M246 replacing film?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, convexferret said:

...Yesterday I was comparing some HP5+ scans and an M10M shot at 32,000. The HP5+ was slightly grainier...

Yes; it's an interesting process (pun) comparing digital files and film grain. Without wishing to start the whole CCD v's CMOS bunfight all over again my experience has been that with the M Monochrom at even medium ISO (640 or so) the overall image 'feel' on an A3 print can somewhat resemble a similar print from an 125 ISO film developed in something general purpose such as D-76 / ID11 whereas with the CMOS sensor things look more 'med-format'.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

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

[Likaleica]

15 hours ago, bdolzani said:

My question is somewhat spurred by watching a recent Ralph Gibson Leica interview where he shared how once he tried the 246 he never loaded another roll of film.

 

It was actually the original M9 Monochrom.  In fact, the cover of his book, Mono, was the first digital photo he ever made.  Leica made a special limited edition Ralph Gibson version of the M9M.  A 246 would be a perfect match for your 240.

[robgo2]

16 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

I was upset with the pictures showed (never tell anybody, even not my wife who was with me ),

those pics are the well know pics I've "seen" for decades, printed  in good size exhibition formats.

In those, I can detect some "pixels" that I never thought of.

Pixels ruined the photos.

So I know by then that photography would be pixelized from then, whatever we do.

 

Well, since very few of us ever print at poster size, pixelation will not be visible to the naked eye.  Hence, it's not a problem for amateurs and even most professionals, especially given the high resolution of monochrome sensors.

Edited February 17, 2021 by robgo2

[newtoleica]

I do both film and digital in colour and B&W. They are 'different' - chose them like an artist chooses a palette of colours.

On my website you'll find examples of all kinds. In general I prefer the full analogue workflow for b&W, I don't scan B&W film, only final prints for the web or publishing. I use Tri-X often uprated to 1600 and shot at night in dark contrasty conditions - very Ralph Gibson. Digital B&W is reserved mainly for the M9 Monochrom as it manages to be both very clean and detailed but also to have a fine grain like structure (CCD sensor). Very special. 

Colour digital for 'straightforward stuff' C41 or E6 when I want a particular 'look'. I develop all films at home and print B&W in a home darkroom. Before getting a 246 I would look very closely at the output of the older Monochrom and see which you prefer. It won't replace film but will give you more tools for creativity.

[bdolzani]

11 hours ago, colint544 said:

I saw an interview with Alan Schaller where he said flatly that he would never shoot black and white film because he was more than satisfied with his M Monochrom, and he didn't want to spend hours in the dark room. I really like Alan's work, and I completely understand that point of view.

Yes I follow his work as well, and it's no doubt impressive in the digital domain. I wouldn't want to spend hours in the darkroom either - hybrid makes things much easier but it also feels like 'only half way there'. Yet even a scanned film image is easy to tell it's film. And I like that. However, once you know how crisp and detailed a digital b&w image can be, it's hard to swing back and forth. I start to wish the film image was more detailed, and you can easily mucky up a negative with improper technique (in both metering and dev). 

11 hours ago, colint544 said:

Me, I could never give up my film M cameras. Although film is much more of a pain to have to process and print/scan, it does have its own look. I like shooting fine-grained emulsions like Delta 100/400, or T-Max 100 in daylight. You can get beautiful images that way.

100% agree.

11 hours ago, colint544 said:

Equally, I could never give up my M Monochrom. I do find - with the Monochrom -  that base ISO in daylight is a little too clean and sharp for my tastes. However, It's great for pictures when the light is bad, when you can push the ISO up to 1600 or 2000 ISO, and get beautiful, atmospheric images of a type I can't get on film. 

So - for me - Leica M film camera in the daytime, M Monochrom at night. 

 

This sounds great, thanks Colin. 

[bdolzani]

10 hours ago, plasticman said:

A lot of old photographers have this pattern of switching to digital. Let's face it, the energy runs out, the need for a challenge dissipates, excitement about the medium dies away.

I think the biggest thing is laziness. I've personally become a lot lazier about shooting film after just maybe 8 or 9 years - and that's without even the darkroom work (I take my film to a lab to be developed). So I'm never surprised by people who've spent maybe 50 years of their life shooting film suddenly finding digital, and being excited by it. 

---Yes, understandable. 

10 hours ago, plasticman said:

What does surprise me is the number of young photographers who not only took up film when it became trendy again, but who are sticking with it after many years. And as for me, no matter how much digital I shoot it never gets near to the film experience or the film look. I even bought a medium format digital the other day, in the hope it might get closer - but I have my doubts.

