Monochrom 1 v. Monochrom 2

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

The same might not be true on the M9 version.

The same is true of the old MM. It is, if anything even "sharper" than the new MM. But for it is all dependent on subject matter. The 50Apo is brutally sharp, but sometimes that works. I love it for gritty portraiture and architectural details.

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Belle123]

The same is true of the old MM. It is, if anything even "sharper" than the new MM. But for it is all dependent on subject matter. The 50Apo is brutally sharp, but sometimes that works. I love it for gritty portraiture and architectural details.

But, one needs to define 'sharp'. I got sharper images from my 240 conversions to monochrome due to that process. Harsh transitions which make it look sharper. On the 246, the transitions are smoother, and it might not appear as sharp. So, I dunno. I do know I prefer images out of the 246 in that case.

 

Between the original MM and the M246, I just wonder if getting a similar difference where is perceived the MM1 is sharper.

[johnwolf]

Ok, I have a question. Of those that prefer the original MM to the 246, which lenses are you using? Reason I ask, I find I much prefer the older non Aspherical lenses on the 246 as they render more of that 'organic' look to my eyes. I am just wondering if using the modern lenses between the two monochromes, maybe those that have the M9 version are comparing the two with Aspherical lenses? It's just a guess. I haven't had the original MM, but I see such a difference in the old vs newer lenses, am getting rid of all my Aspherical lenses eventually. The older lenses, to my eyes, are much better on the 246. The same might not be true on the M9 version.

 

I can't speak to a comparison because I have an MM1. But I use two ZMs - 50 Planar and 35 Biogon-C. I initially liked the look, but they now feel too modern to me. My camera is in NJ at the moment, but when it returns I hope to explore some older lens options. 

 

A preference for older lenses is pretty common among MM1 users as well. There's a thread on the subject somwhere here. Not sure what I'll try, but I'd like a 35 and 50 that render similarly, but with, as you say, a more "organic" look. 

 

John 

Edited December 9, 2016 by johnwolf

[Jager]

I use a couple of older lenses (50 Summicron, Noct f1), one lens that mostly splits the difference (35 ASPH, non-FLE), and several newer lenses (50 Summicron APO, Noct f0.95, 75 Summicron APO) on both my Monochroms.

 

Each of those lenses has a unique signature, of course.  The differences between the MM and M246 are not because of optics.

[Belle123]

I use a couple of older lenses (50 Summicron, Noct f1), one lens that mostly splits the difference (35 ASPH, non-FLE), and several newer lenses (50 Summicron APO, Noct f0.95, 75 Summicron APO) on both my Monochroms.

 

Each of those lenses has a unique signature, of course.  The differences between the MM and M246 are not because of optics.

But it could be, if using Aspherical only, on both and preferring the MM1. That's my question. It's about preferences in the outcome, not optics. I was extremely surprised I preferred the non Aspherical....I have both older and Aspherical in Summicron 35, on the M246. The Aspherical was better on the 240. But with the extreme sharpness compared to the older lens, that sharpness was not appealing on the 246. Anyway, not all that important. Just an observation.

[menos I M6]

The M246 is a crap camera.

 

 

 

 

I ordered my MM the moment it was announced to be a real product, received one the first occasion I was back in Europe and used it as my daily camera until Leica diagnosed sensor corrosion.

I loved everything about that camera - the best digital I ever used.

 

I was so foolish to have sidegraded to a M246 as sensors were not available and I would have been without a MM for a long time if i wuold have waited for my MM to be repaired - BIG MISTAKE.

 

The M246 completely f...ed up my love to use Leica M cameras. It indeed managed with all its flaws and issues to diminish my love to the great lenses and made me leave more and more on the shelf together with the Leica M glass which I so love.

 

Ever since I traded that MM for the trainwreck the M246 is (and foolishly paid many thousand EUR in fool-tax to do the transaction) I have gone back to shoot film, have found back to mostly use my Nikon gear again and all that great Leica glass is collecting dust on the shelf.

 

Based on this experience I urge everyone who truly loves the output of MM files and the lithe and simple operation of the MM to at the very least rent a M240 based camera before committing and trading the old MM for a M246.

 

The M246:

- is heavier and bulkier

- is loaded with useless junk buttons and junk features

- has an even further screwed up ISO selection design than on digital Ms preceeding it

- has soft, mushy files compared to the MM

- has significantly severe pattern noise when processing

- has junk tonality compared to the MM, especially when pushing shadows (ever wonder what the drop of true 14bit files gives you)

- has the most idiotic bottom plate design (different lock, tripod mount THROUGH the bottom plate)

- has an even bigger screen to push those controls further to the edges, making controls even more awkward

- has a much lesser histogramm (the MM uses a true RAW file based histogram by comparison)

- has a screwed up viewfinder logic, which will show EV values set OVER actual exposure data ?????

- and the list goes on and on ...

 

The MM files although of lower numerical resolution do stand out, they pop with acuity, they do react with contrast filters exactly the very same way black and white films do.

