On the fence about a 246 monochrom. Tell me about "enhanced detail"

[LeicaR10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quietglow,   I have used all three Monchrom cameras.  My current one is the M10M.  The files from each of the Monchrom cameras are in a class unto themselves.  The absence of the bayer color array produces a much better and cleaner file.  There are several sites that discuss the merits of different Monochrom cameras to include the Q2-M..  I judge my photographs on the content and rendering, with the camera and lens being just a means to that end.  If  you like converting from color to B&W, then its solely your call.  I offer some links that will show you photographs taken by the M246.  This free to all site not only has Leica cameras and lenses, but other brands as well.  You might find it useful.

Try:  https://onfotolife.com/camera_sample_photos?camera_id=873&page=1&iso_min=0&iso_max=65535 

There are several sites that offer their ideas and insights of using the M246 camera.   One is a paid site with Reid Reviews.  Also Red Dot Forum has some articles and testing of the Monochrom cameras.  You might take a look.  

Try:  https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/05/bw-iso-showdown-2020-leica-m10-monochrom-vs-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m10-p-vs-sl2/  

At the end of the day, it is your decision and what works best for you.  I won't convince you and only offer some reference sites that might help you make a decision that is right for you.

r/ Mark

Edited March 1, 2022 by LeicaR10

[Advertisement]

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

[quietglow]

On 3/1/2022 at 1:01 AM, LeicaR10 said:

At the end of the day, it is your decision and what works best for you.  I won't convince you and only offer some reference sites that might help you make a decision that is right for you.

After reviewing that reddot comparison, and working on lots of sample files, I decided that really the only way I am going to know if the 246 will give me results I like more than converting from color images (and like enough more to justify the expense) is to actually use one. So I bought one this past weekend, and it'll arrive tomorrow. I am very excited to get it out to shoot.

[LeicaR10]

Quietglow,  Congratulations!  The M246 renders superb files. I used mine for years and created many excellent B&W photographs for my selective clients.  It might take you a little while to get use to working with the files, but it will save you time and results with the wide tonal range should be most satisfactory to you.  I wish you great success with the camera.  r/ Mark

[quietglow]

On 3/7/2022 at 7:09 PM, LeicaR10 said:

Quietglow,  Congratulations!  The M246 renders superb files. I used mine for years and created many excellent B&W photographs for my selective clients.  It might take you a little while to get use to working with the files, but it will save you time and results with the wide tonal range should be most satisfactory to you.  I wish you great success with the camera.  r/ Mark

Thanks Mark.

I didn't get as much time yesterday to shoot as I'd wished, but one thing was immediately apparent to me: the images are VERY different than converted M240 ones. My immediate impression is that the 246 files are much flatter SOOC. It reminds me of the effect that I've always gotten when switching back to large format after a period of time shooting 35mm (film), and I am sure it's the same cause: the increased tonal range. The expanded dynamic range of the 246 over the 240 means that, all things being equal, the untouched files are going to be less punchy out of the 246. That's a great thing because it means more latitude to work with.

I had some concern that I'd end up with the 246 thinking there was not enough discernable difference vs the 240 to warrant having both cameras. That is certainly not true. 

More later as I dig in. 

M246 & Summicron Collapsible

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!

[quietglow]

Another random thought as I am sneaking out to shoot a bit during the workday: there was a bunch of chat about how this model "clipped highlights." I can see why people said this, but I think it has to do with a mismatch between the exposure meter and the extended dynamic range. If you put the camera in aperture priority mode and shoot, it's going to blow highlights. In fact, I can't imagine using it in auto mode at all unless I was in situation without strong light. But this is not a new problem at all. If you shot E6 in a camera with simple metering, you know this problem, and you know the solution: meter for the highlights. I trust my brain to solve this problem more than I do matrix metering etc. 

[Luke_Miller]

My impression is the "clipped highlights" comments were from those used to Bayer Array cameras.  They were surprised to find highlight recovery was not possible during post processing.  I often use Aperture priority mode, but dial in -0.7 EV of exposure compensation if in strong lighting.

[quietglow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

My impression is the "clipped highlights" comments were from those used to Bayer Array cameras.  They were surprised to find highlight recovery was not possible during post processing.  I often use Aperture priority mode, but dial in -0.7 EV of exposure compensation if in strong lighting.

Ahh yeah, that would also explain it.  From my walkaround this afternoon:

M246 & Summaron 25 2.8 (022 filter)

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 9, 2022 by quietglow

[Jon Warwick]

12 hours ago, quietglow said:

Thanks Mark.

