Can you talk me out of it? Monochrom

[Bill W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is such a unique camera. I had my doubts as to why initially but now I cannot imagine not having an M body fully loaded with B&W film all the time....

[Advertisement]

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

[platypus]

Attempting to talk you out of it would not be doing you a favour.

[gpwhite]

No, I cannot talk you out of it because the MM is a unique camera that produces unmatched images. GAS is not a curable affliction, in any case. Indeed, if you let a severe bout of GAS because excruciating, you are likely to over compensate.... for instance, not just an MM, but a Noctilux companion too .

 

The MM is in stock, and it is sensational. Order it now and shoot with your new camera by the end of the week! And if you wait for the MM.2, it will likely have loose lugs, questionable rendering of flesh tones and the legacy frameline adjuster will have dropped off.

 

Peter

[M9reno]

Link to that shot:

http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_6708.jpg

 

Its taken at ISO 2500 and any camera no matter would blow out the windows in that particular situation.

 

Thanks, but although probably part of the same series, this is not the shot that is on display in the cabinet at Solms.

 

The blown out whites on the shot I saw aren't from naked lightbulbs, or even from daylit windows, but relatively large patches where light was playing on the stone surface of the cathedral walls. Those are actually important areas of the picture, but all detail of the stone texture there etc. has been irretrievably lost.

 

Of course, with sufficient care, one will never blow an important highlight with an MM, just as one will never lose any important shadow detail in b&w film. But since we are all human, mistakes will happen, and shots will clip. I would just rather my mistakes be in the blacks than in the whites, so I'd rather stick with b&w film and keep playing with a negative's dynamic range. But that's just me, of course, and as I said it is a very personal and subjective choice.

[250swb]

The blown out whites on the shot I saw aren't from naked lightbulbs, or even from daylit windows, but relatively large patches where light was playing on the stone surface of the cathedral walls. Those are actually important areas of the picture, but all detail of the stone texture there etc. has been irretrievably lost.

 

 

Digital clips in high contrast scenes as does film, it is the photographers job to make a creative choice or find a work around, but to criticise a camera when the operator is in control and took the picture seems very harsh.

 

Even the human eye can't take in the types of contrast range of sunlight coming into an old building with dark interiors, it has to adapt to shadow or highlight, it can't see both at the same time. So perhaps in this case this is what the photographer intended, to reflect the experience of being there, contrast range and all, and on a human scale, not in a photographically contrived way of HDR etc. Expression always beats technical perfection. But that is just a thought.

 

The point about the MM and the dynamic range is the way it rolls off into blown highlights, and while it doesn't have the dynamic range that film can have, it does show very similar characteristic's in the way it deals with high range scenes. So instead of sudden cut-off the highlight bleeds gently to pure white, as does film. Very different to an M9 for example. And it is this transition between tones that people love about film and don't love in digital, yet the MM achieves it. Not only that, but crank it up to a higher ISO and the noise is totally unlike other digital cameras, and it actually looks like a simple rendering of film grain, not exact by any means, but close enough to look nice and be useful.

 

So there is far more to the MM than simply throwing the colour away, it does things differently, in a more traditional way, a more subtle way, although that shouldn't be the reason in itself to get one because it can do any B&W style you like very well, subtle or not.

 

Steve

[MarkP]

Digital clips in high contrast scenes as does film, it is the photographers job to make a creative choice or find a work around, but to criticise a camera when the operator is in control and took the picture seems very harsh.

 

Even the human eye can't take in the types of contrast range of sunlight coming into an old building with dark interiors, it has to adapt to shadow or highlight, it can't see both at the same time. So perhaps in this case this is what the photographer intended, to reflect the experience of being there, contrast range and all, and on a human scale, not in a photographically contrived way of HDR etc. Expression always beats technical perfection. But that is just a thought.

 

The point about the MM and the dynamic range is the way it rolls off into blown highlights, and while it doesn't have the dynamic range that film can have, it does show very similar characteristic's in the way it deals with high range scenes. So instead of sudden cut-off the highlight bleeds gently to pure white, as does film. Very different to an M9 for example. And it is this transition between tones that people love about film and don't love in digital, yet the MM achieves it. Not only that, but crank it up to a higher ISO and the noise is totally unlike other digital cameras, and it actually looks like a simple rendering of film grain, not exact by any means, but close enough to look nice and be useful.

 

So there is far more to the MM than simply throwing the colour away, it does things differently, in a more traditional way, a more subtle way, although that shouldn't be the reason in itself to get one because it can do any B&W style you like very well, subtle or not.

 

Steve

 

Very nicely put. I completely agree.

 

Mark

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, but although probably part of the same series, this is not the shot that is on display in the cabinet at Solms.

 

The blown out whites on the shot I saw aren't from naked lightbulbs, or even from daylit windows, but relatively large patches where light was playing on the stone surface of the cathedral walls. Those are actually important areas of the picture, but all detail of the stone texture there etc. has been irretrievably lost.

