Monochrom M246 Reviews

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Without wishing to sound rude or patronising (I mean this) I would actually suggest that the 'best' people to test cameras are probably some of the more obsessive amateurs that I've come across. They often know virtually everything about their cameras and are willing to put in the time to check that all is absolutely as it should be - which is far more than I have ever been prepared to do as someone who has made a living out of photography for over 25 years. I tend to accept a camera's limitations and work within them (I still use an M8 and often forget to fit the UVIR filter because its not a big deal for what I shoot - and fully understand why the IR 'issue' was missed because if its not a problem to me it won't be to many others). It all depends on what you are doing and how you operate as to whether flaws which will be a big deal to someone else will affect you.

 

FWIW I remember visiting a quite well-known photographer who had just been told by his insurers that one of his cameras had been written off after being knocked over on a tripod. He was trying to get the film back off it but couldn't and so he asked me if I could help. I asked him where the dark-slide was and he pondered and then rummaged around and finally found one. I inserted it and removed the back. He had never bothered to remove it, just reloaded it on the camera. He would never have noticed an obvious fault such as a leaking dark-slide. Need I say more?

[Advertisement]

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

[tookaphotoof]

Amazing! Is that while running backwards at the same speed as well?

 

I wouldn't even be close to running the same speed forwards!

It's not too difficult. It takes some anticipation and simply keep focussing slower or faster as they run towards me. 

I have no doubt a dslr is the better option, but I find it fun practicing with the M.

[jonoslack]

Without wishing to sound rude or patronising (I mean this) I would actually suggest that the 'best' people to test cameras are probably some of the more obsessive amateurs that I've come across. They often know virtually everything about their cameras and are willing to put in the time to check that all is absolutely as it should be - which is far more than I have ever been prepared to do as someone who has made a living out of photography for over 25 years. I tend to accept a camera's limitations and work within them (I still use an M8 and often forget to fit the UVIR filter because its not a big deal for what I shoot - and fully understand why the IR 'issue' was missed because if its not a problem to me it won't be to many others). It all depends on what you are doing and how you operate as to whether flaws which will be a big deal to someone else will affect you.

 

 

HI Paul - good points - Having done it for a while now, it's actually particularly difficult to work a different way from one's 'normal' way - and perhaps even more difficult for established professionals. As for obsessive amateurs, the trouble is that they are adamant about changes which must be made (or nobody will buy the camera) - trouble is that everyone has a different imperative. 

 

I find it best to try and shoot lots of scenes in lots of different sets of circumstances with lots of different settings, and then be observant about what's going on. Practice, Pragmatism and Perseverance . . . without being too sure that your Personal Preferences are universal. You also have to be Pretty Patient - it can be frustrating shooting with a camera which crashes and needs the battery removing every three shots (of course, finding one fault doesn't mean that you can stop looking for other ones). It's also really important not to Panic - I remember shooting a wedding for 5 hours in Holland, only for the camera to say 'Card fault - no images found' (it now says 'Hang on- reading card'). 

[tookaphotoof]

Having played with files from both Monochroms, I think I'm a little bit impressed now.

Whereas I'd never go over 3200 on my M240, I'd have no problems with photos shot at 6400 iso on the old MM. They will still look good. 

The new version? Well that's extreme. At least from my own reference point. 10.000 iso and still delivering a more than acceptable image. 

Also have been playing with the photo shot with 90mm at 12500 iso??? Someone must have been messing with the raw files! 

Think I'll try to print a couple to see those results in a week or two. Should be enough for me to see if I really like the output. 

 

 

 

[dfarkas]

Having played with files from both Monochroms, I think I'm a little bit impressed now.

Whereas I'd never go over 3200 on my M240, I'd have no problems with photos shot at 6400 iso on the old MM. They will still look good. 

The new version? Well that's extreme. At least from my own reference point. 10.000 iso and still delivering a more than acceptable image. 

Also have been playing with the photo shot with 90mm at 12500 iso??? Someone must have been messing with the raw files! 

Think I'll try to print a couple to see those results in a week or two. Should be enough for me to see if I really like the output. 

 

I came to the exact same conclusions. 

[LeicaPassion]

Hi Jono,  

Thank you so much for providing the images.  10000 is most impressive.  I had to recheck the ISO to make sure it wasn't much lower.  It's that good.  The new MM is very tempting.

Bill

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Puts, Part One...

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-36/

 

Jeff

[Jon Warwick]

So, is Mr Puts saying there is almost no difference at all between the resolution of the 246 over the 240 (whereas there was a noticeable jump in resolution for the first MM over the M9)?

 

Unless I've misunderstood his analysis, I thought the whole point was that one should expect resolution should go up noticeably due to the removal of the Bayer color filter.

 

Any idea why this isn't really the case between the 246 and 240?

[erlingmm]

So, is Mr Puts saying there is almost no difference at all between the resolution of the 246 over the 240 (whereas there was a noticeable jump in resolution for the first MM over the M9)?

 

Unless I've misunderstood his analysis, I thought the whole point was that one should expect resolution should go up noticeably due to the removal of the Bayer color filter.

 

Any idea why this isn't really the case between the 246 and 240?

 

Not so surprised. I think the main difference will be in high ISO. And, just judging from what I see on the screen I tend to disagree, there seems to be a notable difference from the M. I think a lot of detailed aspects of sensors "might be lost in practical photography".

Edited May 11, 2015 by erlingmm

[Jeff S]

So, is Mr Puts saying there is almost no difference at all between the resolution of the 246 over the 240 (whereas there was a noticeable jump in resolution for the first MM over the M9)?

 

Unless I've misunderstood his analysis, I thought the whole point was that one should expect resolution should go up noticeably due to the removal of the Bayer color filter.

 

Any idea why this isn't really the case between the 246 and 240?

As usual, his language is confusing.  It could be the other way around, i.e., he expected the SAME comparative advantage (between the 2 MMs over the M9), but he sees 'subtle improvement' in the center.  We'll have to wait for clarification.  

 

Jeff

[Lenshacker]

It will be interesting to see his comments in regard to the 12-bit vs 14-bit data. For tests such as his, the ability to differentiate subtle changes in grey level translates to increased resolution. A 12-bit pixel requires 4x the difference before the value changes compared with a 14-bit pixel, other parameters being equal. Noise plays into this of course. I guess Part 2 will elaborate.

[Chuck Albertson]

As Jono noted in his review, the DNG files from the new Monochrom don't exactly play well with some Mac platforms. Now confirmed by Leica: http://lavidaleica.com/content/leica-issues-service-advisory-mm-type-246-files

[wolfloid]

On 5/6/2015 at 9:38 PM, thighslapper said:

oh dear ...... this is a rather inflammatory statement...... so Jono is a crap photographer and Leica lapdog .... ?? 

 

and I suppose me and my fellow beta firmware testers (for the 240) are specifically chosen idiots who grovel at the feet of Leica management......

This is an extraordinary distortion of what Zlatko was saying, and merits an apology.

[Mr Fjeld]

On 1/22/2019 at 12:41 PM, wolfloid said:

This is an extraordinary distortion of what Zlatko was saying, and merits an apology.

Isn't this discussion well past its "best before date" ? 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Mr Fjeld