I didn't get as much time yesterday to shoot as I'd wished, but one thing was immediately apparent to me: the images are VERY different than converted M240 ones. My immediate impression is that the 246 files are much flatter SOOC. It reminds me of the effect that I've always gotten when switching back to large format after a period of time shooting 35mm (film), and I am sure it's the same cause: the increased tonal range. The expanded dynamic range of the 246 over the 240 means that, all things being equal, the untouched files are going to be less punchy out of the 246. That's a great thing because it means more latitude to work with.

I had some concern that I'd end up with the 246 thinking there was not enough discernable difference vs the 240 to warrant having both cameras. That is certainly not true. 

More later as I dig in. 

M246 & Summicron Collapsible

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!

I very much agree that there is a discernible difference between the M246 and M240, and I see it quite obviously. When I read comments from others, I’m not sure everyone else sees a difference, but of course to each their own.

For me, it’s not just the increased tonal range (and resolution), but I find the Monochroms to provide a “less processed” look than any generic color sensor camera I’ve tried.

I don’t know for sure, but I expect the less natural rendering that I personally see in prints from my color cameras (which have included the M240, SL2, GFX100S) perhaps all have one things in common …. ie, the demosaicing algorithms / interpolation required to create the image via the mosaic of an RGB color array filter.

I wonder if that demosaicing and associated processing creates its own distinct rendering (which is certainly different to film’s rendering)?

Whatever is occurring, my eyes tell me that I find the output in prints from the Monochroms to more pure, less processed and less digital in comparison. 

 

[quietglow]

7 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

I very much agree that there is a discernible difference between the M246 and M240, and I see it quite obviously. When I read comments from others, I’m not sure everyone else sees a difference, but of course to each their own.

For me, it’s not just the increased tonal range (and resolution), but I find the Monochroms to provide a “less processed” look than any generic color sensor camera I’ve tried.

I don’t know for sure, but I expect the less natural rendering that I personally see in prints from my color cameras (which have included the M240, SL2, GFX100S) perhaps all have one things in common …. ie, the demosaicing algorithms / interpolation required to create the image via the mosaic of an RGB color array filter.

I wonder if that demosaicing and associated processing creates its own distinct rendering (which is certainly different to film’s rendering)?

Whatever is occurring, my eyes tell me that I find the output in prints from the Monochroms to more pure, less processed and less digital in comparison. 

 

Yeah, I am a completely monochrom newb, but I have been shooting b&w since the late 80s and my first digi cam was a nikon D60, and shortly later a D1. This definitely feels like something different than any other digital camera I have shot. I keep coming back to analogy of large format vs 35mm. When I first shot LF, I was just kinda bewildered at the extended tonal range, the lack of significant grain etc. For me, it always felt like with 35mm you were working within the constraints of the medium (i.e. 1600iso in rodinal is always going to be grainy but sharp), but with large format you could (and, very importantly, had to) impose some style in printing to avoid flat results. The monochrom feels like LF. It doesn't hand you a film style, it gives you a very neutral negative that you can do whatever you want with. Not at all what I expected for sure!

[davidmknoble]

@quietglow, the only thing I’d add to this conversation, is that if your image looks perfectly exposed on the LCD, you probably blew the highlights (set to medium brightness).  Remembering your film days, we overexposed to get the shadows, meaning we learned how to slightly underexpose the print to compensate.  Here, we have to underexpose to get the highlights (reverse of the negative), and compensate in post processing to over expose and bring up the shadows.  Of course in reality, we are just brining up shadows in post, leaving the highlights where they are.

So my rule of thumb was white highlights and a darker image is a perfect capture.  You will get used to it.  Love the cat photo with the old ‘cron - old lenses do well on the 246 and stellar on the M10M.

Enjoy!

[quietglow]

On 3/13/2022 at 6:48 AM, davidmknoble said:

f course in reality, we are just brining up shadows in post, leaving the highlights where they are.

I have now shot a few hundred frames with the camera, and I am getting more accustomed to how it does things. I'd say this really does sum it up: you are shooting to get the highlights correct, and the rest you handle in post. I find that I almost always boost shadows but also deepen blacks. 

It's a very different "negative" than any other kind of camera and/or film I've ever shot -- almost like a novel imaging method. You shoot it like you do E6, protecting the highlights, but unlike E6, that doesn't give you the result. You still have to do the post work. 

[a.noctilux]

 

@quietglow

 

now that you have the nice M246, practice it a bit at various lighting, you would master it rather quickly.

Just take your own taste into account and learn the easy way, no theorical thinking would shorten the learning curve.

