Leica M10 or Monochrom 2?

[NDOC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For fine printing, I find that PP is critical for ANY camera; it's just the workflow that varies. Unless NDOC had a malfunctioning camera, no M246 should have files that end up as "mush". 

 

My assessment of the 246 comes from viewing hundreds of sample images weighed against what I've seen shooting with the original Monochrom for the last 4 years. The 246 images all look flat and dull by comparison. They're mush.

[Jeff S]

My assessment of the 246 comes from viewing hundreds of sample images weighed against what I've seen shooting with the original Monochrom for the last 4 years. The 246 images all look flat and dull by comparison. They're mush.

.

 

No wonder then...I make prints using my own pics before making any assessment or comparison...or purchase decision.

 

Jeff

Edited April 14, 2017 by Jeff S

[cldp]

My assessment of the 246 comes from viewing hundreds of sample images weighed against what I've seen shooting with the original Monochrom for the last 4 years. The 246 images all look flat and dull by comparison. They're mush.

 

NDOC, please do not be insulted, I don't know anything about your digital experience, but I have the following thoughts:

 

Are you comparing files straight out of the camera? If so, in many images, any camera with greater latitude will look flat compared to a camera with lesser latitude. For the camera with greater latitude, once images are processed in Photoshop or Lightroom, contrast can be easily brought back. A camera with less latitude will have highlights and shadows clipped, which are not recoverable. Scenes with a wider range of contrast than the sensor can capture will need to use HDR and multiple exposures. Since the M240 with its wider latitude was introduced I found that the need for HDR has been quite rare and virtually nonexistent with the 246. It's ability to see into the darkest areas has eliminated any use of multiple exposures.

 

Similarly, when the M240 was first introduced there was quite an uproar over how much better the images looked, when compared to the M9, causing many to berate the camera. This was due to the appearance of greater contrast but that was at the cost of lesser latitude. I have had every digital Leica since the M8 and applaud Leica for the continuing upgrading of this product line, every sensor upgrade has improved the image quality and has been well worth acquiring.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course.

[NDOC]

NDOC, please do not be insulted, I don't know anything about your digital experience, but I have the following thoughts:

 

Are you comparing files straight out of the camera? If so, in many images, any camera with greater latitude will look flat compared to a camera with lesser latitude. For the camera with greater latitude, once images are processed in Photoshop or Lightroom, contrast can be easily brought back. A camera with less latitude will have highlights and shadows clipped, which are not recoverable. Scenes with a wider range of contrast than the sensor can capture will need to use HDR and multiple exposures. Since the M240 with its wider latitude was introduced I found that the need for HDR has been quite rare and virtually nonexistent with the 246. It's ability to see into the darkest areas has eliminated any use of multiple exposures.

 

Similarly, when the M240 was first introduced there was quite an uproar over how much better the images looked, when compared to the M9, causing many to berate the camera. This was due to the appearance of greater contrast but that was at the cost of lesser latitude. I have had every digital Leica since the M8 and applaud Leica for the continuing upgrading of this product line, every sensor upgrade has improved the image quality and has been well worth acquiring.

 

Don't be insulted, but you're wrong about a couple of things. First of all, the M240 has 1-2 stop greater dynamic range than the 246 between ISO 200 and 1600, despite being based on the same sensor. Next, the M10 images are punchier and more 3 dimensional than what comes out of either the M240 or 246, despite having 2 stop DR advantage over the M240. There's a lot more that goes into image quality than just latitude. Read Thorsten Overgaard's review of the 246. He's had a long professional relationship with Leica and has had exhibitions at the Singapore and Leipzig Leica stores. He was disappointed with the 246.

 

"A good camera is a tool and is made to help you as an artist or photographer to perform your vision. So is the majority of Leica lenses and cameras. But the Leica M246 is a consumer good in that it is a quick fix of an existing camera to make it look like something you may desire.

The Leica M 246 is “the next model” in an expected series of improvements.

I can say all this because this is what I honestly feel. I don't get freebies that make me feel I should do something for it. I am a customer like you, and this camera wasn't good enough."

