Not 100% convinced the MM gives better B&W images than say a M240/Nikon

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Series VIII filters are not as popular as they once were? These are big filters, and not a lot of manufacturers make lenses to use them.

 

Look for a Step-Up ring. These screw into the lens and have a threads for the larger filter. I use a step-up filter to go from 58mm to 62mm, I had a lot of them for the Nikkors. The step-up rings are much less cost than the filters.

Unfortunately the 21mm lux doesn't have a thread on its lens.........I have a lee adapter that utilises a step up ring from the lens hood thread to a 82mm (I think) filter thread that the Lee filter holder goes onto...............the 21mm lux sucks with filters put on the outside, it only really works with the series 8 filters tucked inside the lens hood

[Jeff S]

No, the red strap would look white through the red filter. Too much contrast with a black camera shooting a selfie in the mirror.  

I wrote that the red filter would look best, not the red strap.  It's not about optics, it's about looking cool, man.  

 

Jeff

[Guest jvansmit]

I have had my MM for nearly a year now and although I do not use it as much as I did when I first got it I am not convinced that I can get better B&W images from it compared to my M240 or Nikon D4s

Right out of the camera they are matt gray and sure with a little help from Silver efex pro they pop but then so do my pictures taken with my Nikon or M cameras.

Does anyone else see/feel the same? 

 

not directly related but I was reminded me of this recent comment by David Alan Harvey over at Burn Mag:

 

" for the Leica Monochrom i find Silver (Efex) to be terrific and i must say that combo looks more like film than film…..i have now taped to my wall as a test print a 60×40 inch Monochrom printed os a silver gelatin print…that thing at 60×40 looks better than an 11×14 TriX from my Leitz enlarger….just amazing this look

 

so i print in the darkroom for collectors who want a print made by me in the darkroom….and they are special….yet the direct digi monochrome to silver fibre paper is just magic…..inkjets from the monochrome do offer more paper choices and also amazing…

 

i do hope another camera manufacturer makes a monochrom..like Fuji…something i can afford…the Leica monochrom is a loaner…at 12k its just a bit over the top…on the other hand the look is sooooo good that it is tempting to find a way to afford….they gotta fix that buffer though…i have almost thrown that 12k camera on the ground a few times when after taking 5 pictures in a row, and not that fast, the damned thing just stops…."

[imsilly]

Never saw the point in the monochrome because B&W film and prints look so much better then digital equivalents. Though from looking at the files, the MM has much better sharpness and dynamic range compared to the M9 and other similar full frame mirrorless camera when the files are converted to B&W. I wouldn't worry about flatness, that is just a sign there is a lot of data there for you to edit. Programs like SEP are pretty ghastly and cartoonish, but I guess if you like that over the top look, you like it. Don't expect JPGs out the camera or RAWs to look like anything edited in SEP because they won't. The average photographer won't want anything like those kinds of images, so they camera isn't designed to process them like that. Spend enough time with MM files and I'm sure they will eventually lead to better B&W images then cameras designed for color, I mean that is what they are built to do.

 

The question always floats around my head, why purchase such an expensive niche camera without first understanding what it's capabilities are and knowledge of the resulting images. Strikes me that you are basically trying to buy a better image with a better camera. You will always be disappointed if you buy a tool expecting it to make you a better craftsman before actually developing your craft. I have a rule I don't buy any gear I know won't make an immediate and tangible difference to my photography. New gear is the last part in any formula for photographic development, only when all other avenues have been walked do I turn in that direction.

 

On a semi related note my favourite out of camera B&W jpg are from the first generation Ricoh GR Digital. With it's tiny CCD sensor and rudimentary JPG engine. Raise the ISO high enough to get visible noise and jack the preset contrast and sharpness high and you have instant pushed Tri-X, well the closest digital has come so far to my eyes.

[Lenshacker]

M Monochrom, (uncoated) 1936 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, at F4. Orange filter.

 

Signal Hill by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Nikon F, Panatomic-X developed in Microdol, almost 40 years ago. Using a much newer lens than what I use on the M Monochrom...

 

Glad I organized my negatives.

