Monochrom M246 Reviews

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Prhaps this can and will work as a bootstrap, but it is a workaround and still requires one to shoot the camera more like slide film insofar as the highlights are concerned. 

[johnbuckley]

People like David and Jono and Sean Reid are solid testers, and I for one respect what they write. So putting them down because they published their reviews when Leica's embargo lifted does not make sense. They've all shot thousands of pictures by the time they write.

 

I subscribe to Sean's site, have done so for probably ten years, and I do so for moments like this.  It is not fair to Sean to tell everyone what his copyrighted reviews say, but I will say this: I would want to buy the Monochrom Type-246 even if the image quality were identical to the M9-Monochrom, as we seem to be calling it now, because it is built on the M-P Type-240 platform; being able to use it just like my M, with R lenses, etc. is a really big deal to me.  But having seen Sean's high ISO comparison shots with the Monochrom Type-246 images next to the M9 Monochrom's, the M-240's, and a Sigma he's fond of, there is no comparison. The new Monochrom blows the rest away. So, to me, worth it both for the platform change and, pleasant surprise, the dramatic increase in performance.

[Advertisement]

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

[jrp]

There is really only one question about this new camera:

 

Is the loss of ability to covert a colour image from the M240 (lightening or darkening parts of the image by colour, cleaning up CA) offset by some other feature (exceptional high dynamic range, low noise at higher ISOs)?

[Peter H]

Until very recently the M9 Monochrom was widely held to be the ultimate in B&W 35mm-format photography, praised in particular for its high-iso performance amongst other delicious qualities.

 

I'm not happy about the inevitability with which indisputably wonderful tools can so quickly become inadequate to the extent that many are prepared within a year or two to pay good money to replace them. I understand how it works and I'm as guilty of it as anyone so no criticism is intended, but it is an unhappy trap into which we are all tempted.

 

I suspect it does nothing whatsoever to improve our photography either.

[dkCambridgeshire]

People like David and Jono and Sean Reid are solid testers, and I for one respect what they write. So putting them down because they published their reviews when Leica's embargo lifted does not make sense. They've all shot thousands of pictures by the time they write.

 

I subscribe to Sean's site, have done so for probably ten years, and I do so for moments like this.  It is not fair to Sean to tell everyone what his copyrighted reviews say, but I will say this: I would want to buy the Monochrom Type-246 even if the image quality were identical to the M9-Monochrom, as we seem to be calling it now, because it is built on the M-P Type-240 platform; being able to use it just like my M, with R lenses, etc. is a really big deal to me.  But having seen Sean's high ISO comparison shots with the Monochrom Type-246 images next to the M9 Monochrom's, the M-240's, and a Sigma he's fond of, there is no comparison. The new Monochrom blows the rest away. So, to me, worth it both for the platform change and, pleasant surprise, the dramatic increase in performance.

 

No it's not fair … so why do you have to tell everyone about the high ISO comparison? You've probably stopped a few potential new subscribers paying to read the whole review.

 

dunk

[IkarusJohn]

No it's not fair … so why do you have to tell everyone about the high ISO comparison? You've probably stopped a few potential new subscribers paying to read the whole review.

 

dunk

 

What, and miss out on the vege photos?  Not a chance.  Bring on the greengrocer!

Edited April 30, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So putting them down because they published their reviews when Leica's embargo lifted does not make sense. 

 

No one is putting them down, just calling it for what it is and that is a preview VS a review based on months of solid use. It serves a purpose, like when no one caught or disclosed the purple cast on the M8, that came from a hands on preview, not a long term review.

[mjh]

Is the loss of ability to covert a colour image from the M240 (lightening or darkening parts of the image by colour, cleaning up CA) offset by some other feature (exceptional high dynamic range, low noise at higher ISOs)?

Well of course it is. We have had this discussion about the original M Monochrom versus the M9 three years ago. The very same arguments still apply.

 

To put it mathematically: (M Monochrom / M9) * M (Typ 240) = M Monochrom (Typ 246). Approximately anyway.

Edited April 30, 2015 by mjh

[jonoslack]

I find it odd that there are already so called "reviews" of this camera out when the camera it self has not been out.

 

One might consider the fact that true reviews of equipment like this can only be 100% relevant when someone has put thousands of frames through this equipment over the course of 3-6 months, preferably in a full time professional setting. 

 

I'll give an example of the value of "reviews" right out of the gate: 

 

I read about a half a dozen reviews of the Fuji X100T before buying mine in November of last year. Not one of those so called "reviews" mentioned the utter insanity that is the viewing of the menu or menu like items in that you either have to keep your eye glued to the VF to see them making it really interesting in making sure you press the right button for adjustments or essentially put the camera in live view to see them on the rear LCD from which 4 more button pushes are needed to bring the camera back to VF mode.

