What's the best option?

[magixaxeman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm Seriously thinking of picking up a Monochrom to go with my M10 but I'm unsure of whether to go for a MM1 with replaced sensor, an M246 or wait and hope for an M10M or similar.

 

Image quality is more important to me than bells & whistles or that big red dot on the front.

 

 

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this... thanks

[a.noctilux]

For me there would not be "best option" either way.

 

To have what people think of the two Monochrom, have a look at this thread : https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/272551-mmi-vs-mmii-hypothetical/

 

Since 2015, I  use/love the first Monochrom : mine has the sensor replaced last year.

May I feel that sometime, "replacing" with M 246 would be nice, but by now I use and love the files from my MM1, I think that one (MM1) is enough for a while.

When new user of MM1, I was not very happy with it's files, but since then I learned to use it better.

 

 

The "best way" to know if one M suit you is to use it yourself : what other feelings/thoughts can help but not much.

 

See post # 66 of the thread I provided...

 

 

jcraf wrote

 

My journey has been MM1> MM246> MM1 (new type sensor).

The 246 is a fine camera, but the images never made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up in the way that the MM1 images did, and still do. Hence my return to the old master. I just hope my MM1 keeps going, and remains repairable, for as long as I can still shoot!

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by a.noctilux

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

MM1 no doubt, it has the best tonal scale and microcontrast of the two Monochromes. Every time I think of a scene that it won’t come out very brillant in B&W (given what I’m used to on film), it’s amazing how rich the greyscale is. The MM2 has a longer dynamic range but this gives smoother tonal scales, the MM1 gives more bite. I’d say the MM2 is more Ilford-like and the MM1 more Agfa-like

[Jon Warwick]

MM1 no doubt, it has the best tonal scale and microcontrast of the two Monochromes. Every time I think of a scene that it won’t come out very brillant in B&W (given what I’m used to on film), it’s amazing how rich the greyscale is. The MM2 has a longer dynamic range but this gives smoother tonal scales, the MM1 gives more bite. I’d say the MM2 is more Ilford-like and the MM1 more Agfa-like

The MM1 certainly has bite.

As an alternative view, I tend to view the MM1 as like Ilford Delta (strong blacks and tonality), with the MM2 like Fuji Acros (lots of greys).

[otto.f]

As long as you see what I mean. I was referring to how the image appears in the final print. I am a big fan fan of Delta100, but for printing I prefer Agfa Classic paper, today that’s Adox MCC

[adan]

Basically, the MM1/M246 debate is like the M9/M240 "color" debate. The extra dynamic range of the CMOS sensors can look rather gray and dull and unexciting at first glance - unless one is expert at manipulating a contrast curve to restore "bite" to the midtones.

 

On the other hand, if and when one really needs the widest possible tonal range from shadows to highlights in harsh sunlight, that is easier done with the M246. It is always easier to add contrast when needed, that to dig out detail from crushed shadows without getting excess noise.

 

I would put it as: the MM is more like Agfa Scala or other slide film, and the M246 (MM2) is more like a negative film in what one can do with it - if one is willing to do the work in post-processing. Or put another way, the M246 starts out looking like a print on grade (contrast) 1¹/₂ paper, while the MM starts out looking like a print on grade 3 paper.

 

BTW - I have only used the original Monochrom myself, briefly (I am mostly a color photographer). Equally BTW, my film experience was the exact opposite of Jon's - Delta 100 had the nice grays, ACROS had the detailess inky shadows and contrast - but hey, that depends so much on whose developer and whose times and whose ISO one uses, or even which lens (I used the 90 Elmarit-M lens on ACROS, which is a very stark and contrasty lens in its own right.)

 

It is my impression that the MM has slightly higher per-pixel sharpness, but fewer pixels. That's based only on "on-screen" comparisons - what it actually translates to in prints I don't know (my MM1 produced very tight crisp images in medium-sized (21" x 14") prints.)

 

From an imaging standpoint, the M10 offers only two major advances over the M240 family - cleaner medium-high ISOs, and better color. The latter will of course be irrelevant in a Monochrom version.

 

Beyond that, there are the "camera" differences: weight, size, shutter noise, battery life, LED finder lines vs. natural-light finder lines, etc and so on. And price.

 

I'd boil that down as:

 

Only wait for an M10M if you really desire the M10's specific features (ISO dial, thinner body, lower weight, larger finder, ~1.5-stop-higher usable ISO, 5fps winder, better optional EVF) and can put up with the shorter battery life. And are willing to wait. Otherwise get the M246 (MM2).

 

Only choose the MM1 if you want the crisp, punchy, bitey "Ralph Gibson" look straight from the camera, with minimal post-processing, and can put up with the smaller battery, louder shutter, and finding one with the corrosion-resistant sensor installed.

 

Only choose the MM2 if you want the maximum in soft contrast and dynamic range, and/or are willing to massage the contrast in every picture to get the MM1 "bite."

 

Write down a list of what is important to you, both in imaging and in handling, and in post-processing - and rate each of the two (maybe three) options according to each item on the list, and see which ultimately matches your personal intentions most closely.

Edited August 16, 2018 by adan

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I decided to add an MM (first version, new sensor) to my M10, mostly to provide an alternative all-b/w workflow experience that my film M days provided. The cost was reasonable enough to give it a try, even though I was perfectly happy with the prints I was getting with my M10 (and frankly with my M240 and M8.2 before that). There are numerous variables in the total print workflow, beyond just the camera, that contribute to a wonderful print.

 

A key trade off for me in using the MM vs a color based digital M is that the MM eliminates the flexibility to manipulate color channels in PP. I use this capability judiciously, but importantly, with my M10 based b/w edits. The use of color lens filters on the MM is far more limiting as well as a chore.