The M246 files always felt like color sensor conversions by comparison to me.

 

At some point I will definitely pick up a second hand MM again - it is that fantastic a camera. The M246 is a forgettable device - a upgrade to provide current M generation features to a monochrome sensor camera (losing a lot of the character and qualities of the original MM on the way).

 

If the modern features like live view or a bigger screen is important to you, the M246 is a good modern option.

If you know the MM and especially if you love its unique files and have learned to live with its quirks, do think twice and certainly do not blindly sidegrade to a M246.

These are two entirely differnt cameras, producing very differnt results but especially operate very differently (while the MM feels more like a Leica M7, the M246 feels a lot more like a Sony mirrorless camera).

[Joakim]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The MM 246 is much more weather resistant, you can't beat that on a day like today when it is snowing and the temperature is above zero. Everything gets wet after a while, I wouldn't even take my M9 with me on a day like this but my MM 246 has just spent a couple of hours outside.

[derleicaman]

I adore my MM and use it most of the time as my go to camera. I have had the M246 loaned to me and have used it for testing.

 

Here are some images taken with the MM at 3200 ISO. Lens used was the Canon 50/1.4 "Japanese Summilux". These will be featured in the next issue of the LHSA Viewfinder journal. I think these images came out quite nicely!

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!

[jaapv]

Ok, I have a question. Of those that prefer the original MM to the 246, which lenses are you using? Reason I ask, I find I much prefer the older non Aspherical lenses on the 246 as they render more of that 'organic' look to my eyes. I am just wondering if using the modern lenses between the two monochromes, maybe those that have the M9 version are comparing the two with Aspherical lenses? It's just a guess. I haven't had the original MM, but I see such a difference in the old vs newer lenses, am getting rid of all my Aspherical lenses eventually. The older lenses, to my eyes, are much better on the 246. The same might not be true on the M9 version.

I use a Biogon-C 35, an 1950ies Canon 50/1.8 and a Tele-Tessar 85 on the MM1.

[Genn]

 It's about preferences in the outcome, not optics. I was extremely surprised I preferred the non Aspherical....I have both older and Aspherical in Summicron 35, on the M246. The Aspherical was better on the 240. But with the extreme sharpness compared to the older lens, that sharpness was not appealing on the 246. Anyway, not all that important. Just an observation.

I also prefer old 35 mm Cron ver.IV on the M246.  

[Soden]

To follow in memos | M6's vain.

 

The MM1 is a crap camera.

 

My MM spent almost 9 months getting a new sensor. My M246 has never seen service. Other MM 1 issues like finicky memory card needs, and don't ever, I mean NEVER delete a single image from the card or you run the risk of making the entire card unusable. Then the funky shutter mode that's destined to freeze your shutter.

 

While the M246 is not perfect, it shares most of the same flaws as the M240.

 

Neither camera is free from issues. Even in image quality they both don't handle highlights very well.

 

Even with all their issues I still find them irresistible. I still shoot with the M246, and someday may buy another MM1.

[BerndReini]

This post is not a comment on the MM1 vs. MM2. Yesterday I was shooting with my M9 and after a while switched to the MM1. The Monochrom just has some kind of magic sauce that makes me so excited to shoot with it. I know that non-MM shooters, especially non-Leica people will never understand the existence of a designated black and white camera, but I can honestly say that no other camera since the M8 has conjured that kind of excitement in me.

[Luke_Miller]

This post is not a comment on the MM1 vs. MM2. Yesterday I was shooting with my M9 and after a while switched to the MM1. The Monochrom just has some kind of magic sauce that makes me so excited to shoot with it. I know that non-MM shooters, especially non-Leica people will never understand the existence of a designated black and white camera, but I can honestly say that no other camera since the M8 has conjured that kind of excitement in me.

 

Plus 1.  My M-246 is clearly a better camera, but it does not evoke the same feelings in me as my MM1

[mmradman]

This post is not a comment on the MM1 vs. MM2. Yesterday I was shooting with my M9 and after a while switched to the MM1. The Monochrom just has some kind of magic sauce that makes me so excited to shoot with it. I know that non-MM shooters, especially non-Leica people will never understand the existence of a designated black and white camera, but I can honestly say that no other camera since the M8 has conjured that kind of excitement in me.

Not only Leica provide dedicated 35mm Digital B&W camera but we are spoiled by choice of two models.  MM1 vs MM2 debate is very much M9 vs M240 debate.  For me M9 was amazing camera but M240 is much better in every practical aspect (I don't fall for CCD vs CMOS spin) and M246 is my most used camera for the last 11+ months.

[DwF]

Not only Leica provide dedicated 35mm Digital B&W camera but we are spoiled by choice of two models.  MM1 vs MM2 debate is very much M9 vs M240 debate.  For me M9 was amazing camera but M240 is much better in every practical aspect (I don't fall for CCD vs CMOS spin) and M246 is my most used camera for the last 11+ months.