 

Of course, with sufficient care, one will never blow an important highlight with an MM, just as one will never lose any important shadow detail in b&w film. But since we are all human, mistakes will happen, and shots will clip. I would just rather my mistakes be in the blacks than in the whites, so I'd rather stick with b&w film and keep playing with a negative's dynamic range. But that's just me, of course, and as I said it is a very personal and subjective choice.

I guess you don't like slide film either

[M9reno]

As I looked at Leica's sample shot of the MM, I couldn't help thinking about Bruce Barnbaum's cathedral photographs. This was a purely subjective comparison, critical of the MM photo, yes, but hopefully not "harsh". An infinite variety of equally valid responses is possible.

 

It's weird, Jaap: I'm not usually bothered by blown highlights in colour photographs. Just goes to show how much comes down to individual psychology and perception.

 

Edit: re-reading your first sentence, Steve, I think I now understand your point. Yes, maybe it's harsh to judge a camera negatively when really it's the photographer whom one should be criticising. But how different is that from judging a camera positively when really it's the photographer whom one should be applauding?

[250swb]

But how different is that from judging a camera positively when really it's the photographer whom one should be applauding?

 

Good point, as we know a good photographer can create magic from the simplest most crude camera, so yes it does work both ways.

 

It's always wise to look at more than one image from a camera before deciding. I was put off the MM for many months after seeing the initial renderings from it, but then people got more adventurous and started making images as they saw them, rather than at the default values so loved by early adopters in comparisons with other camera's. It showed me that the potential hadn't been touched in the early days, other than perhaps the images from Sobol that everybody except me seemed to hate!

 

Steve

[Peter H]

When the new M Monochrom version comes out, you'll have an interesting choice:

 

The "old" MM at a reduced price a la ME or M9, or a full-priced new MM with the combined advantages of the original Monochrom and the M's improved body and mechanism.

 

The obvious disadvantage is that the new M-based Monochrom doesn't actually exist.

[skinnfell]

I used to be in your boat.

 

Had a M8, then M9. Then sold that for a Monochrom.

My rationale was that I realized that 90% of my -successful- photographs were B&W. And I was willing to lose the remaining 10% images if it meant an improvement on the former. AND it really has. For the first time I have started to carry my Leica everywhere. Even alongside my canons.

 

Sure, every once in a while I come up in a situation where I'm thinking It would be nice to also have the M9 with me. But there is always the iPhone for the odd sunset or occasional splash of color. I have never regretted jumping off the M240 waiting list though. Sure, if a cheap M240 comes my way in a few years I might enjoy it, but today I am more thinking that a S2 would be the right choice for whichever color photographs the canons cant do.

 

For what the Monochrom does, there is just no contest. The monochrom has a way of luring you into its magic and turbo-charging your creativity - once you get to learn the camera. It is a VERY special piece of equipment. The files can potentially be a cold shower to begin with - until you learn how to expose them, work them and put them to use. All in all; I would say the Mono is probably the best camera I have ever had, if you judge by the number of "keeper" photographs I get out of it.

 

 

Oh sorry. I was going to talk you out of it. My bad. My advise is to hold on to your M9 and save up for the Monochrom. They do show up on the used marked now and then, it is certainly not a camera for casual shooters.

[semi-ambivalent]

Link to that shot:

http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_6708.jpg

 

Its taken at ISO 2500 and any camera no matter would blow out the windows in that particular situation.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

 

Film can be over-exposed and under-developed so as to capture an amazing DR. This is historical now, but in my early twenties I read in a photography magazine of a developer (maybe a POTA formula) used by the US Army to record atomic test explosions. Can't now recall the film they used but I believe it it was either Plus-X or Panatomic-X, nothing too esoteric at the time. 22 stops, and the article included demo images of a construction site in full sun to deep shadow inside the building to demonstrate.

 

Now, there is too much back and forth re digital vs. analog, but it should be remembered that high ISOs are not necessarily the answer. They're there as a selling point but also because that's how those sensors react. I am unaware of any sensor today that can expand or contract its DR in situ. It simply is what it is and if your image exceeds that then something gets clipped at one end or the other.

 

It's only a matter of time before software (maybe in-camera) will let you bracket; shoot for shadows, then for highlights, and the firmware will blend the captures to get rid of the clipping. But for now it's, at least, inaccurate to say no camera can cover this or that DR. A modern slow film and an only slightly esoteric developer from a place like e.g., Photographer's Formulary and you can still do some pretty amazing things. You can beat digital on almost every front except speed of workflow and convenience. Those two alone are what won the argument for digital.

 

The buying public has cast its vote vis a vis analog, and I'm fine with that, just remember the past is not always the technological desert that vendors like to make it.

 

Regards,

s-a

[349A]

Great commentary all around. My thinking is to see if I can grab a demo unit or a as new used one and see where it leads me. I don't think I'd sell the M9. My M8 is about to go up for sale to help offset the Mono outlay.

 

I'm not in a super rush, I'm going to sleep on it and reread all the comments here. I know I want it and would enjoy it, its purely a function of how much money they are. At the price of a ME, I would own one already. Even at the price of a M9. But $8K has me on the ropes...