 

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M-Monochrom-Type-246-Digital-Rangefinder-Camera-black-and-white-sensor-page-29A-The-Leica-M246-Dynamic-Range.html

[Jeff S]

Both Monochroms and the M240 are superb instruments for creating wonderful b/w prints. Inferior results come from the user.

 

I think David Farkas demonstrated at least some of these cameras' respective technical capabilities...

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/bw-iso-showdown-leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/

 

But that's only a starting point. Thorsten doesn't believe

In using the latest LR capabilities to extract the most from his files, preferring instead to use a few basic settings along with the old LR process engine. There's nothing wrong with that... he knows what works FOR HIM. As each person should personally assess... ideally making prints.

 

Jeff

[BerndReini]

MM1 is phenomenal and a bargain worth considering. Investing $3,500 in a used MM1 may just tie you over until the M10 has dropped by almost that amount. At that point, you can own both.

[Jennifer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you want to make huge (I mean huge) prints, then the MM246 might be a better bet than the M10, because of the lack of the Bayer filter and all that implies.

 

On the other hand I'd be seriously astonished if anyone could tell the difference on an A1 sized print with respect to detail . .

 

. . And then, as Pico points out, with the M10 and converting to black and white you can add colour filter effects in post processing (which you certainly can't do with the MM246)

 

. . . .and then, unless you're really interested in battery life, the M10 is a much better camera in almost every respect.

 

For me - unless you're going to use colour filters, and you aren't into post processing, you want to print bigger than A1and you never shoot colour . . The M10 is a better option . . But if all the above is true, then the MM246 is a no brainer!

 

Might be the photographer, but I rarely get anything out of my M246 that doesn't require some post processing. Personally, I find the unprocessed images flat and unpleasing. It's only when I tweak them in LR or PS that all that digital information is brought out.

 

As for filters. Surely, all that faffing around with physical filters adds to the b & w film 'nostalgia' of the M246 as does discovering that you've left the specific filter you 'absolutely need' at home?

 

Seriously though, the M246 is a great camera but, unless almost all you want to shoot is b & w, I'm unconvinced it justifies itself over the M240. I haven't bought the M10 (yet!), but I guess what I've just said about the M246/M240 is probably even truer with the M10.

 

I would add, however, that for me there's one huge advantage of owning a M246 ............... when I explain to friends and acquaintances that it ONLY takes b & w photos and it costs more that it's colour camera equivalent, it further confirms their long held belief that I'm stark staring bonkers and I'm hence not to be trusted to look after their small children.

[horosu]

My assessment of the 246 comes from viewing hundreds of sample images weighed against what I've seen shooting with the original Monochrom for the last 4 years. The 246 images all look flat and dull by comparison. They're mush.

I had the original and now the 246. The "mushiness" comes from its vastly higher dynamic range.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Neko]

 I have the MM1 and the M10. Even though the M10 files are very nice I rather prefer the MM1 ones. With the 50 APO, the images coming out of this combo are nothing but outstanding.

[Jager]

Suggesting that M246 files are "mush" is pretty funny.  I'd say that's a ringing case of confirmation bias...

 

I do like original Monochrom files over their M246 brethren.  Slightly.

 

What the M246 gives you is a vastly better camera platform, more dynamic range, and significantly higher ISO utility.  No slightly about it.

 

Comparing the M246 to the M10 is a better question.  But it's still chalk and cheese.  

 

I'm only a few days into my M10 and have yet to do any B&W conversions.  So I'm not able to say anything about those kinds of files just yet.  What I can say I expect, is that the M10 will provide the best color files of any Leica M to date.  And amazing, very high quality B&W conversions.

 

What I don't expect is for those M10 B&W files to be superior to those of the M246.  I'll be very surprised if that turns out to be the case.

 

In any case, we're dancing together on the head of a pin, aren't we?  The M10 and the M246 are both remarkable cameras, nuanced in different directions, but each offering up results that are stunning in their capability.

[schmolinski]

Base on the MM1 200 

 

Base on M246 320

 

...