 

After the last firmware update did not fix it, I sold the damn camera...

 

Beware of the "Internet Gear Review Hero" is all I am saying....

Hi There

I'm not sure about others - but I've had the camera (well, 2 different ones actually) since just before Christmas and have put many thousands of frames through it. FWIW

[jonoslack]

Well Beta testing is what it is and if one can throw some of their style and visual panache in there, all the better. If not, these early in write-ups will serve a purpose for someone I guess.

 

One big, big thing I noticed in your samples is that in a good percentage of the images, the tonal structures looked way off...I could not figure out if they were flat off or toned wrong in post off. I shoot a lot of black and white film in my M3 & M6 and if I am doing my job right as a visual translator of the light and just being a good photographer over all, I can get a nice range of tones and that signature Leica 3-D pop on a grade 2-3 paper with no adjustments in local contrast. 

 

In the samples you have shown, I see a distinct over domination of some tones and total lack of others....they just don't have the visual relationships I am used to seeing on those subjects and I have been to both places. Also, when I run my cursor over the image I am looking at, the in-line displayed image goes even flatter in some display of web-centric techno-wizardy.....that cute little effect is not doing the pop of your images any favors yo...

 

Just something I noticed and thought to point out.

Did you feel the same way about my images?

.  here are some more: http://www.slack.co.uk/2015/monochrom/monochrom246/index.html

incidentally - I'm not asking for approval - I'm just interested to see whether you are seeing the same issues in my samples

Edited April 30, 2015 by jonoslack

[piblondin]

I can't speak for others, but Jono and I were both beta testers for the M246, not just casual reviewers. I've had the camera for almost a month and have shot about 3000 frames so far in a wide variety of conditions. I'm sure that Jono has had his longer. And we both have years of experience with both the M9M and the M240. We're not exactly tech bloggers doing a drive-by write-up on a system we know nothing about. 

 

Just sayin'

 

Of course, few things bother me more than reviewers who are clearly unqualified or uneducated in the product they are reviewing, so we totally agree there.

 

You have a vested interest in the new Monochrom's being an attractive camera. That's why I can't seriously take what you've written about it as a review. It's informative, for sure. I think one's conflicts of interest need to be much more minimal than yours are to deliver what I would consider a review, though. 

 

I don't agree with the previous poster than only long term reviews are valuable, though. Even the impressions of someone who used the camera for 30 minutes can be valuable. 

[IkarusJohn]

One might consider the fact that true reviews of equipment like this can only be 100% relevant when someone has put thousands of frames through this equipment over the course of 3-6 months, preferably in a full time professional setting. 

 

 

This is very true.  The rest of your post is cobblers - Jono, David Farkas & Sean Reid know what they're doing, they have had the cameras for months and taken many thousands of photos (and presumably used more than one version of the firmware in the process).

 

The proof in the pudding is if you go back to their reviews of previous cameras, they remain accurate and remarkably informative.  Way more informative than a lot of the tosh all too frequently posted here.  Sifting the gems is the best approach, and these reviews are a great start.

 

I won't be buying the camera, but I would hate for Jono & David in particular to be discouraged from posting their impressions of the cameras by this sort of comment.

 

 

 

You have a vested interest in the new Monochrom's being an attractive camera. That's why I can't seriously take what you've written about it as a review. It's informative, for sure. I think one's conflicts of interest need to be much more minimal than yours are to deliver what I would consider a review, though. 

 

Why?  We all know that David sells Leica.  Similarly, we all know that Jono likes Leica and if he has a bad comment to make, he tells Leica, rather than posting it here.  I'm not sure that "conflict of interest" is even remotely relevant - vested interest, maybe, but David is not being paid to comment here.

 

I totally agree that anyone seeking advice or looking for comment needs to filter what they're being told, but it makes life very tough if you're can't take any comment from a person who has a vested interest in photographic equipment "seriously".  The quality of comment would be extremely poor if any professional comment was discounted because of vested interest.  The fact that someone is sufficiently interested in photography (or anything else) to take the time to write a review almost inevitably means that they will have formed relationships and preferences which would give rise to allegations of "conflict of interest".  They would also need to buy all their equipment - I can think of one internet reviewer who does this (apart from Sony gear which he gets to try), and he thinks he can communicate with the dead over his radio!  As everything he has bought seems to be THE BEST EVER, serious is not a word which comes into the picture.

 

It's no secret that David sells Leica.  It would be very strange if Leica gave their new camera to the Nikon dealer to review ...

 

Cheers

John

Edited April 30, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[BerndReini]

Reviews are always limited because by the time you have spent enough time with a camera, a new one is out. When did the sensor deterioration become a thing? Last year? I've had my M9 for close to five years now and now everyone is up in arms about it. I do subscribe to Sean's site, and I respect Jono, and Gregor. I have seen enough to have an informed opinion about the M246 from these reviews and I am very grateful.

