Monochrom 1 v. Monochrom 2

[Mr Fjeld]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two more with M246. The first one is with the APO 50 and the next with Elmarit 28 ASPH

I really can't understand why the M246 is something to shy away from.

 

 

[BerndReini]

I don't think the M246 is anything to shy away from. I just feel that the MM1 satisfies a lot of B&W shooters, and the premium to upgrade may not be worth it to many. Let's face it, the person that shoots B&W exclusively, may not be someone who cares about live view or buffer speed. A lot of us already feel spoiled by clean ISO 2,500, more than 36 frames without reloading, and not having to cock the shutter manually between shots.

[Mr Fjeld]

I don't think the M246 is anything to shy away from. I just feel that the MM1 satisfies a lot of B&W shooters, and the premium to upgrade may not be worth it to many. Let's face it, the person that shoots B&W exclusively, may not be someone who cares about live view or buffer speed. A lot of us already feel spoiled by clean ISO 2,500, more than 36 frames without reloading, and not having to cock the shutter manually between shots.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. I feel the same compared to a future "M10 Monochrom". My response was aimed at arguments describing the M246 in a condescending way such as "consumer goods", "toy" etc.

[mmradman]

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. I feel the same compared to a future "M10 Monochrom". My response was aimed at arguments describing the M246 in a condescending way such as "consumer goods", "toy" etc.

In digital age with short life cycles any electronic device including all X/Q/M/SL/S cameras could be brushed with the same condescending brush. I think it is more a matter of choice rather than capabilities (or lack off) what drives most people to go to purchase next generation product. In my experience all digital M's from M9 to M240/246 was/are exceptional image making machines.

 

There is general consensus that M10 improves on M240 same as M240/246 improved on M9/MM. Despite all improvements over time number of users still prefers CCD of M9/MM mk1 over M240/246 and M240 over M10, even M film over M digital.

[phovsho]

Loving all these 50s shots

[hlockwood]

These posts are very important to me, and perhaps, to others as well.

I have an M9-P that I hardly use and will happily put aside for an MM 1 or 2, eventually.

 

HFL

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think the M246 is anything to shy away from. I just feel that the MM1 satisfies a lot of B&W shooters, and the premium to upgrade may not be worth it to many. Let's face it, the person that shoots B&W exclusively, may not be someone who cares about live view or buffer speed. A lot of us already feel spoiled by clean ISO 2,500, more than 36 frames without reloading, and not having to cock the shutter manually between shots.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you in regards to the fact that some of us, myself included, have preferences for the image characteristics of MM1 over the 246 but as you say the 246 is not "anything to shy away from" it's a great camera by itself and it's all really just a choice we make according to our individual "eye" and therefore one camera isn't really better than the other in that respect, they are both superb.

 

Perversely though for personal work I regularly use a small SDHC card in my M cameras so whilst I do get more than 36 exposures even with a 4gig card I like knowing that I have a limited amount of shots before I "reload", it sort of concentrates the mind as to whether I make the shot or not, AND I would love to do away with the "whirr" and have a lever wind to cock the shutter on an MM! I appreciate the shooting discipline that comes with a manual wind camera, but let's face it that horse has bolted, it's never going to happen!

Somewhat of a Luddite I guess……..

 

My MM1 came back from Leica whilst I was on a shoot in the US last week so now I have the "new" sensor in the camera after two other "regular" sensor replacements, so yes I guess I'm committed to the MM1 /CCD combination for my B&W imaging, no 246 upgrade for me.

Great service from Solms by the way throughout these sensor swaps, thank you Leica.

[Luke_Miller]

Perversely though for personal work I regularly use a small SDHC card in my M cameras .....

 

I do the same.  Since my M8.2 days I've used the same group of small cards and continue to do so even with my M240 and M246.  Interestingly I've never experienced the slow start up times or lock ups reported by others.

 

Regarding MM1 versus M246 - When my MM1 experienced corrosion I ordered an M246 to use while it was off for sensor replacement.  My thought was to sell the MM1 after it was returned.  While I appreciate the improvements in function of the M246 I prefer the look and feel of the MM1.  The M246 images are visibly better than B&W conversions from my M240, but I'm not sure I see the same degree of improvement that I saw with the MM1 over the M9.  So for the time being I will keep both.  

