Why M10M?

[Jacobjuul]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've long contemplated getting an M10-Monochrome since I shoot mostly black and white on film these days. 

However, I am not quite sure what benefit the M10-M would bring me compared to shooting film. I can easily push film to 1600 and even 3200 If I want to and never felt like I needed more (in terms of ISO). BW film is cheap enough (I bulk load) and developing is easy. 

I like the film aesthetic, but I am curious to hear from people who switched from BW film to a monochrome camera. What made you switch and what are your thoughts now? I know a digital monochrome camera renders very differently from film, not sure I am a fan of the super clean look. 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Why bother ?

If you are happy with film, just use film happily.

I didn't switch to b&w digital, and use along film/sensor for many years now seeing the two as complement to each other.

Super clean look ? I think that this will come from the user, not from media.

 

If we try to mimic film with sensor, unlikely  the other way around, as so many had done, there are so many things wrong.

 

In the end, you would not know exactly what digital M can do (for you) if you never try.

For me, first Monochrom is closer to b&w film than later Monochrom, I added the M246 for more friendly and more modern experience.

M10-M never interests me, as I use more and more the MM1 with it's old style behaviors (slow, not great for high ISO that I don't bother, noisy, etc.).

 

Arnaud

[Erato]

Why not?

[ejg1890]

I agree with @a.noctilux above. If your happy with BW film and not sure your a fan of the super clean digital image then why spend the $ for a digital camera whether monochrome or color.  Truth is there appears to be a resurgence in film these days particularly those under 35 who never shot film previously. The only justification for you to switch to digital are quick turn around of photos and ability for digital darkroom adjustments of photos. If neither of these are an issue and you can keep your film and development costs low then I would state stay with film.

[Alberti]

The MM1 and particularly my M9M is a top class camera. It gives the film look and 2500A will give a slight Tri-X experience. Not bad. Later bw camera's have more pixels but not more easthetics, yet. And not the same user experience in handling. [for instance, I like the optical lighting of the framelines]. So the oldie is like film.

Although the M10-M has a nice very extended grey scale and super detail like ADOX-25A but . . the grain is different, less organic than film.

- I must say I have no M10-M experience, but the M10-R converts nicely using Silver Effex. Nice is that I can then dial in some filter values easily, great with all those synthetic lights. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Alberti

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, ejg1890 said:

I agree with @a.noctilux above. If your happy with BW film and not sure your a fan of the super clean digital image then why spend the $ for a digital camera whether monochrome or color.  Truth is there appears to be a resurgence in film these days particularly those under 35 who never shot film previously. The only justification for you to switch to digital are quick turn around of photos and ability for digital darkroom adjustments of photos. If neither of these are an issue and you can keep your film and development costs low then I would state stay with film.

Meanwhile, did you fall asleep regarding your own camera dilemma?

Jeff

[ejg1890]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Meanwhile, did you fall asleep regarding your own camera dilemma?

Jeff

Nope hadn't forgotten about it - Purchased the M10-R. I had 2 areas of concern. I have learned due to 40mp and no in camera stabilization I am not able to shoot at the same slow shutter speed as my Nikon Z6 which is 24mp (same as M10-P) that I have had for years. As for the color Camera Raw was/has not been an issue, but there was an issue with Capture One who did not release a suitable profile for almost 1 year after the release of the M10-R, and that was the program the color rendition issues where coming.

I should add in addition to the M10-R, I also added an M2, a film camera that I had contemplated for some time.

Edited April 11, 2022 by ejg1890

[Jeff S]

29 minutes ago, ejg1890 said:

Nope hadn't forgotten about it - Purchased the M10-R. I had 2 areas of concern. I have learned due to 40mp and no in camera stabilization I am not able to shoot at the same slow shutter speed as my Nikon Z6 which is 24mp (same as M10-P) that I have had for years. As for the color Camera Raw was/has not been an issue, but there was an issue with Capture One who did not release a suitable profile for almost 1 year after the release of the M10-R, and that was the program the color rendition issues where coming.

I should add in addition to the M10-R, I also added an M2, a film camera that I had contemplated for some time.

Hard to know when you don’t acknowledge posts from others, nor post again.

Jeff

[Jacobjuul]

Thanks for all the replies, it's really just a case of GAS. In the past, whenever I bought a digital camera it ended up collecting dust on the shelf (after initial honeymoon), in favor of my M6. 

 

To be honest, the biggest draw for me to get a monochrom is for digitizing BW film and to avoid having to fly with film (as silly as those reasons sound)

[Jeff S]

I gave up film when I didn’t want to build another darkroom after a relocation, having already built 4 in different houses over the prior decades. Without a darkroom to make my own silver prints, it was time to fully transition to digital (2009).  I had no desire to scan. Only then did I eventually buy two Monochroms, M9M and M10M, still doing my own printing, but the workflow has obviously changed, with various pros and cons.

Jeff

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

...However, I am not quite sure what benefit the M10-M would bring me compared to shooting film...

1:  The convenience of photographing with the M10 Monochrom and post processing vs. shooting with a film M and then having multiple rolls of film in need of developing and scanning so you can view them on a computer screen cannot be overstated.