 

Panatomic-X, Nikon F by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The first images out of the M Monochrom- went back and scanned the Panatomic-X shots. I'm happy with M Monochrom shots. The ISO is higher on the M Monochrom, ISO320 vs ASA32.

 

The Sonnar at F1.5,

 

Signal Hill by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

My Daughter's face is the point of focus. At my age- kinda glad I can still trip the camera when i want to. She moved...

[Mornnb]

IMHO good B&W is more to do with the lens than the sensor. How the lens renders contrast and the distance between tones.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMHO good B&W is more to do with the lens than the sensor. How the lens renders contrast and the distance between tones.

Correct +1

[Lenshacker]

I built one lens and tried five different front elements and two middle triplets until I found a combination that rendered the look that I wanted. Shot with the lens with all the combinations, then fine-tuned the RF calibration when it was finalized. Obviously a lot of personal taste for rendering went into it. The same is true for combinations of lenses and filters on the M Monochrom.

[MarkP]

I built one lens and tried five different front elements and two middle triplets until I found a combination that rendered the look that I wanted.

 

Now I understand why you call yourself Lenshacker 

[KM-25]

IMHO good B&W is more to do with the lens than the sensor. How the lens renders contrast and the distance between tones.

I shoot black and white for a living and totally disagree with this.

 

Yes, a lens's coatings can and do affect the final image but what film I choose, the development process and printing choices play the larger role...almost as big of a role as the lighting choice.

 

I don't know a single great black and white shooter who put lens choice over film and paper choice, the same would possibly apply to a digital sensor although they will never be the same in terms of final outcome.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I shoot black and white for a living and totally disagree with this.

 

Yes, a lens's coatings can and do affect the final image but what film I choose, the development process and printing choices play the larger role...almost as big of a role as the lighting choice.

 

I don't know a single great black and white shooter who put lens choice over film and paper choice, the same would possibly apply to a digital sensor although they will never be the same in terms of final outcome.

i totally disagree with this. What has film got to do with a digital camera. .............. Nothing

Please stay on topic

[KM-25]

i totally disagree with this. What has film got to do with a digital camera. .............. Nothing

Please stay on topic

 

LOL!

 

A. You did not read the last part.

B. Keep dreaming sir....you are not a moderator.

[zlatkob]

"….they gotta fix that buffer though…i have almost thrown that 12k camera on the ground a few times when after taking 5 pictures in a row, and not that fast, the damned thing just stops…."

 

I think this shows why camera companies should have their high-end products beta tested by pro photographers in real situations — and I mean tested to the breaking point. What DAH is describing (5 pictures in a row) is what is dismissed by some online as amateurish "machine-gunning" for which a Canon/Nikon would be the right tool. How often have we read about the alleged benefits of a camera that "slows you down". And yet DAH is one of the best in the business and knows what he's talking about. A camera should be able to take 5 pictures in a row "not that fast" without just stopping. That's not asking a lot. I don't want a camera to slow me down. I want it to get the heck out of the way so I can make pictures as fast as I need to — especially if it's billed as a photojournalism tool with superb manual focus / zone focus.  Anyone heard about the benefits of running shoes that slow you down? 

[Lenshacker]

When I see the word "Sensor", I think digital. I did not make the post in question, I do miss Panatomic-X!

 

In film days, good B&W certainly was based on choosing the film, the lens, the filter, the developer, the development process, the paper, the lens used on the enlarger, ...I need to set my darkroom back up. A neighbor asked if they could borrow my enlarger. With the M Monochrom- you do not get to choose the sensor, pretty much use the one that came with the camera...

HOWEVER: I choose SD cards somewhat carefully to prevent banding at High ISO. But that's more like making sure you do not use an exhausted developer or fixer to process the film...

[wolfloid]

Basic Photography #1....Not sarcastic, just gobsmacked...

This is an interesting and typically condescending comment. Having looked at both websites, I'd say that the guy with less than 5 years experience is not the one who might benefit most from Photography #1. Constructive comments might make you sound less foolish.

[wolfloid]

@ imsilly

 

"Never saw the point in the monochrome because B&W film and prints look so much better then digital equivalents."

