Monochrom, M 240, M4:3

[BrendanD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've spent the summer making a decision about what choices to make over the M240.

No need to read if not interested and its only my personal view.

 

I've been using an M9 for about three years, and gradually acquired a nice set of glass 24/2.8 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 ASPH, 75/2 ASPH, 90/2.8. I have over the past couple of years been doing a lot of B&W conversion with the M9 using SEPro, so when an opportunity to get a used Monochrom came up, I grabbed it. Wonderful camera..

 

 

So I was all set for an M9/MM bag... However, I tried an M240 out in a shop and realised how versatile the EVF was and what a lovely shutter it has so put down a deposit in March. Now comes the problem. I'm a many years ex Olympus OM system user, and the OM4Ti was my all time favourite camera. Small, quiet, big VF, spot metering and fab lenses. I still have 4 OM bodies and 11 lenses from 16mm to 300mm. My wife wanted a better camera so after looking around I got her an OMD EM5 and a couple of primes as a present. Trouble is I ended up having an affair with her OMD and neglecting my M9 So much so I ended up with my own OMD in black and four prime lenses (24,35,90,150mm equivalent) and I've not touched the Leica all summer....

 

 

Although I buy virtually all my gear used (and on eBay or forums), it is too many cameras and too much ££ in glass to justify. I'll never get my rid of my classic film gear, so...

Decision time today. Cancelled my M240 order. Will sell the M9 and the 24 and 90 Leica lenses and have a three lens Monochrom kit and a four lens Micro 4:3 kit for colour. In the end I asked myself what £20,000 of Lecia gear offers over ££4,500 of Olympus. The lens quality and image style is similar, the sensors are about the same (except the OMD is quite a bit better at high ISO), the OMD has a tilting screen, takes good video and is lighter. Never been a huge fan of auto focus, but its usable, and the EVF on the olympus is also 'usable'. So really, its only the beautiful tones of the Monochrom and the classic rangefinder styling that justifies an investment in Leica. M240 is a nice piece of kit, but I couldn't justify it...

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!

[horosu]

You could have saved even more money if you sold the Monochrom (remember, it's more expensive than the M240)+OMD and some more Leica lenses...

 

I really don't understand people who rave about the Monochrom being something else: in fact, it's neither!

 

No digital B&W will behave like TriX, and to spend so much money (7000 EUROS or so, last time I checked) for a camera that does only B&W, is a stripped-down version of the M9, is quite an expensive way to justify one's laziness to not use film (IF you really are into B&W)...

 

Just my opinion, of course

[BrendanD]

You could have saved even more money if you sold the Monochrom (remember, it's more expensive than the M240)+OMD and some more Leica lenses...

 

I really don't understand people who rave about the Monochrom being something else: in fact, it's neither!

 

No digital B&W will behave like TriX, and to spend so much money (7000 EUROS or so, last time I checked) for a camera that does only B&W, is a stripped-down version of the M9, is quite an expensive way to justify one's laziness to not use film (IF you really are into B&W)...

 

Just my opinion, of course

 

No, not lazy. Just practical.

I do not have the facilities at home to have a darkroom, and in central London in a flat I never would be able to. Also I do not have the time with a busy job to devote whole days to the darkroom as I used to.

Several friends scan B&W film, which I could do, but I find it enhances the grain, and I've never had results that I find pleasing, being lacking in detail and too contrasty.

[01af]

Buy—and use—whatever works for you. Get rid of everything else. Then stick to what you have. Do not care what others think. End of transmission.

[dent]

Buy—and use—whatever works for you. Get rid of everything else. Then stick to what you have. Do not care what others think. End of transmission.

 

+1

 

 

The OP might suffer from the widespread and extremely expensive and unsatisfying "gear optimazation syndrom". It is well known on this and other forums. It´s easy to connect with people with these same problems and getting loads of technically interesting and controverse input. The activity is focused not on making ones photography better but on the misconcept that changing gear and even complete systems has an impact on ones creative photographic impact.

 

If You are interested in the creative process of photography stop aquiring gear! Do Yourself a huge favor and visit one or two professional (Magnum etc....) workshops (around 3000USD per week including travel to a exotic location, loging, and meeting great people).

 

You have some of the best camera systems on todays market and perhaps not enough ideas what to do with them.

 

Perhaps I´m all wrong :-)

[BrendanD]

No, just talking idly. I have plenty to do with my gear thanks...