Remember to use the (not as good as original Monochrom DNG histogram) M246 histogram (center button...) as guide from time to time, when in field.

 

[Jon Warwick]

52 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

 

@quietglow

 

now that you have the nice M246, practice it a bit at various lighting, you would master it rather quickly.

Just take your own taste into account and learn the easy way, no theorical thinking would shorten the learning curve.

Remember to use the (not as good as original Monochrom DNG histogram) M246 histogram (center button...) as guide from time to time, when in field.

 

I’m considering getting a Monochrom, and have extensively tried out the M246 and M10M.

I assume quite a bit more of the highlights can be recovered in ACR than perhaps the red “blinkies” on the back screen and/or histogram would suggest?

Secondly, when using tools such as a histogram, do many of you use it in live view BEFORE taking the shot to make the exposure just to the LIMIT of where the histogram suggests the highlights start to blow?

(I’ve not tried that technique, but I’m wondering if I sometimes underexpose too much, ie, paranoid about blowing the highlights, and arguably too relaxed about underexposing given we know so much can be brought up in the shadows).

[a.noctilux]

Jon,

Nothing can replace real life use.

"Blowing the highlights" is somethig to learn to accept or not depending on one's style.

For me advices for protect highlight is a way to begin but overthinking this can lead to deception.

Monochrom is a camera to learn as is, without overthinking.

Deceptions are teachers ...

[quietglow]

25 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Nothing can replace real life use.

 

This is the truth.

They are really different than other digital (and film) cameras, and I'd say it's basically impossible to reason your way into understanding what they do. I also don't think that manipulating someone else's DNG files gives you a real understanding either (I tried that). 

And to answer your question Jon: I haven't tried checking the historgram while shooting, but I have been doing a ton of chimping the clipping indicator screen post-shot. I am just starting to feel like I am understanding how the highlights work, so I think soon I'll go back to ignoring the screen most of the time. I've also been working on developing my post work to get the look I am after. i.e.: 

 

 

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 15, 2022 by quietglow

[Tomsmac]

On 2/8/2022 at 9:50 AM, overexposed said:

I did own the 246 for some time and never bonded with it, I also used to have the M-P, same sensor.

I never liked the high iso performance, even though I managed to get some decent images out of both cameras. But ultimately I sold both cameras.

In the middle of last year I got am M10M, and to make it short, the ISO setting stays usually at auto iso, with max. 12.8k 

To make it even shorter, when you say the M10M is out of your budget, I say..... save a few more months and DO get the M10M!

*mic drop*

I have to disagree. I’ve rented both before making a purchase and hands down the 246 crushes it. Here is the best example I could give you for now where it’s pretty obvious to me the 246 is the hands down winner between the 246 / M10M / SL2. https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/05/bw-iso-showdown-2020-leica-m10-monochrom-vs-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m10-p-vs-sl2/

[davidmknoble]

10 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

I assume quite a bit more of the highlights can be recovered in ACR than perhaps the red “blinkies” on the back screen and/or histogram would suggest?

@Jon Warwick in reality, because the monochrom captures luminosity and not color, there is ZERO recovery of highlights.  If they are blown, they are gone.  With color, the recovery of highlights is typically due to one or two of the color channels that still have some details.

I set my Monochrom to show clipping about 5% off of pure white.  That helps me figure out how close I am.  Sometimes of course,  I blow highlights on purpose, but its a choice.

The key, more than looking at the histogram before shooting a picture, is to meter with an eye towards under-exposure.  The exact opposite of film.  If I use a green lawn to get middle grey or the deep blue sky away from the sun, I meter for the dot in the middle and then underexpose.  In reality, I have the EV set to -2/3 or so….

Just keep practicing..

 

[jaapv]

The histogram on a test shot is a great help. You can also go to spot metering and manual, and scan the scene going by the triangles. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jon Warwick]

28 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The histogram on a test shot is a great help. You can also go to spot metering and manual, and scan the scene going by the triangles. 

Thanks. Out of curiosity, has Leica ever discussed what % of the frame is covered by the spot meter, otherwise how does one really know what’s being measured?! Presumably the answer depends on the frame size being used, so maybe it’s the case there’s no logical answer.  It might be that my digital Sekonic 1% spot meter remains the best solution for accuracy for subjects where there is time.

[davidmknoble]

1 hour ago, Jon Warwick said:

It might be that my digital Sekonic 1% spot meter remains the best solution for accuracy for subjects where there is time.

I have long loved that light meter.  It is fairly weatherproof which is great for landscape work.  It gets more cumbersome to use a separate light meter, but that is one of my favorite. That and in film work I use an incident light meter more often than not….