MP or M Monochrom

[jmr237]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering moving to Leica and had initially planned to get an MP. My current camera is a Nikon FM3a and I primarily shoot black and white film. I usually have the film developed and scanned at a pro-quality lab here in LA. If time permits, which is not often, I develop and scan at home.

 

I strongly prefer the feel and quality of film bodies to digital. I like the film mentality and the sense that you are crafting each frame. But given that I am scanning the negatives rather than printing in a darkroom, I wonder if a Monochrom makes more sense.

 

This will be a big purchase for me and I hope it will last for many years. My current thoughts:

 

The MP is a thing of beauty and purity. I would enjoy its mechanical precision and the sense that it will be no less relevant and functional today than 25 years from now. If I get an MP I will order a la carte with black chrome, no logo on the top plate, and a .85 finder (total cost about $5500 US). So it will really feel like “my” camera. But the time and financial demands of film processing and scanning can be a challenge, even if I like the mentality and craft-like nature of shooting film.

 

The monochrom is a unique camera that would provide the benefits of digital while maintaining my preferred vision of black and white. The results look excellent, and beat what I have been able to get from scanning and digitally printing from 35mm film. But the monochrom costs about $2500 more than the MP a la carte, and probably does not share the MP’s ability to hold value over the long term. For example, the sensor is excellent, but the monochrom’s M9-based body seems dated relative to the 240 (e.g. no weather sealing, low screen res, etc). As digital matures, you can imagine that Leica and other makers will further expand into niche markets such as B&W digital cameras.

 

So the monochrom isn't perfect. But, when you see what people get out of the monochrom, it is very appealing and about as film-like as a digital camera can get. As much as I love the idea of a new a la carte MP, I have to question why I would shoot film and scan negatives when I can get better results if I give up the romantic idea of film and just get digital capture from the outset. But the monochrome costs quite a lot more ...

 

Anyway, you can see how it's not a clear-cut choice. In either case, I plan to sell the FM3a, as I don’t like to have more than one camera at a time.

 

Thanks in advance for your ideas and thoughts.

[adespen]

I stopped using film in the early 1990s and embraced digital. I now have two full frame cameras: a Canon 5DII and Leica M-E. I use my Canon for video, timelapse and animation and the M-E for just about everything else. I also have a point and shoot Canon G12 which is very versatile.

I am a colour person, envious of the MM imagemakers. If I was you I would pay the extra for the Monochrom. It does create stunningly beautiful B&W images and learning to use it properly will serve you better than you imagine.

Invest in Leica glass too as they are the best.

 

"Digital is a moving express train that doesn't stop. Get on board and make your way to the front."

[mmradman]

What lenses do you use with your FM3A & which lenses you plan using with Film or Digital M body. I assume you already know that FM3A body is not much bigger than M body but Leica lenses are more compact than equivalent prime Nikkors.

 

MM sensor is unique but electronics (same as M9) is dated. Ideally dedicated B&W camera based on M typ 240 would be the one to get - just my opinion.

 

Perhaps best entry into M system is cheapest M film body you can find and one prime, either 35 or 50mm to give you opportunity to test drive the system before splashing out.

[jmr237]

What lenses do you use with your FM3A & which lenses you plan using with Film or Digital M body.

 

I use a 50mm f2 with the FM3a. Based on what I have read about using classic Leica lenses with the MM, I would probably try an older 50 summicron (perhaps the rigid chrome version). I might also try a Zeiss 50mm 1.5 as I'm interested in its classic look. I don't think my lens choice will change whether I go MP or MM. Eventually I would add a 28 and a 90.

 

I assume you already know that FM3A body is not much bigger than M body but Leica lenses are more compact than equivalent prime Nikkors.

 

I rented an M7 (MPs were not available) and took a comparison pic for fun. The Leica has a 50 summicron and the Nikon has my 50mm f2.

 

MM sensor is unique but electronics (same as M9) is dated. Ideally dedicated B&W camera based on M typ 240 would be the one to get - just my opinion.

 

Except for the larger physical size of the 240, I'm inclined to agree.

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!