[fotografr]

My journey has been MM1>MM246>MM1 (with new corrosion-resistant sensor).

 

I never bonded with the 246's images, despite it having certain obvious improvements over the MM1. Subjective stuff, clearly.

 

So I am willing to put up with the 'clockwork toy' shutter and crap screen again to get the images I like. And I'm happy.

My experience was identical. I'm back to MM 1, which I consider the best camera I've ever owned in 40 years of professional shooting.

[otto.f]

Monochrome1 in Peru near Colca Canyon, it's a pity you can't see the bite in this internet-version of the photo, which, if Andel Adams could see it on an iMac 5K, would make him turn around in his grave. The thing is, that with the Monochrome1, don't know about the M246, the use of original B&W filters is less necessary than with film, although it can add to the flavor.

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 March 21, 2017 by otto.f

[horosu]

M246 with 1965 Rigid Summicron

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wilfredo]

Nothing in the CMOS world satisfies me as much as the tones produced by the CCD sensor on the Monochrom I.  I'm using a SONY A7RII these days which can produce wonderful B&W conversions, using M lenses, but still, not quite the same, not quite the same...  I'm holding onto my Monochrom I.

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 March 30, 2017 by wilfredo

[wilfredo]

Here's an excellent article comparing Leica M film shots with Leica M CCD and M CMOS sensor shots.  I would say it's the best article I've read on the subject.

http://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2017/3/20/an-inquiry-into-digital-versus-film

[Bill Livingston]

Here's an excellent article comparing Leica M film shots with Leica M CCD and M CMOS sensor shots. I would say it's the best article I've read on the subject.

http://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2017/3/20/an-inquiry-into-digital-versus-film

I would agree - the first part of the article articulates(?!) very well the issue of how we turn away from reality and our bias naturally goes to what one is used to, or is more familiar with.

 

Interestingly, the M10 photos look far more natural and less 'coloured' than the M9... and the M6 photos look awful. I don't think I have ever seen such poor examples of film, illustrating an article that eventually ends up with the writer stating that he liked the imperfections and should shoot more film...

 

Fair enough.

 

I would rather start at a natural, more accurate render/photo and then 'develop' the outcome myself. It's more controllable and has, actually, more artist input, choices that are determined by and from the photographer, not the characteristics of either the film, or the sensor.

 

But then, my background is in black and white darkroom work where I would spend hours on a print to get the effect I wanted.

 

I was never interested in the differences between Kodak 25 or 64... nor could give a damn about Fuji v Kodak or a Boots special! Slide film never was an interest as I had zero control... apart from focus and exposure. I stopped going to the Cambridge University Camera Club because so many people spent their time talking about their cameras and the pros and cons of whatever slide film they were into... Thankfully, there were a few of us rebels who spent time in the darkroom on East Road messing around and learning how to print from our Tri-X rolls shot on old second hand cameras. (Mine was a Spotmatic F with a Takumar 1.4... and that was one of the better cameras... Oscar, a good friend at the time, had a Zorki 4K which tore up the sprockets on his film and he never could get more than a handful of photos properly exposed or in focus until he finally gave up and bought a Praktica!).

 

So when I read articles like this I just smile to myself... been there, done that. It was a bloody nightmare!

 

I learned how to expose and focus and make a reasonable black and white print and eventually ended up getting work published in magazines of the time and illustrated a text book or two.

 

And once I had a reasonable standard, in others words, repeatable output, I could then experiment and work backwards... deliberately blurring portraits, playing with exposure and generally breaking the rules... Of course I went too far quite often, but that's part of the learning process. It's also how you develop a 'style'... which is, or probably should be, a temporary thing anyway. I feel you should always move on.

 

The point is, the photographer should do the 'creative' work. Buying a camera to get your 'look' just seems lazy to me... which is why I'm intolerant of people singing the praises of CCD or film just because of the 'look'. There are no shortcuts, or shouldn't be. Ultimately you need to put the work in. Otherwise you may just as well buy a camera with a fixed profile you like and take snaps. But that's fine, too. Each to their own. There thankfully isn't any 'style police' out there telling each of us what we should do. It's just not what I want from my photography. And why I like certain work on here. There is some truly good work on this forum... but I have no clue whether they use film or an or a digital MM. It really doesn't matter. The work does.