 

​I love B&W prints and have some superb 20" wide prints on my wall with beautiful resolution and micro contrast. Nevertheless, your remark is just too complacent to go unchallenged. 'So much better' is just too categorical. When David A Harvey says: ."i have now taped to my wall as a test print a 60×40 inch Monochrom printed os a silver gelatin print…that thing at 60×40 looks better than an 11×14 TriX from my Leitz enlarger….just amazing this look" he must have a point. He, after all, has seen, perhaps, millions of prints of his own and his fellow Magnum chums.

 

Resolution wise, the MM easily, easily betters B&W 35mm film that most people practically use. I assume that is also part of the 'look'. If there are other characteristics of film that you personally favour or appreciate, that is another matter, but you did not say that.

 

"Programs like SEP are pretty ghastly and cartoonish". Another over-the-top comment. Have you learned how to use it, and worked with it enough to master what it can do? If not, better not comment.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

This is an interesting and typically condescending comment. Having looked at both websites, I'd say that the guy with less than 5 years experience is not the one who might benefit most from Photography #1. Constructive comments might make you sound less foolish.

There are loads of these type of comments on here, mainly posted by folks that hide behind there little computer screens nipping at regular folks feet trying to get them to bite back...............where I come from its called "wee man syndrome".........unfortunately I like crocodile sandwiches so have been known to bite back 

[fussgangerfoto]

I have had my MM for nearly a year now and although I do not use it as much as I did when I first got it I am not convinced that I can get better B&W images from it compared to my M240 or Nikon D4s

Right out of the camera they are matt gray and sure with a little help from Silver efex pro they pop but then so do my pictures taken with my Nikon or M cameras.

Does anyone else see/feel the same? 

 

From my perspective (and this applies whether debating the "Leica look" or MM "micro-contrast" or, God-forbid, Nikon vs. Canon), unless you're taking simultaneous shots under the same conditions and then pixel-peeping, no-one can consistently tell the difference. Individual shots? No possible way to know for sure. 

 

The point, at least for me, is how the tool motivates/inspires the craftsman. I shoot film and digital and going through my port, I struggle to remember what was Olympus or Leica or Hasselblad film (aspect ratio aside) and what was Fuji or Nikon or Leica digital based on the image itself. My favorite shots tend to be film, seconded only in the digital realm to the Leica M's (M8/M240/MM). It's about how I connect with those cameras and less about the technical specs.

 

In 40 years of photography, I bought and sold hundreds of bodies and lenses, but tend to keep only a few at any one time. If a lens or camera body didn't speak to me with a unique and compelling voice, I'd part with it.

 

Right now, I'm down to just one film camera (Leica M7), two digital Leicas (M240 and Monochrom) and one DSLR (Nikon D3X) that I use for studio work.

 

If I was forced to produce a pecking order (a la Survivor), the last remaining would be the M7 (and I only shoot B/W film). 

[wilfredo]

I have had my MM for nearly a year now and although I do not use it as much as I did when I first got it I am not convinced that I can get better B&W images from it compared to my M240 or Nikon D4s

Right out of the camera they are matt gray and sure with a little help from Silver efex pro they pop but then so do my pictures taken with my Nikon or M cameras.

Does anyone else see/feel the same? 

Going back to the original question, if you are not convinced, why hold on to it?

 

I see a major difference between my MM files and CMOS sensor camera files.  I realize that not everyone will see this difference, judging by the many comments on threads like this one.  I'm starting to think that not all brains are programmed to see tones in the same way.  I've gotten some excellent B&W tones from my CMOS camera, but this seems to only happens when the light is just right, and that's not the case with the MM; with the MM the superior tones, especially skin tones, are consistent.    Yes, they may come out of the camera flat, but it's what you can do with these files in PP that is amazing.  Remember that your DNG is what Ansel Adams would call a musical composition (that's what he called a negative) but your PP (what he called your printing) is the performance of that musical score.

 

It sounds like the MM is not a good match for you, so why keep it?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

 

 

It sounds like the MM is not a good match for you, so why keep it?

Because I have just spent a fortune on the yellow/orange filters......................did you not read the whole thread