Why fuel the distinction of the two models of camera as a debate? Enjoy your M 246 camera!  Would you disparage someone's decision to place faith in Jesus or another religion which they choose because it spoke to them? If a person finds finds joy, enlightenment or spiritual sustenance through spiritual faith or religion, isn't the world is a better place for it? Does that threaten your belief system?   If the files of a CCD sensor camera speak, or process differently for a photographer than those from a CMOS sensor, could this be that is less indicative of falling for spin and more about how that photographer responds to and processes files?

 

I rarely if ever heard people disparage other photographers for their choice of film/developer combination in days before digital cameras.  I know that I relate the difference of the two sensors to working with different film developer combinations in how they rendered light and in turn, imagery. I can see a correlation comparing say T Max 400 vs Tri X or Neopan, to comparison of these sensors on the two Leica MM cameras. By recognizing that which seems like fact to me, I shutter at the notion that maybe I've fallen for spin! 

 

David

Edited December 24, 2016 by DwF

[Wayne]

I cannot speak to M246 as I do not own and have never used one. From a technical standpoint, I cannot speak to any perceived advantages of MM1, but do own and use one. I do like the camera.

 

Since purchase of a JOBO film processor, I have been pulled harder back into film photography. There is something about the film images (even when digitally scanned) I find to be more endearing. Several days ago I took the MM1 out and shot some ISO 800 frames with one of my LTM lenses, with the result that I temporarily forgot they were digital images as I was reviewing them, yesterday......For the past several weeks I have processed, almost exclusively, film images from old Barnack Leicas and Zeiss folders. I entered the MM1 images (with no PP) to my computer on the same day that I scanned a number of the film negatives, so the MM1 images were right in the middle of the stream of photos I was viewing.

 

This is not an attempt to begin a Film vs Digital discussion. I do not claim to be able to consistently identify whether images, taken by other people, displayed on the web are film or digital; but I can- or could- consistently identify those that I have taken; and this is the first time I completely mistook some of my digital images for  film images.

 

I cannot say if this sort of thing happens to MM2 owners.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Wayne

[mmradman]

Why fuel the distinction of the two models of camera as a debate? Enjoy your M 246 camera!  Would you disparage someone's decision to place faith in Jesus or another religion which they choose because it spoke to them? If a person finds finds joy, enlightenment or spiritual sustenance through spiritual faith or religion, isn't the world is a better place for it? Does that threaten your belief system?   If the files of a CCD sensor camera speak, or process differently for a photographer than those from a CMOS sensor, could this be that is less indicative of falling for spin and more about how that photographer responds to and processes files?

 

I rarely if ever heard people disparage other photographers for their choice of film/developer combination in days before digital cameras.  I know that I relate the difference of the two sensors to working with different film developer combinations in how they rendered light and in turn, imagery. I can see a correlation comparing say T Max 400 vs Tri X or Neopan, to comparison of these sensors on the two Leica MM cameras. By recognizing that which seems like fact to me, I shutter at the notion that maybe I've fallen for spin! 

 

David

Merry Christmas to you too.

[schmolinski]

Ok, I have a question. Of those that prefer the original MM to the 246, which lenses are you using? Reason I ask, I find I much prefer the older non Aspherical lenses on the 246 as they render more of that 'organic' look to my eyes. I am just wondering if using the modern lenses between the two monochromes, maybe those that have the M9 version are comparing the two with Aspherical lenses? It's just a guess. I haven't had the original MM, but I see such a difference in the old vs newer lenses, am getting rid of all my Aspherical lenses eventually. The older lenses, to my eyes, are much better on the 246. The same might not be true on the M9 version.

With the MM1 old lenses perform really great. I often use my 50mm Summicron rigid and my 69er Summaron 2.8 35mm. But I have to confess that my old Summaron also performs great with my M240 @ high ISO...!

Yet I used my 2014 50mm Lux. I must say it is also a great lens for the MM1 and it even forgives more when slightly oof compared to my M240

Edited December 26, 2016 by schmolinski

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[peterjcb]

Ok, I have a question. Of those that prefer the original MM to the 246, which lenses are you using? Reason I ask, I find I much prefer the older non Aspherical lenses on the 246 as they render more of that 'organic' look to my eyes. I am just wondering if using the modern lenses between the two monochromes, maybe those that have the M9 version are comparing the two with Aspherical lenses? It's just a guess. I haven't had the original MM, but I see such a difference in the old vs newer lenses, am getting rid of all my Aspherical lenses eventually. The older lenses, to my eyes, are much better on the 246. The same might not be true on the M9 version.

 

I have only owned the MM1 so I can not speak for the 246.

MM1 with a couple of my non asph lenses....

 

50mm Summilux pre-asph

...let_me_at_him... by Peter, on Flickr

 

...taking_off... by Peter, on Flickr

35 Summilux pre-asph v.II 1970

mr_softee by Peter, on Flickr

 

Piper by Peter, on Flickr

[horosu]

I had the MM1 and currently the M246. As I already stated in another thread, to me it is a much better camera. Here are some pics in its defense :-))