 

Bob

Bob, MM 1 base ISO is 320!

[Guest]

Been a number of years since I held one ... but you are correct ... D Farkas lists it at 320 ... so no advantage for either there.

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

Bob

[Herr Barnack]

This is an interesting discussion, as I am presently working toward acquiring a Monochrom 246. 

 

I have no desire to wait another 1 to 2 years until the M10 Monochrome makes its appearance, although I do wonder about the image quality in black and white prints of the M10 vs. M246 at large print sizes (A2, A1, and A0).  I may be wrong, but I suspect that the IQ of both are very close at those print sizes, with discerning post processing. 

 

Am I on the right track with that line of thinking?  For black and white printing, would I be better off with the M10?  Or does this all amount to hair splitting?

Edited April 16, 2017 by Carlos Danger

[Jeff S]

Try them and see for yourself. If the camera was determinative, we'd each produce the same results. How boring would that be? Not only do people use cameras differently, but print results depend on countless other variables.

 

And that's apart from the obvious process differences... technical and perhaps psychological.... between using a color vs monochrome camera.

 

Jeff

[rwchisholm]

The M10 is pretty darned amazing...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[adan]

Haven't used the 246, but below is an example of the M10 output at ISO 12500 (my own limit since that's where some banding starts to show). A crop to show noise, and an overall to show tonality/DR etc. Lighting was five 60-watt house bulbs, one over the main door, one on the screened porch, two along the path about 20 yards/meters to the left, and one behind me about the same distance. 35mm f/2 @ f/2 and 1/25 second. Dark. Sorry it is a dumb picture - with the M10, I haven't gone into a "good" photo situation yet that required ISO this high.

 

I would say the M10 easily exceeds the original MM in noise and general quality in this ISO range. The noise is less starkly B&W, with more gray "grains". How it compares to the M246 is a process of extrapolation - or experience.

 

The theoretical advantage of a pure monochrome camera - besides ISO, and maybe DR at a given ISO - is the rendering of fine details and textures, where the Bayer checkerboard of color filters (and the debayerizing process needed to prevent the checkerboard showing in the final picture) can produce moires and aliasing - which "jaggies" can still show up even if the color picture is converted to B&W.

 

However, I've found in my shooting that that actually shows in less than 10% of the picture area and in less than 10% of my pictures, thus matters in less than 1 in 100 shots. Maybe I just don't photograph enough old barns and bicycle spokes and cloth and such (at least for B&W output).

 

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!

 

[Printmaker]

MM1 is phenomenal and a bargain worth considering. Investing $3,500 in a used MM1 may just tie you over until the M10 has dropped by almost that amount. At that point, you can own both.

 

I own both. The M10 is a very satisfying camera to use but the original Monochrom is magic. The files are extremely malleable and capable.

[Eric1]

I own both. The M10 is a very satisfying camera to use but the original Monochrom is magic. The files are extremely malleable and capable.

Yes, it seems every leica camera is eventually considered magic. So maybe the m10 just needs a few years.

[Eric1]

This is an interesting discussion, as I am presently working toward acquiring a Monochrom 246. 

 

I have no desire to wait another 1 to 2 years until the M10 Monochrome makes its appearance, although I do wonder about the image quality in black and white prints of the M10 vs. M246 at large print sizes (A2, A1, and A0).  I may be wrong, but I suspect that the IQ of both are very close at those print sizes, with discerning post processing. 

 

Am I on the right track with that line of thinking?  For black and white printing, would I be better off with the M10?  Or does this all amount to hair splitting?

I was wondering a similar thing and may ultimately end up waiting for the next iteration, which may bump up the megapixels to 36mp.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dude675]

M246 is like putting B&W film in your camera. You are forced to think and shoot in B&W.  I don't like converting color files into B&W even though you have more control in post. When you are out in the field is when you should make the choice.  I guess I am old school.  To me shoot in color and stay in color. Shoot in B&W and stay in B&W. Both are great and enjoyable experiences.  Regardless what Thorten thinks, get a Monochrome. Their is no "mushiness".