 

I'll also look forward to Thorsten's ongoing review after he buys one (as he invariably will, haha), Steve Huff's rants about how it is the greatest camera ever or how it doesn't hold a candle to the Sony, and the endless discussions about CCD vs. CMOS that are about to flare up again.

[KM-25]

Did you feel the same way about my images?

.  here are some more: http://www.slack.co.uk/2015/monochrom/monochrom246/index.html

 

Some yes, others no.

 

It might just be lighting choices and styles more than anything else. I really think I ought to rent the current MM from Lensrentals and take it for a spin using the approaches in lighting I would for any black and white image. 

 

I'll attach a photo done with an M3 and 50 lux asph with tri-x, it has the pop I look for when I shoot. The highlights are a tad blown here in this scan but print looks fab, you get the idea...it has a richness, mood, dimension.

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!

Edited April 30, 2015 by KM-25

[jonoslack]

Some yes, others no.

 

It might just be lighting choices and styles more than anything else. I really think I ought to rent the current MM from Lensrentals and take it for a spin using the approaches in lighting I would for any black and white image. 

 

I'll attach a photo done with an M3 and 50 lux asph with tri-x, it has the pop I look for when I shoot. The highlights are a tad blown here in this scan but print looks fab, you get the idea...it has a richness, mood, dimension.

I certainly think you should rent one . . . pop is an interesting point, but the wealth of dynamic range and the tonal subtlety of the Monochrom is very seductive, of course, you can easily increase the contrast and miss the mid tone subtlety (and perhaps one should). When the first Monochrom came out I was criticised for producing 'flat' pictures - this was because I'd really tried to show the full extent of the dynamic range  -  this time I've just processed the shots the way I like them, which is definitely gentler than your excellent photo. 

 

But I don't think this is inherent in the camera - the files are immensely flexible, the only nono is to overexpose. 

[KM-25]

I won't be buying the camera, but I would hate for Jono & David in particular to be discouraged from posting their impressions of the cameras by this sort of comment.

 

 

Well I would too, but my god...for as long as I have been doing photography I never would have guessed that there would be such an explosion of the photo-cultural phenomena of gear reviews. From an outside perspective, it looks utterly insane in totality...like a completely separate genre of photography....images made to "test" gear so a review can be made. 

 

I got asked to do one a couple years ago. I said sure, I can do that, but can I have a few months, put some great assignment images in it and I was told no. They figured I could do that in just three weeks and I thought to my self there is no way in hell I could do that and have it be as deep as I would want it to reflect. 

[BerndReini]

I used the M240 for a weekend when it first came out and after a few hours of shooting, I was able to pretty accurately pinpoint the similarities and differences between it and my M9. It is definitely more than a preview. It definitely answered some of my most pressing questions.

[Lenshacker]

Jono- I found your evaluation of the camera well balanced and informative, quick and to the main points. Advantages and reality checks in place.

 

Anyone doing a majority of work in monochrome using a color camera should strongly consider using a native-monochrome camera. The words are "Increased resolution and elimination of artifacts caused by the demosaic process", but you need to see it for yourself to be convinced. If renting one, use some color contrast filters, at least deep-yellow and orange.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Lenshacker

[KM-25]

I certainly think you should rent one . . . pop is an interesting point, but the wealth of dynamic range and the tonal subtlety of the Monochrom is very seductive, of course, you can easily increase the contrast and miss the mid tone subtlety (and perhaps one should). When the first Monochrom came out I was criticised for producing 'flat' pictures - this was because I'd really tried to show the full extent of the dynamic range  -  this time I've just processed the shots the way I like them, which is definitely gentler than your excellent photo. 

 

But I don't think this is inherent in the camera - the files are immensely flexible, the only nono is to overexpose. 

 

I think this brings up really good points of where criticism for this camera might have arisen in the 1st place, it has loads of range so a lot of times, that is what shows and possibly to the detriment of the image. There is no question that there is a time for a quieter photo in terms of global contrast but I think what I often see amiss in MM images is the kind of localized tone structure that keeps me burning film. 

 

And very interesting tip about not overexposing, I have shot a ton of chrome in my life and this would not be a hard habit to get into with the camera. I'll rent it and check it out, only then will I know what it will do in the specific styles I use in B&W. I know I won't be buying one though as I am far more heavily invested in film and the darkroom than ever. 

 

I am considering getting a good used M9 though, I have a hole in my digital system again having sold the X100T. Either way, it is nice to be looking at Leica equipment filling a greater role in my shooting again!

 

Thanks!

Edited April 30, 2015 by KM-25

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BerndReini]

And From reading the few reviews so far, I can tell you that the M246 is definitely closer to the look of the last MM than it is to TriX, for better or for worse.