Prints 60 x 40 cm: Which Leica does the best job?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's a grain of truth in this (though not much more).

My agencies still sell images I shot on 6MPixel cameras - there is nothing wrong with older, lesser cameras and their results provided they fulfill their usage requirements. The M8 can produce superb results, provided that they are not required to compete in usage ways that they are not capable of, but at low ISO and relatively small print sizes they can compete with anything.

[MikeSR]

True. And it is also true that MM files look flatter out of camera and need a bit of processing to get the best results, whereas the OOC JPGs of the M8 are pretty good in B&W.

 

I certainly agree that the MM files out of the camera are pretty horrible and do need processing. That's the nub of it.

[wattsy]

My agencies still sell images I shot on 6MPixel cameras - there is nothing wrong with older, lesser cameras and their results provided they fulfill their usage requirements....

 

Not sure I wrote anything to the contrary.

[pgk]

Not sure I wrote anything to the contrary.

You didn't I was simply restating the often overlooked point that fit for purpose actually depends on purpose.... . And to add, FWIW, although I've had prints as large and larger than 60 x 40cm off the M8, its probably just pushing the files a bit and leaving little room for error.

[andym911]

Tell me there's a typo in there somewhere please... M8 better than MM for B&W?

 

No typo..have you printed various files from both cameras and compared?

I have.

Doesn't really matter, just that's my view.

Andy

[andym911]

It is true that the output of MM and M8 are different. The puzzling thing is the preference for the lesser quality. I suspect the postprocessing workflow has not been adapted.

 

Can you translate that please?

I read it as " he doesn't know the MM and hasn't the necessary PP skills to get the best out of it...smirk and roll of eyes"

It's not that important but I guess many here think that because an MM is named an MM then black and white large prints must/ should be better than other M camera images.

I have yet to be convinced.

Andy

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can't speak for the MM, but I used the M8.2 for 5 years and loved the b/w prints I ultimately made using it in my workflow. And now, after using an M240 for 18 months and adjusting my workflow accordingly, I'm generally more satisfied with my b/w prints. The M8.2 sits idle as back-up….in part because the M is a nicer camera to handle. Different strokes.

 

I will wait to eventually test a monochrome version of the new M…just out of curiosity. In the meantime, I'll probably get as much or more benefit from the next iteration of LR, a different printer or paper choice, or some other equally important factor in print improvement. Any M is darn good starting point.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Can you translate that please?

I read it as " he doesn't know the MM and hasn't the necessary PP skills to get the best out of it...smirk and roll of eyes"

It's not that important but I guess many here think that because an MM is named an MM then black and white large prints must/ should be better than other M camera images.

I have yet to be convinced.

Andy

Nope - my point is that the tonal range and other properties of the MM files are such that postprocessing to the taste of the photographer is required. Straight out of camera they appear flat for that reason. The M8 however creates very good OOC B&W prints with less processing. When I see a remark like this, my conclusion is that the poster has not really developed the MM files to their true level. When I compare my prints (usually A3+ on Canson Baryta using a Canon Pro 9500) the Monochrom prints are well ahead of the M8 prints, good as those are.