[Jeff S]

I switched from film M's to digital M's (M8.2 initially, then M240) after I gave up the darkroom. Most people who stick with film prefer not just the workflow, but the results…I did for many years. But you apparently aren't getting better results, so half that equation already does not apply for you.

 

Are you already doing your own printing from your film scans, or is that lab produced? I was not willing to make the switch from darkroom to digital without committing myself to tackling and controlling the entire digital workflow for the best possible prints….same as in the darkroom days. And, after switching 5 years ago, I now have no hesitation hanging silver and inkjet prints together.

 

You might want to think about why your film based results aren't everything you want, whether process related, equipment related or both. Both of these elements will apply equally whether you're in the film or digital world IMO.

 

And, as regards equipment, you should be sure you like the RF experience. You might want to rent or buy an inexpensive M (film or digital) to figure that out before you decide to splurge on an MM.

 

I'm now spoiled by the M240 refinements and will wait to test the next generation MM. But I'm not displeased with current results, even b/w, so no rush. It's not all the camera, of course….in fact most of it isn't IMO. Choose the workflow you like.

 

Jeff

[Nick_S]

I am considering moving to Leica and had initially planned to get an MP. My current camera is a Nikon FM3a and I primarily shoot black and white film...

For film you could just get an M6 classic, these are very reasonably priced nowadays. If you like it and also want a full digital solution, then add a Monochrom.

 

Nick

[jpk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did the step from my own darkroom to the Monochrom with digital printing. My experience is that I get better results from the digital workflow with less effort. The downside for me is that I spend more time in front of the computer, especially at the beginning. But the results and the fact that I can make a print any time without making a mess with the whole apartement (kitchen: mixing chemicals; toilet: enlarging and developing; bathroom: rinsing; living room: driying) are worth the change for me!

[mwilliamsphotography]

I used Leica M film cameras from the M4 through the M7 and MP-3 LHSA.

 

In that time I could count the number of color rolls I shot on my fingers, overwhelmingly preferring B&W while subjectively consider that thinking and perceptually seeing in B&W the true rangefinder way of shooting.

 

The Leica M Monochrome is the first digital M that has satisified that subjective preference, in fact the only digital camera that does.

 

As to holding its' value compared to a film M, that remains to be seen. The value to me is the direct B&W experience NOW, without reliance of what may or may not happen with film, or dealing with the post effort film requires.

 

- Marc

[Stealth3kpl]

I wasn't keen on using M9s and went back to film. I had two. I didn't have any technical difficulties with either, but I didn't really bond with them, possibly due to their size, clunky electronics, and them not feeling as robust as the film Ms. They felt like prototypes rather than finished cameras. I prefer the process of taking an image not worrying about highlights. I decided that I'd get my dream cameras whilst film is still available, and enjoy using them. If Leica do produce a M based Monochrom I might reconsider. For the moment, I have the best solution for me. Like you, I enjoy the form factor of the film Ms.

Pete

[geoffreyg]

Had M2 for many years, loved it, but found 35mm film restricting and went up to MF size. Had the M8 when it came out, and thought it was wonderful… until… the low ISO, the limited resolution, the complications with lenses… was off Leica. The M9 was better, but not of much interest.

 

Tried an MM and found it to be rather amazing in comparison: the high ISO lets you shoot where you never could with M9, and the files are more MF type - they are elastic, higher resolution than you might imagine (more like 30mp comparisons, than 18). Its a remarkable camera, and if you don't need the color, the hands-down choice.

 

None of this digital gear holds its value like the old mech'l cameras. Just doesn't. Conservatively - figure straight line depreciation to zero in 7 years, and you won't be disappointed. Lenses seem to hold their value, but not the cameras. Sad but true? So get what you will use - the shot you like is better than the one you didn't take.

[smb]

You could buy the M Monochrom and back it up with an M6, which is much less expensive; and experiment with them both. If you like the M6 as a back up keep it, if not, it will be easy to sell, with minor loss. And, there is always the possibility that the M Monochrom will go down & the M6 will be your backup.

[Ulev]

... figure straight line depreciation to zero in 7 years, and you won't be disappointed...

 

But fortunately that does not mean that you can't continue shooting after those 7 years

[jmr237]

So get what you will use - the shot you like is better than the one you didn't take.