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

+1

The OP might suffer from the widespread and extremely expensive and unsatisfying "gear optimazation syndrom". It is well known on this and other forums. It´s easy to connect with people with these same problems and getting loads of technically interesting and controverse input. The activity is focused not on making ones photography better but on the misconcept that changing gear and even complete systems has an impact on ones creative photographic impact.

 

I couldn't agree more in the general sense, gear can be terminally distracting. And it extends to the computer end of the equation when elaborate post processing techniques make little or no difference to otherwise ordinary photographs, the 'hope' for the photographer in such practice results in Edward Weston's 'squirrel cage' effect as quoted below

 

"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

 

But, there are still times when only using the correct 'tools for the job' will do. I'm pretty dedicated to B&W and don't for instance think I'm being distracted in using my large format film camera instead of a Monochrom, I think in a body of work it should be possible to see that it's what's being photographed that is important and hangs together, not the camera used.

 

This is because flitting from camera to camera, or lens to lens, often accompanies photographs that can be described as little more than cultural and ethnic tourism, where 'things' are simply recorded as a way to demonstrate the lens, or camera, or darkroom technique, or post processing technique. It isn't just a turn of phrase when photographers casually say they 'picked up' the latest flavour of lens, it is a symptom of gear first, subject last.

 

So I don't see a problem for the OP to have and like an OMD (I have one, and if I need colour it is what I'd use well ahead of my M9), what is important is that it isn't the camera that is in charge and acts as the signature of the photograph. If photographs from any camera all fit within a body of work without screaming out such things as 'look what a Nocti can do', then that should be good enough. An example that is worthy to be on any B&W photographers Christmas present list is the latest (2nd edition) retrospective book by renowned Finnish photographer Pentti Sammallahti 'Here Far Away'. Much of his work resolves around balances within the frame, small things here and there counterbalancing much larger things, perfect observation making something out of what many photographers would see as nothing. The images are a mixture of large format, panorama, 35mm etc., yet they all work as a body of work because of the artists signature on the image.

 

Pentti Sammallahti | A-Z of Photographers | The Photographers' Gallery

 

 

Steve

[horosu]

No, not lazy. Just practical.

I do not have the facilities at home to have a darkroom, and in central London in a flat I never would be able to. Also I do not have the time with a busy job to devote whole days to the darkroom as I used to.

Several friends scan B&W film, which I could do, but I find it enhances the grain, and I've never had results that I find pleasing, being lacking in detail and too contrasty.

 

Yes, I agree with you that doing one's won developing& printing is not practical anymore however, you could send the film to have it developed somewhere I imagine.

 

Nevertheless, what I wanted to say is that the M240 is capable of producing superb B&W conversions and is, in many ways, a much better camera than the Monochrom, but as long as you like it more, than that's the way to go!

[jaapv]

Having both the M and the Monochrom I can say that the M is indeed nearly as good as the M8 in B&W conversions, but neither come close to the output of the Monochrom.

[MarkP]

...what is important is that it isn't the camera that is in charge and acts as the signature of the photograph. If photographs from any camera all fit within a body of work without screaming out such things as 'look what a Nocti can do', then that should be good enough. An example that is worthy to be on any B&W photographers Christmas present list is the latest (2nd edition) retrospective book by renowned Finnish photographer Pentti Sammallahti 'Here Far Away'. Much of his work resolves around balances within the frame, small things here and there counterbalancing much larger things, perfect observation making something out of what many photographers would see as nothing. The images are a mixture of large format, panorama, 35mm etc., yet they all work as a body of work because of the artists signature on the image.

 

Pentti Sammallahti | A-Z of Photographers | The Photographers' Gallery

 

 

Steve

 

Thanks for introducing this work to me. Turning the everyday and 'mundane' into art is indeed a great talent.

[BrendanD]

Pentti Sammallahti | A-Z of Photographers | The Photographers' Gallery

 

 

Steve

 

This is great work and very popular with a number of photographers I know. The book has just been reprinted having been un available for a while

[M9reno]

Having both the M and the Monochrom I can say that the M is indeed nearly as good as the M8 in B&W conversions, but neither come close to the output of the Monochrom.

 

I guess to me this illustrates what I take as Steve's earlier point, with which I agree: whatever one means by 'good', should this be an argument for owning both M and M Monochrom, especially on the assumption that a future M Monochrom based on the M 240 would probably be 'better' than the current? In such a case, where one's idea of 'good' is ever changing according to the latest technological release, then is anything ever 'good enough'? Presumably, since the M9 is not mentioned, its B&W conversions are not - and were never - any 'good'???