It's hard to see prices steadily increasing for film + dev, and stocks disappearing. And it's hard to know if you should stay with the ship or jump. I'm in agreement with you, I sort of look at my 240 this way. So great and convenient at first, but then steadily declines in emotional value. Whereas negatives I just rescanned from a family trip 3 years ago, viewing them again they are even cooler than they were at the time. Beautiful. 

10 hours ago, plasticman said:

As to the look of prints in real-life: I went to the big Salgado retrospective when it came to Stockholm, and the overblown post-production of the digital images vs. the subtle rendition of the film images was incredible, and totally destroyed Salgado as a photographer for me.

Wow, that is very disappointing indeed...his film shots are just stunning. Then again, time moves on and modern/current becomes what it is...

[bdolzani]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

Yes, if you can for M246.

You can sell it later if you want with small money lost.

True. I'm showing restraint, however I also know that once I acquire Leica gear, I don't like to sell. I have other film + digital equipment that I could sell (Fuji X Pro, Nikons, Mamiya 645...) but having a hard time with that as well ;-). 

10 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

But I don't understand why "brick of weird film" ?

Sorry that sounded confusing. What I mean is I'll buy an expensive digital camera (like the 240) and then quickly buy a bunch of film (that's what I actually did) to balance out my desires I guess. I'm having a hard time committing to one or the other; trying to walk both lines/live in both worlds. 

10 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

Ralph Gibson Gallery

Funny, I didn't know I was influenced by him (

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!

...

when I took this Kodachrome, Creta "portrait"

😉

not as nice as the Master's, of course

Hey both photos are great!! 

[bdolzani]

9 hours ago, convexferret said:

Unlike Colin I find that I shoot digital for its cleanliness and sharpness. It's a format that just gets out of the way. Unless I'm using a 50s Sonnar or similar lens my digital images are fairly faithful (B&W yes ...) renditions of what was in front of me, and that's exactly what I want a lot of the time. Yesterday I was comparing some HP5+ scans and an M10M shot at 32,000. The HP5+ was slightly grainier.

But, I find myself loving a bit of the chaos, the mess, the imperfection of film and for this I shoot a roll or three a month, dev it, scan it, remind myself what a hassle it is, leave it for a week and then do it again. The images are way less sharp, much noisier and yet I love the look. I've started using Delta 3200 as my daily film because I love big grain. There's no reason to favour one or the other, it's a case of what suits you.

Interesting, thank you. I like hearing when people see the opposite as well. Your second paragraph hits home, ha. I do love something to wrestle with - a difficult camera, a long complicated messy weird dev process. There's a great relief with a digital camera where all that goes away, but then I miss it. I don't like things that I do to be 'too easy'...I fear ridicule that I took the 'easy way'. So I often make things harder than they need to be. But hey, when you love film, it ain't easy. 

I am still questioning myself though why I do things and why I like certain things. Maybe I should just accept it. Thanks for your input. 

[bdolzani]

9 hours ago, pippy said:

Yes; it's an interesting process (pun) comparing digital files and film grain. Without wishing to start the whole CCD v's CMOS bunfight all over again my experience has been that with the M Monochrom at even medium ISO (640 or so) the overall image 'feel' on an A3 print can somewhat resemble a similar print from an 125 ISO film developed in something general purpose such as D-76 / ID11 whereas with the CMOS sensor things look more 'med-format'.

Philip.

I wish a M9M was even a choice, as I literally cannot find one to buy should I want to. Google search shows nothing. 

Lensrentals had one to rent but now they don't, I'm assuming someone bought it. 

B&H has two for sale, I emailed them last night to ask if the sensors are new, and the rep said He doesn't know (um, that's strange) and that he assumes they are not replaced. I don't think I'd buy one not replaced or unsure for $3500. 

[bdolzani]

6 hours ago, Likaleica said:

It was actually the original M9 Monochrom.  In fact, the cover of his book, Mono, was the first digital photo he ever made.  Leica made a special limited edition Ralph Gibson version of the M9M.  A 246 would be a perfect match for your 240.

Yes you are correct, thank you....going by the year he mentioned (2012). 

Thank you, we shall see...

[bdolzani]

2 hours ago, newtoleica said:

I do both film and digital in colour and B&W. They are 'different' - chose them like an artist chooses a palette of colours.

On my website you'll find examples of all kinds. In general I prefer the full analogue workflow for b&W, I don't scan B&W film, only final prints for the web or publishing. I use Tri-X often uprated to 1600 and shot at night in dark contrasty conditions - very Ralph Gibson. Digital B&W is reserved mainly for the M9 Monochrom as it manages to be both very clean and detailed but also to have a fine grain like structure (CCD sensor). Very special. 