 

Thanks again for all the great replies.

 

Jonathan

[jaapv]

I'm not so sure of that.

 

Film can be over-exposed and under-developed so as to capture an amazing DR. This is historical now, but in my early twenties I read in a photography magazine of a developer (maybe a POTA formula) used by the US Army to record atomic test explosions. Can't now recall the film they used but I believe it it was either Plus-X or Panatomic-X, nothing too esoteric at the time. 22 stops, and the article included demo images of a construction site in full sun to deep shadow inside the building to demonstrate.

 

Now, there is too much back and forth re digital vs. analog, but it should be remembered that high ISOs are not necessarily the answer. They're there as a selling point but also because that's how those sensors react. I am unaware of any sensor today that can expand or contract its DR in situ. It simply is what it is and if your image exceeds that then something gets clipped at one end or the other.

 

It's only a matter of time before software (maybe in-camera) will let you bracket; shoot for shadows, then for highlights, and the firmware will blend the captures to get rid of the clipping. But for now it's, at least, inaccurate to say no camera can cover this or that DR. A modern slow film and an only slightly esoteric developer from a place like e.g., Photographer's Formulary and you can still do some pretty amazing things. You can beat digital on almost every front except speed of workflow and convenience. Those two alone are what won the argument for digital.

 

The buying public has cast its vote vis a vis analog, and I'm fine with that, just remember the past is not always the technological desert that vendors like to make it.

 

Regards,

s-a

It is not clipped at both ends - the shadows kind of peter out into the noise floor of the sensor, rather similar to the highlights on negative film, which in turn blocks rather abruptly in the blacks.

So your exposing approach should be the opposite of negative film and identical to slide film..

[wilfredo]

Thanks for the comments so far. Still on the fence... A breeze is picking up....

 

Jonathan

 

If I could afford it, I would purchase the MM. It would probably get me shooting again with a vengeance. If cost is a factor then as Virgil mentioned the M9 is an option but I suspect you are hooked on the quality of the BW images only the MM produces!

[erlingmm]

No.

I can praise the camera itself for resolution, high ISO etc., but my greatest joy comes from how I change my thinking when I carry the MM, I switch to looking for geometries, lines, shadows, expressions, moods... Constraints can be a boost for creativity.

[349A]

Uncle!

 

Thanks guys! I think?

 

Jonathan

[semi-ambivalent]

It is not clipped at both ends - the shadows kind of peter out into the noise floor of the sensor, rather similar to the highlights on negative film, which in turn blocks rather abruptly in the blacks.

So your exposing approach should be the opposite of negative film and identical to slide film..

 

I don't recall saying it was clipped at both ends, but that, absent enough dynamic range to cover that in the scene, something has to give; either the shadows or the highlights. Go for the highlights and the lost detail moves ever up the toe into the mid-range. Choose the shadows and the blow-out comes farther down off the shoulder into the mid-range. The greater the disparity between your sensor's DR and that in the scene the greater the damage. Which one, and which one you choose to lose based on your (in my example, analog) emulsion is irrelevant. The point is the OP said *no* camera could have made the shot and I disagree. Not sure you can still get twenty two stops but I'd bet 15 is still quite possible with combinations on sale today. Tonal compression might skew the look of the image but you'd have it, which is usually better than not having it. And if it's on the neg you should be able to get it on the positive.

 

Of course, I'm talking B&W here. In fact I don't even know what the image in question is because I don't have to to take issue with the OP's assertion. Color's a different game and modern E-6 and C-41 emulsions, though remarkably resilient, do have stricter limits.

 

That being said you're absolutely right that you "should" go for the highlights, since I think of digital as a sort of electronic 'chrome (and I don't mind blocked shadows, that whole negative space thing). We both know it's not, but I find it easier to think of it that way since I shoot film, and a digital image/file/capture is neither and both.

 

Thanks!,

s-a

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I am sure you can. But to get your film DR onto your print you need to apply some skilled darkroom work - quite comparable to either HDR or smart object/layer mask techniques in Photoshop.

We should accept that both ways we are working within the limits of the medium to get comparable - yet different- results.

[digitalpowershot]

 

BUT fact of the matter is, you _cannot_ shoot colour no matter how much you want. (unless a stationary object fills your frame and you dont mind changing filters three times for every shot)

 

By keeping the M9 you get a fantastic piece of equipment for colour, and a great one for black and white.

By swapping to a MM, you get the the best that money can buy for only half of your shots.

 

 

If I had your preferences, I would keep the M9, or possibly spending the money on an M (if you feel your wallet burning a hole in your pocket) and love every second of it.

 

my 0.2

 

//Chris

 

These are exactly my thoughts too. If you have the money to keep the M9, buy the MM, if money is an issue then keep the M9, so you can shoot color AND b&w.

 

Some questions for you: do you print your images? If yes, how often and how big? If you do not make money from it, think twice. On the other hand, you live only once