 

I'm more than happy with my M-P240... but the M10 looks utterly brilliant as a starting point for an image... and it looks pretty damn good as a 'slide film' camera too...

 

But I absolutely accept that I'm in the minority on here... I'm someone who started with film and has embraced digital completely.

 

I'm also very well aware that there will be a lot of people objecting to this post... and that's fine too... I don't impose my views on other people nor do I need anyone to agree with me.

 

But the article? It's good, but perhaps not in the way the writer intended!

 

All it did for me was make me realise that perhaps an M10, or maybe an M10 Monochrom is on the cards sooner than I would have wished!

Edited March 31, 2017 by Bill Livingston

[Jager]

Thanks for linking to that article, Wilfredo.  Like Bill, I thought the Portra images were pretty dismal.  But as someone who still shoots film, even as he has fully embraced digital, I agree with you that that article comes about as close as anything I've seen to describing the differences between them.

 

And that in the end, it really doesn't matter.

[Bill Livingston]

Bloody hell! What was I thinking last night..? What a rant!

 

That'll teach me to post when I can't sleep...

 

Anyway, the point is, I really thought the M6/Porta photos were very poor indeed... and I know the camera pretty well. I was surprised if anyone thought the colour was even remotely passable.

 

And again, the M10 looked FAR better than the CCD sensor in the M9.

 

The first part of the article was right... some people don't seem to like reality.

 

Whereas I think 'reality' is a good starting point. Every change you make after that is down to you as the photographer... 

[wilfredo]

I think we can safely assume we don't all have the same sense of esthetics. I can get decent B&W images from a CMOS sensor camera, and using the Sony with AF, and other features that make shooting easier, faster, and even more creative, is a wonderful thing, but at the end of the day, it's about that feeling I get in my gut when I produce something with the Monochrom type I. No amount of PP will recreate what my RAW files produce with the Monochrom type I. For me it's the essential starting point that will lead to the print I wish to create. At the end of the day it's a matter of taste. Life is easier with the Sony A7RII, but not as rewarding.

 

I suspect, and it's only a suspicion, that left brain types probably gravitate towards CMOS sensors; and right brain types gravitate towards CCD sensors, and film. Technically, CMOS is no doubt better, but the issue is more about esthetics for me, and what rocks my boat.

 

I toyed with the idea of selling my Monochrom because I've managed some damn good photos with the CMOS sensor Sony, packing 40 megapixels, but I am not letting go of my Monochrom I (or my D2 for that matter). The Monochrom I remains my preferred tool for B&W photography, even with all its limitations.

Edited April 7, 2017 by wilfredo

[Mr Fjeld]

Please don't see this reply as criticism of earlier contributions on this thread, but I wonder if preference for the one or the other is fairly random and not with aesthetics per se.

I've shot with film since the early eighties - and mostly black and white as well.

I love my M246 and will never sell it or upgrade - or downgrade- no matter what. It is all I need and that will do for me.

However, while seeing through lots of fantastic photographies on this site I cannot really say I prefer the MM9 over the M246 or vice versa?

My brain is perhaps not working correctly and that may explain it, but wether it's the left or right part of which is winning the fight cannot explain it either. I do have a university degree which includes art history, but I still don't feel the MM9 is better...or worse.

 

Maybe owners in general want to justify the expense and choice more than anything else?

And does it really matter at all? They do things differently and cannot replicate each other perfectly - which is nice as one can say they are different rather than better?

[otto.f]

Yes I was at a violin maker in Cremona two years ago and after trying several violins and a lot of talk about violinists and their violins he convinced me that the character of the violin determines to a great extent the type of interpretation that the violinist chooses for the musical piece at hand.

So if you have the MM1 you go in a different direction than when you work with the M246. If you worked with B&W film a lot you probably remember that for certain scenes you prefer Tri-X, for others typically FP4, or Delta100 or XPan125

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mmradman]

Probably repeating myself; Comparing MM9 vs M246 is similar to comparing M9 vs M240, both platforms are capable of superb results. And now M10 is better still, still waiting for monochrome variant, upmanship left for later.

 

People express preference in number of ways and for number of reasons. Best camera is the one I have in my hands, it just happen to be different than next persons camera. OK, in my case it is M246