude and plasticky.

 

This has been my findings as well, from comparing MM files to my M9 files. I have not had a chance to actually shoot a MM alongside my M9, but although the M9 files are quite good as far as B/W goes, what I have seen from MM blows it completely out of the water.

The famous "China DNGs" were a real eye-opener for me.

 

Now it remains to be seen how much less the 240 will be blown out of the water. It is hard to overlook all the advantages with the 240.

 

Another thing: with M9 I find that I have to overexpose with almost a full stop to get enough shadow detail. Whereas with monocrom, users report that they have to underexpose with almost a full stop. This will in practice translate to at least one to one and a half stop more "sensitivity" in favor of the Mono...

 

Is there a monochrom owner who can comment on this?

[batmobile]

It depends on the light. On an overcast day you don't have to underexpose at all, but seeing as you are likely to drop the little shadow detail there is further down the scale anyway, it does no harm. When there is high contrast, you have to avoid highlight clipping, but with B&W dropping the highlights, even if you have lost a little detail, tends not to be a problem. After all, with film, how many times would a printer fog an area to hot to render real detail? A lot. You just want tone in there at a minimum. That said, I tend to leave my monochrom at -1/3, but would use more negative compensation if the light required it. In practice, its not a real issue. You only need to be aware of it. Pulling a MM file up by 2/3 stop or even 2 stops is no biggie. I've pulled up night scenes shot at 1250 by two stops and only at 100% is the increase in noise all that noticeable and in print it would not matter much, if at all.

 

I'm still quite new to the Monochrom, but it is seriously impressing me, but then again I am used to having to work on prints in the darkroom, where every image (that makes the edit) gets everything you've got. If a person wants great out of camera shots every time, its not the one to buy... thought is required, but the rewards are there.

 

100% detail is unreal. I can't wait to make some really big prints and have a feeling my Mamiya 7 is not going to get much use any more....

 

This has been my findings as well, from comparing MM files to my M9 files. I have not had a chance to actually shoot a MM alongside my M9, but although the M9 files are quite good as far as B/W goes, what I have seen from MM blows it completely out of the water.

The famous "China DNGs" were a real eye-opener for me.

 

Now it remains to be seen how much less the 240 will be blown out of the water. It is hard to overlook all the advantages with the 240.

 

Another thing: with M9 I find that I have to overexpose with almost a full stop to get enough shadow detail. Whereas with monocrom, users report that they have to underexpose with almost a full stop. This will in practice translate to at least one to one and a half stop more "sensitivity" in favor of the Mono...

 

Is there a monochrom owner who can comment on this?

[charlesphoto99]

The way I see it, having just got a Monochrom on Monday, is the that for me the MM is more of a project camera, where I want to shoot the subject all in b&w, with no distraction of color (and I might need the high iso). My M9's (and maybe M someday) will be more my everyday cameras (I rarely convert the odd singles to b&w as it is). I'm leaving tomorrow with the family for a Hawaiian vacation tomorrow and only an M9 and a handful of lenses are coming with. I see absolutely no reason for taking the MM. That said it can be a great walk around camera as long as your INTENT is to make b&w images.

 

The one thing that I'm pleasantly surprised about is how much better built feeling the MM is than my M9's. Everything just seems tighter and the release smoother. And it's a refurb with two year warranty (saved about $1100 before shipping).

[Guest borge]

Nice idea but... You should really compare prints of these images side-by-side to see the real difference.

 

And as you probably know - you can wreak havoc on the MM´s raw files and they will still look organic and be free of artifacts caused by the demosaicing process. The same can´t be said for files that are made by cameras with CFA´s.

[AlanG]

Thank you John,

 

The monochrom has so much dynamic range! You can clearly see it in the stuffed animals faces and the corners of the panels of the building

 

That subject is well within the dynamic range of any digital camera. So if it is losing detail in the brighter areas then it is a matter of exposure or image adjustment. Besides, one is shot in direct sunlight and the other in diffused light!

Edited March 6, 2013 by AlanG

[billo101]

The prevailing opinion is in favor of M Monochrom.

For me it is like that, BW digital shooter there is no other better solution (M240 including).

 

b

[johnbuckley]

The way I see it, having just got a Monochrom on Monday, is the that for me the MM is more of a project camera, where I want to shoot the subject all in b&w, with no distraction of color (and I might need the high iso). My M9's (and maybe M someday) will be more my everyday cameras (I rarely convert the odd singles to b&w as it is). I'm leaving tomorrow with the family for a Hawaiian vacation tomorrow and only an M9 and a handful of lenses are coming with. I see absolutely no reason for taking the MM. That said it can be a great walk around camera as long as your INTENT is to make b&w images.

 

The one thing that I'm pleasantly surprised about is how much better built feeling the MM is than my M9's. Everything just seems tighter and the release smoother. And it's a refurb with two year warranty (saved about $1100 before shipping).

 

I'm glad I started this, and thank you to all for such good thoughts and questions. I must say, I agree with Charles -- the Monochrom is a specialty camera, for me at least; for projects and a specific idea in mind, whereas the M is more one's everyday camera.

 

The most important point I wanted to make with this was that, as an everyday camera, the M black and white results, to my eye, are good. But I agree with all that the Monochrom files are certainly better.

 

There are many who will be able to coax better results out of M files than I will. One of the reasons I so love the Monochrom is that getting files that, to my eyes, work well is so easy.

[photomeme]

the Monochrom is a specialty camera, for me at least; for projects and a specific idea in mind, whereas the M is more one's everyday camera.

 

unless you're an everyday B&W shooter, and select color for special projects

[gotium]

I'm no expert, and it is hard to draw conclusions without playing with the RAW files. Having said that, I much prefer the monochrom versions of these examples. Thanks for posting them.

[BerndReini]

It is not a matter of playing with these Raw files. The problem is really that the light was different. I also like the MM examples better in this case, but I really hAve to reserve judgement until I can actually test the cameras side by side with the same lens at same aperture on a tripod (so the angle doesn't change at all), and in the exact same light. Otherwise the comparison is flawed and may lead to the wrong conclusions.

[batmobile]

Exactly, the lighting was different, so I would recommend anyone to download the DNGs out there and come to their own conclusions. I was not able to compare identical files, but I was able to compare a good selection of different ones. The Monochrom files stood out as clearly different, but as I say, the M240 files were not meaningfully different to my 5D II/III files (or X100 for that matter) in terms of 'characteristic look'.

 

I have a 5D III and an X100 for when I really must shoot colour, but I really am a B&W shooter so the question of 'which is the best day to day camera' is the same as 'which is the best B&W camera.' Besides, we all know the Monochrom only does B&W

 

I'd not recommend the Monochrom to anyone unless they are a dedicated B&W user or have a colour cam they are happy with already. Some people might not care about the nuances of a clasically beautiful B&W print but seeing as I have spent the last 15 years doing just that, it matters to me! With hundreds of B&W silver gelatin prints I have slaved over, as have Robin Bell (London based master printer), most digital B&W images look like sweet wrappers to me. Sure, really good conversions from most cameras are very possible, but the Monochrom is just so much more impressive to my eyes. Quite frankly, its the only digital camera that has really made me take B&W digital seriously. Previous efforts could be satisfying but often left me frustrated.