 

That's great advice ...

[jlindstrom]

What about best of both? Get the monochrom and user M6 classic or ttl.. those can be had pretty cheap compared to MP.

 

This way you can share lenses and shoot film with a Leica when you want. And you won't be loosing any money with those film M's either.

 

//Juha

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Winedemonium]

And, as regards equipment, you should be sure you like the RF experience. You might want to rent or buy an inexpensive M (film or digital) to figure that out before you decide to splurge on an MM.

Jeff

 

This is good advice. I would suggest a month or more with an M6 first. You can get one for around $1000, and when you have finished, sell it for around... $1000. The M6 and the MP are functionally the same, apart from the rewinder. The MP is more refined, has a better viewfinder (less prone to flare), a slightly more solid feel (brass plates), and so on, but in practice it is very similar.

 

You should note that Leica MPs second hand but in very fine condition with full packaging sell for around $3000. It is possible the your Leica a la carte version may have a re-sale value lower than $3000, because it is tailored for you. You would have to find another buyer with your taste. So actually, compared to the MM, this is the riskier financial outlay.

 

My further point on the question of cost/depreciation, is that if you take B&W film cost to be $10 per 36 shots (film + processing, but not scanning), then the MM has paid for itself after about 28,800 shots (if you ignore the computer cost). It will still have some value at the other end of that (and indeed, being Leica's first MM, and last CCD version, will probably retain collector appeal). But you still have to handle 800 rolls of film!

 

Given you are already in the film workflow, the M6 will give you the chance to isolate the rangefinder part of the experience. It's very different to your FM3A - a camera I own and admire. I find focusing easier on the M6. I find manual exposure adjustment easier on the FM3A. The M6, and a Leica lens (compared to say the beautiful 1.2/50 AiS), is an even more solid and refined feel. Ergonomically they are not that far apart.

 

As for MP v MM, I cannot speak from experience of the MM. It is a terrific camera from what I have seen of the files, and it is very lovely to handle (I have done that at least in the store - just haven't yet committed to buy). It's effective ISO range is higher than even pushed film will allow. Some people describe the MM digital noise as "filmic". Others do not. The MM clips overexposed highlights in an unrecoverable way, from what I have read and seen. The advantage of film is that it never really blows out to pure white like that.

 

But ultimately, I think the MM is a seductive prospect - more range, and easier workflow.

 

I still like to shoot film. The look is different.

 

Good luck!

[Stealth3kpl]

This is good advice. I would suggest a month or more with an M6 first. !

 

He's been using an M7.

 

the MM has paid for itself after about 28,800 shots

 

Just don't invite us 'round for a slide show ;-)

Pete

[Winedemonium]

He's been using an M7.

 

That will resolve 80% of that question. MP has no AE function, and a much smaller, fiddlier shutter dial. FM3A is hybrid like the M7, so perhaps best to try an M6 or MP before committing to MP a la carte all the same.

 

Just don't invite us 'round for a slide show ;-)

Pete

 

...and in this next sequence you can see the 2fps burst rate through the full Morris dance routine... oh... its broken up a bit by the buffer jamming...

 

;-)

[tookaphotoof]

This is good advice. I would suggest a month or more with an M6 first. You can get one for around $1000, and when you have finished, sell it for around... $1000. The M6 and the MP are functionally the same, apart from the rewinder. The MP is more refined, has a better viewfinder (less prone to flare), a slightly more solid feel (brass plates), and so on, but in practice it is very similar.

 

I have both and to me personally, it's not the build quality but the viewfinder that makes all the difference. Wanted to do it earlier already, but the M6 is going back to Wetzlar to have it's viewfinder upgraded.

 

If the built in light meter is not needed an MM plus M4P for fun days might be a good option. Can't comment on the viewfinder as I haven't used it myself but it costs less than the M6.

[honcho]

If you like 35mm film, ther's nothing quite like a Leica MP for the grin factor and sheer pleasure of making images. Get the ALC you want and keep it forever. You'll still be grinning long after the digital M stuff has been recycled.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stealth3kpl]

This may be of interest.

Caution: Nudity in the referred to link:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=142364