Colour digital for 'straightforward stuff' C41 or E6 when I want a particular 'look'. I develop all films at home and print B&W in a home darkroom. Before getting a 246 I would look very closely at the output of the older Monochrom and see which you prefer. It won't replace film but will give you more tools for creativity.

I appreciate this workflow detail, thank you. I've spent the last few years acquiring gear and trying different things, and like you said, can and do both film/digital and b&w/color. The 4 corners, so to speak. I guessing I'm figuring out if I lean or should lean harder towards one or two options instead of 4. I don't like to limit myself in art yet I know I'm drowning and a bit paralyzed by too many choices. However maybe I can take a breath and all is good ;-). 

PS I looked at your site and will dig in more! 

Edited February 17, 2021 by bdolzani

[pippy]

1 hour ago, bdolzani said:

I wish a M9M was even a choice, as I literally cannot find one to buy should I want to. Google search shows nothing....B&H has two for sale, I emailed them last night to ask if the sensors are new, and the rep said He doesn't know (um, that's strange) and that he assumes they are not replaced. I don't think I'd buy one not replaced or unsure for $3500. 

It might be worthwhile asking them to check the version of firmware installed. AFAICR anything starting from version v.1.204 will only work with the non-corroding sensor-cover.

Simple check on back-of-screen info.

Philip.

[Likaleica]

2 hours ago, bdolzani said:

I wish a M9M was even a choice, as I literally cannot find one to buy should I want to. Google search shows nothing. 

Lensrentals had one to rent but now they don't, I'm assuming someone bought it. 

B&H has two for sale, I emailed them last night to ask if the sensors are new, and the rep said He doesn't know (um, that's strange) and that he assumes they are not replaced. I don't think I'd buy one not replaced or unsure for $3500. 

Check with Leica Store Miami.  Great guys, great used equipment and overall great experience.  But I still think the 246 would be more complementary experience, not to mention sharing accessories, batteries, etc.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Likaleica

[Mr.Prime]

don’t get rid of your film gear, at the very least you will one day want to fondle it again

[a.noctilux]

Brian,

as user of the two Monochrom, if I had to choose (very difficult as we know already for me ).

I'd keep the M246 without fear of sensor problem.

My MM1 had the sensor replaced, but ...

Even now, when I copy files from MM1, I have a look if there are some of those well know spots.

With M246, I use without fear of those spots, and a bit more comfort in use, more battery life, a bit quieter, EVF if I need .

Only one thing that bothered me at first was the M246 histogram no more with DNG zones like from MM1.

Now I don't look for those histograms anymore, I'm just happy using M246 (and MM1).

In any mean, I don't know (or searching for) which is "better suit" for my need/want.

 

[jonnyboy]

welcome to the forum bdolzani!

I shoot 99% black and white, I've extensively used a MM1 and M6. Recently I upgrade to M246 - and I love it! Personally, film is always going to be film, the M6 it's just perfect for me...
I usually rely on the M246 when I need to work in tough conditions (dark environment) or if you obviously want to have the 'instant gratification' of your pictures...

 

[Rupert Greenwell]

I have done more work with my M246 than any other camera but I still use film and love the whole process of film. I still have my MM1 of which I am very attached as I will always remember the slightly guilty feeling that I had when I bought it,  a camera that only shot B & W, for me then very expensive but very exciting too.

 I have just got a pre owned Leica MP with a 0.85 VF and found a OM3 Ti too so I very committed to film still.

  I agree too with jonnyboy that the M246 is better suited to poor light. 

 

[bdolzani]

19 hours ago, Likaleica said:

Check with Leica Store Miami.  Great guys, great used equipment and overall great experience.  But I still think the 246 would be more complementary experience, not to mention sharing accessories, batteries, etc.

Yes, I've let David & Josh expound their knowledge on me enough late nights on video and I continue to let it happen lol. And that's where I got my 240. 

To your point, yes, same battery and feel would be great. 

However unless I unload a lot (not all) of film gear I would probably not own 2 digital (leica) bodies. My thought is to choose between 240 + 246, which is tough of course.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bdolzani]

@jonnyboy @Rupert Greenwell well and simply stated, thank you both! 

[gotium]

I loved shooting Plus-X and Neopan 1600, both of which were discontinued. The M10-M is great, not in the same way, but equally as great for me. I think I enjoy it as much as I used to enjoy B and W film.