Joshua Lowe Posted January 16, 2016 Share #21 Posted January 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I could live without an SLM but I'm in real trouble if Leica ever releases an S Monochrom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Hi Joshua Lowe, Take a look here SLM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nscali Posted January 16, 2016 Share #22 Posted January 16, 2016 I was only referring to the RAW files. I'm not using any filters with the M246, even in daylight. For night shots, It can't be beaten, but even in daylight, despite the limitation of not using filters, the results are stunning. To me, the photos look like they have more resolution, more detail and I just work within the limitations of not using filters, sky being a big issue. Because of the DR on the files I learn to ensure that I underexpose the shots, knowing that I can lift everything up, if needed. It's definitely a different way of shooting to the 240 or SL. The Q, the 240 and SL all do stunning B&W conversions, but the 246 has a little something extra in the detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 16, 2016 Share #23 Posted January 16, 2016 Thanks for your comments. Perhaps at some point I'll have the opportunity work with the MM246. Maybe if an unexpected boon comes my way... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted January 16, 2016 Share #24 Posted January 16, 2016 Up to A3 print sizes, I certainly agree that any small difference in resolution is irrelevant. And if your subject matter allows tripods rather than pushing your ISO up above 800, I agree that the improvements in dynamic range are not relevant from a practical standpoint. Then the question remains whether the M246 does something special in terms of how it converts colors to grayscale. Frankly, Leica wouldn't have a lot of options here. They could muck about with contrast, for example, but they couldn't decide to make blues darker than reds, etc. whatever the detector reads, it reads. Theoretically, then, one could create a preset in Lightroom that matches the spectral response of the M246's CMOS chip for either an M240 or an SL. The articles you linked to said that the default monochrome conversion in Lightroom for the M240 already matches the Mm246 pretty closely. I don't think we disagree from a practical standpoint. I think the SL is probably 2 stops behind the Mm(246) at higher ISO's, but if you don't need 1600 and beyond, you could likely arrange things so the monochrome performance was indistinguishable between the two. Of course, I have never owned an MM, so perhaps I am out of line. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nscali Posted January 16, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 16, 2016 I think it is the clarity of the images that make a difference to me. They look clearer than reality, if you know what I mean. This must be attributable to one less filter over the sensor. Yes, perhaps if I used a colour filter over the lens then I am back on par with the M240 or SL. So, ultimately, it's strength is in the higher iso range in low light scenarios, or where you are prepared to work without a colour filter over the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 16, 2016 Share #26 Posted January 16, 2016 Sorry ...... but the whole point of the MM and M246 is that they force you to think in B&W ...... tones, shadows, lighting and composition become more acutely focussed and you become very selective in what you shoot. Lots of images look 'nice' because they are colourful and/or dramatic ....... but only a very few B&W conversions really work. Even switching JPG to monochrome on the SL is faux B&W ..... as you always have the colour DNG's to play with. The other great advantage of the M246 is you can ignore ISO ...... as almost everything will look good ...... even with a bit of high ISO grain.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 16, 2016 Share #27 Posted January 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry ...... but the whole point of the MM and M246 is that they force you to think in B&W ...... tones, shadows, lighting and composition become more acutely focussed and you become very selective in what you shoot. Thats a matter of mental discipline, not the camera, for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted January 18, 2016 Share #28 Posted January 18, 2016 No interest here in a SLM. I had a MM and liked it, but I did not think the results were so dramatically different at "normal" ISOs from a well executed M240 conversion to justify keeping it. I do sometimes try to "see" in black and white but I can do that with any camera I am using. Maybe it is because I grew up with film. Using a film camera you have no visual clues about film type other than what is in your head - assuming you remember what you loaded - so it is all an abstract process. For me the same goes for digital. Except that with a M240 I have the luxury of "seeing" in black and white after capture and in postprocessing. That meant that after the initial novelty of the MM wore off I would be more likely than not to pick up my M240 than anything else. So I sold my MM to fund a SL. For those who think and see only in BW of course the choice would be different, and I do respect that. But I have more interest in a rangefinder M that borrows some of the SL improvements than an SL that is Monochrome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.