[BrendanD]

M9 conversions v MM

There is a noticeable difference and I can spot which is which in my aperture library. Certainly there is a difference in prints. I would post but TBH I don't think the reduced images here will show it.

Monochrom images have a much smoother tonal rendition. it is particularly evident on black skins.

The other big difference is the ability to take the Monochrom out at night on the street and get great shots at ISO2500.

For a street photographer in the northern hemisphere in winter the Monochrom is a unique tool and invaluable.

[jaapv]

I guess to me this illustrates what I take as Steve's earlier point, with which I agree: whatever one means by 'good', should this be an argument for owning both M and M Monochrom, especially on the assumption that a future M Monochrom based on the M 240 would probably be 'better' than the current? In such a case, where one's idea of 'good' is ever changing according to the latest technological release, then is anything ever 'good enough'? Presumably, since the M9 is not mentioned, its B&W conversions are not - and were never - any 'good'???

There is nothing wrong with the M9, but the M8 is the reference point imo. Good - in my view- is defined as what works best - for me.

If you read back in the forum you'll find that I was never happy with the conversions out of the M9 -again, in my hands and perception- and kept the M8 for the purpose.

[M9reno]

Brendan: No doubt there is a difference. It's our appreciation of what output is outstanding, good, acceptable, poor, etc, that seems subjective, especially when anchored to a product release cycle.

[jaapv]

Of course it is subjective.

[colonel]

Very surprised at the OPs view.

I bought a OMD based on the hype.

It had very disappointing picture quality IMHO. Sure the colours are nice and it makes nice sharp looking web pics but I found the ISO performance bad above base ISO, disappointing pixel level detail and sharpness and the acuity fairly low. I would say that the Fuji X-E1 beat it everywhere.

I would say the M9 and the wonderful lenses mentioned should be in a different league !

[BerndReini]

I really don't understand people who rave about the Monochrom being something else: in fact, it's neither!

 

Have you tried one? I have and I am lusting after one even though I am a dedicated color photographer. No, the Monochrom doesn't look like TriX, but it is spectacular and in many aspects surpasses film.

 

As far as the OMD or any Micro 4/3 camera is concerned, it just doesn't look anything like full-frame in most cases. Unless you want absolutely everything in focus, as you do in many landscape shots, the smaller sensor just cannot replicate the fall-off of a full-frame sensor. I am assuming that the last photo was shot with the OMD (otherwise I'll have to eat my words), but I find the bokeh terrible. The photo to me has two planes: in focus and completely out of focus, and barely anything in between to give the image its dimension. It is ok to be impressed by what the OMD offers, but it is a shame that your M9 is sitting at home when many of the photos would absolutely look better. The way a lens draws is so much more important than low-noise, sharpness etc. and there are things that a smaller sensor cannot do when compared to a bigger one. And this holds true for any format. A colleague was looking through my photo library and after sifting through an August Sander book asked me why these old photographs looked so "beautiful and different." Well, aside from Sanders wonderful eye and sensibility, they were also shot on a large negative.

[D&A]

There is nothing wrong with the M9, but the M8 is the reference point imo. Good - in my view- is defined as what works best - for me.

If you read back in the forum you'll find that I was never happy with the conversions out of the M9 -again, in my hands and perception- and kept the M8 for the purpose.

 

Jaap, with regards to the M8's Raw file conversion to B&W....some say it's due to the M8's sensor increased IR sensitivity to IR. If this is the case why the M8 conversions are superior to the M9, do you leave off the UVIR filter on lenses when using the M8 specifically for file conversion to B&W...or is the M9 superority due to something else?

 

Dave (D&A)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ecar]

An example that is worthy to be on any B&W photographers Christmas present list is the latest (2nd edition) retrospective book by renowned Finnish photographer Pentti Sammallahti 'Here Far Away'. Much of his work resolves around balances within the frame, small things here and there counterbalancing much larger things, perfect observation making something out of what many photographers would see as nothing. The images are a mixture of large format, panorama, 35mm etc., yet they all work as a body of work because of the artists signature on the image.

 

Pentti Sammallahti | A-Z of Photographers | The Photographers' Gallery

 

Couldn't agree more, Steve. Had to wait for a few months before receiving my copy of the 2nd edition book last week (Christmas came early...). A visual joy and a highly recommended addition to any photographer's library.