 

I will say, though, that occasionally I get a print result from the MM that is rich in tonality and detail, which likely wouldn’t have been achieved even with careful M10 shooting and PP. But I never shoot the same pic simultaneously with both cameras, so I’ll never know for sure. I use the MM only when I want a different, all b/w seeing and shooting experience. An eventual M10M might enhance this experience with its better VF, quieter operation, etc, but I’m happy with the MM purchase as a cost effective addition to my camera options.

 

Jeff

Edited August 16, 2018 by Jeff S

[Luke_Miller]

On the other hand, if and when one really needs the widest possible tonal range from shadows to highlights in harsh sunlight, that is easier done with the M246. It is always easier to add contrast when needed, that to dig out detail from crushed shadows without getting excess noise.

 

Sean Reid in his M-246 review has a great demonstration of this on his subscription website.  Shadow and highlight detail in high contrast lighting noticeably better in the M-246

[otto.f]

Yes it’s important where you want to use it for. I do my landscapes with b&w film, medium or large format and not with an M. My MM1 is for street, theatre, “jazz pubs”, and all sorts of available light and where I want bite.

Although: my best print is of an Andes landscape made at 4000m or so, so with a lot of UV and harsh light

Edited August 16, 2018 by otto.f

[Likaleica]

I can't put it in words, but if you scroll through both pictures threads for MM1 and M246 you can see a definite difference in the two groups of images.  How much of that is due to differences in processing etc I don't know, but presumably all other factors are equal.  In general, I prefer the images in the MM1 thread, which is why I bought the first version.

 

But, how that translates to the print I have no idea, because I have only printed from my MM1 files and have been very pleased.  

[pico]

Given Apple's HDR via multiple exposure  method, I wonder if Leica could implement the same?

[IkarusJohn]

I've printed a few Monochrom (v1) images large, medium and small - the results are very good.

[Luke_Miller]

I can't put it in words, but if you scroll through both pictures threads for MM1 and M246 you can see a definite difference in the two groups of images.  How much of that is due to differences in processing etc I don't know, but presumably all other factors are equal.  In general, I prefer the images in the MM1 thread, which is why I bought the first version.

 

 

After reading Sean Reid's review of the M-246 I bought one while my MM was "on vacation" in New Jersey.  My intention was to sell the MM on its return.  I have not been able to do it.  Each has its own appeal and I can't part with either.

[adan]

Well, you're a lot of help, Luke!

[a.noctilux]

After reading Sean Reid's review of the M-246 I bought one while my MM was "on vacation" in New Jersey.  My intention was to sell the MM on its return.  I have not been able to do it.  Each has its own appeal and I can't part with either.

 

I do understand you Luke.

 

Glad that I'm not only one person who appreciates the "different Leica M" each with "Flaws and Strengths".

 

I feel better now, so maybe soon I'll give the M246 a try .

 

But I have to part with one or two digital M before the jump .

[ibramr]

A year or so ago I contacted Luke and asked for his advice with respect to upgrading the MM to the M246. He promptly replied and kindly shared with me his experience with both. I followed the spirit of his advice and acquired the M246 in a manner that would allow me to compare it side-by-side to the MM. Did so, and.....ended up with keeping both, thus replicating exactly his status quo shared above.

 

No question I enjoy both—but if I have to keep one, most of the time, it will be the M246. The M246 often gives me a cleaner file to work with. The MM does not disappoint and should give its user years of wonderful service. So maybe the choice should be determined on the cost of each rather than based on the difference between both. I am sure that you be happy with either one. Regards.

[Jager]

I also own both the MM and the M246.  Neither provide satisfactory results out-of-camera.  Both reward knowledgable post-processing in spades.  Both are, IMO, the most remarkable cameras Leica - or anyone else - has ever offered.

 

I typically wield mine just like I did when we were all shooting film... two bodies, one seeing the world in color, one in shades of gray.  That has given me literally thousands of opportunities to see essentially the same image taken with a color Leica (variously, the M9, M240, and M10) and a Monochrom version, taken in the same light, a few seconds apart, and receiving the same level of post processing.  While there have been many of those one-color-one-b&w image pairs where I chose the color file because the scene simply worked better with color... I'm not sure I can remember any color-to-b&w conversion that I liked better than the native Monochrom file.  And that's saying something, because all those color Leicas produce excellent b&w conversions.

 

I can get better black and white files than from Leica's two Monochrom variants.  But to do so means grabbing the Hasselblad and 50mp digital back... and embracing a much slower shooting workflow that takes an awful lot of photographic potential off the table before you ever think to raise a camera.

 

You do have to consider that there is plenty of both confirmation bias and aesthetic preference when I talk about b&w imagery and Leica's Monochroms.  I could happily go back to living in a world in which Tri-X reigns supreme.  And in that context Leica's Monochrom's are a modern spin on an old story.  I love them both.

 

There's a lot less different between them, than what they have in common.  The MM produces slightly better files.  Slightly.  The M246 is a better camera in terms of its mechanicals and ergonomics.  

 

You can hardly go wrong with either.

[BigBabyEarl]

I am exactly in this position. Found two Monochroms at the same price in ideal conditions. Can’t decide. M246 really seems like a more enjoyable camera with live view and I do think with care the files are amazing. The MM1 is a classic though and the files sing right out of the box. Very much Leica S 006 vs 007. I really can see a case for both, but I would dump the 246 in a heartbeat when the M10M comes out and that’s my fear.

[Jeff S]

I really can see a case for both, but I would dump the 246 in a heartbeat when the M10M comes out and that’s my fear.

Easy then. Buy the MM1 now and wait for the M10M. And by then, you might not want more.

 

Jeff

Edited August 22, 2018 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BigBabyEarl]

M10M is coming soon. So I’ve heard.