M Monochrom Mk 0 (a.k.a. M8/8.2)

[enboe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any objections in renaming the M8 and M8.2 as the Monochrom Mk 0?  My friend iFroggie continues to amaze folks with his M8.2 monochrom work, no filters or anything special.

 

Eric

[Etruscello]

Agree. I enjoy my M8.2 for use in low light often at ISO 800 pushed with exposure compensation at -2/3. It gives the look and feel of Kodak Tri-X grain. Tom

[Jeff S]

It can produce lovely colors too, so the name doesn’t apply. Plus I’ve seen lovely b/w work from certain people using each of the digital M variants. Better to laud the users than the cameras, as you’ve done.

 

Jeff

[AceVentura1986]

I had the M8 and used it as a BW camera for years, until buying my MM1. I really like the smoothing effect it has on skin tones. I’ve often thought that the MM1 should’ve come with a weaker UV filter as it can benefit from a bit of smoothing as well. I can replicate this, to a extent, with an orange filter but then the exposure takes a two-stop hit so it’s not always possible.

[Guest]

Any objections in renaming the M8 and M8.2 as the Monochrom Mk 0?  My friend iFroggie continues to amaze folks with his M8.2 monochrom work, no filters or anything special.

 

Eric

 

You may call it for the way you use it.

But in technical terms, M8, M8.2, also M9, M9-P and M-E with its greater sensors, have the same kind to produce colored pixels, which differ a lot from MM1 and even more from MM2.

And every DNG (or RAW if using the 14-bit-worksmode "Button Dance") of my M8.2 saves information about the colors to handle with at post processing, also if you want to get nice black&white conversions.

[AceVentura1986]

You may call it for the way you use it.

But in technical terms, M8, M8.2, also M9, M9-P and M-E with its greater sensors, have the same kind to produce colored pixels, which differ a lot from MM1 and even more from MM2.

Actually, the M8 was significantly different from the M9 and it’s variants. I’ve owned an M8 and currently own an ME and they render BW very differently because of the M8’s weak infrared filter. Although it can be a bit unpredictable at times, the effect is quite beautiful and something that is not easily replicated in the MM, which I also own and use as my primary camera. This is easily testable, btw, using an IR-cut filter.

 

An M8 with an IR filter will produce BW images nearly identical to those from an M9. Without the IR filter, tho, the files have a beautifully distinct look to them, occasionally even nicer than the MM. As I said above, mount an orange filter on an MM and you can somewhat replicate the look but it’ll cost you two stops of exposure.

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, the M8 was significantly different from the M9 and it’s variants. I’ve owned an M8 and currently own an ME and they render BW very differently because of the M8’s weak infrared filter. Although it can be a bit unpredictable at times, the effect is quite beautiful and something that is not easily replicated in the MM, which I also own and use as my primary camera. This is easily testable, btw, using an IR-cut filter.

 

An M8 with an IR filter will produce BW images nearly identical to those from an M9. Without the IR filter, tho, the files have a beautifully distinct look to them, occasionally even nicer than the MM. As I said above, mount an orange filter on an MM and you can somewhat replicate the look but it’ll cost you two stops of exposure.

 

First I divided on the different sensors (CCD vs. CMOS).

The use of more or less thick UV / IR filters at different positions - in front of the lens or behind the lens in front of the sensor - would be in second position for me.

Of course, anyone who attaches importance to precisely this effect will take other differentiations for his photography, regardless to the technical specifications.

 

Incidentally: Last Monday on Lake Constance at an extremely sunny day but with a hazy and foggy view to the Alps, I screwed an old infrared filter Ernst Leitz 13126 / HOOET in front of the Elmar M 2.8-50mm on my M8.2.

The loss of light was so high that photos without a tripod were hardly possible without blurring.

The M8 with its only usable low ISO values from 160 to at most 640 ISO reminds together with IR filter 13126 already on times of good old Kodachrome or Agfaortho and I would like to have had an MM2 for comparison.

www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/213152-der-schwäbische-meer-thread/page-31#entry3576437

Photos #607. 608. 610 - 613, 615 - 618, 620 - 623. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by mnutzer