2:  With the M10M, you no longer have the ever present costs of buying B&W film and chemistry to develop it in, or paying someone else to develop it for you.

3:  With the M10M, you have an enormous range of usable ISO that will still give you image quality that is viable for making exhibit quality prints; some say up to 20,000 to 30,000 ISOs.

4:  Depending on the subject matter, you can go even higher than ISO 20K to 30K.  Even with the modestly fast Summicrons, we can now make images handheld in near darkness.

5:  The M10M's 40.89 mp sensor makes it possible to make very large prints with very high image quality. 

Quote

...I like the film aesthetic...  not sure I am a fan of the super clean look. 

I like the fingerprint of Kodak Tri-X 400 and shoot that emulsion almost exclusively in my M4-P.  I have come to think of Tri-X as a specialized "tool" for producing a specific look for a specific body of work or project.  I regard the M10 Monochrom as my do it all B&W tool.  The M10M has such enormous capability and flexibility that it is hard to not use it for B&W shooting.

Regarding the super clean look the M10 Monochrom creates, you can get a more Tri-X -esque result by photographing at higher ISOs. ISO 50,000 would be a good place to start, although you would need a very heavy ND filter to be able to use ISO 50K in daylight.  Perhaps renting an M10M for a week and experimenting with high ISOs and a heavy ND filter would be a good idea.  Post processing can also be used to create the fingerprint of Tri-X and other emulsions.

Just my thoughts.

Quote

... I am curious to hear from people who switched from BW film to a monochrome camera. What made you switch and what are your thoughts now?...

I got my M10 Monochrom because i wanted to get more into shooting B&W, even though i could have done that by simply buying a brick of Tri-X for my M4-P.  That said, the M10M makes B&W SO much more convenient than film based B&W photography. 

The M10M's 40.89 mp sensor paired with M lenses can easily deliver the printed image quality of large format film - but in a light, hand sized camera, not a camera the size of a microwave oven.  There are no boxes of film to carry, no film holders and no large format lenses 3/4 the size of an M10M with a lens attached.  That is a huge advantage for traveling photographers who have to deal with airport x-rays and the carry on restrictions that airlines impose upon passengers. 

Again, just my thoughts.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[jplomley]

17 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

1:  The convenience of photographing with the M10 Monochrom and post processing vs. shooting with a film M and then having multiple rolls of film in need of developing and scanning so you can view them on a computer screen cannot be overstated.

2:  With the M10M, you no longer have the ever present costs of buying B&W film and chemistry to develop it in, or paying someone else to develop it for you.

3:  With the M10M, you have an enormous range of usable ISO that will still give you image quality that is viable for making exhibit quality prints; some say up to 20,000 to 30,000 ISOs.

4:  Depending on the subject matter, you can go even higher than ISO 20K to 30K.  Even with the modestly fast Summicrons, we can now make images handheld in near darkness.

5:  The M10M's 40.89 mp sensor makes it possible to make very large prints with very high image quality. 

I like the fingerprint of Kodak Tri-X 400 and shoot that emulsion almost exclusively in my M4-P.  I have come to think of Tri-X as a specialized "tool" for producing a specific look for a specific body of work or project.  I regard the M10 Monochrom as my do it all B&W tool.  The M10M has such enormous capability and flexibility that it is hard to not use it for B&W shooting.

Regarding the super clean look the M10 Monochrom creates, you can get a more Tri-X -esque result by photographing at higher ISOs. ISO 50,000 would be a good place to start, although you would need a very heavy ND filter to be able to use ISO 50K in daylight.  Perhaps renting an M10M for a week and experimenting with high ISOs and a heavy ND filter would be a good idea.  Post processing can also be used to create the fingerprint of Tri-X and other emulsions.

Just my thoughts.

I got my M10 Monochrom because i wanted to get more into shooting B&W, even though i could have done that by simply buying a brick of Tri-X for my M4-P.  That said, the M10M makes B&W SO much more convenient than film based B&W photography. 

The M10M's 40.89 mp sensor paired with M lenses can easily deliver the printed image quality of large format film - but in a light, hand sized camera, not a camera the size of a microwave oven.  There are no boxes of film to carry, no film holders and no large format lenses 3/4 the size of an M10M with a lens attached.  That is a huge advantage for traveling photographers who have to deal with airport x-rays and the carry on restrictions that airlines impose upon passengers. 

Again, just my thoughts.

The print quality from the M10M cannot be overstated as a huge benefit for this camera. At the 16 x 20 - 24 inch sized prints I make, it is extremely difficult to discern from drum scanned 4x5. I no longer use my Arca Swiss field camera for B&W landscape.

[Jeff S]

But a silver print is another thing.  I miss the look of a well executed wet print from my 4x5; but I don’t miss the time and effort to get there.

Jeff

[charlesphoto99]

59 minutes ago, Jacobjuul said:

 

 

To be honest, the biggest draw for me to get a monochrom is for digitizing BW film and to avoid having to fly with film (as silly as those reasons sound)

I wouldn't bother. When my Imacon 646 went bust in 2020 with no motherboards to be found, I set up a scanning station with a Nikon D850 and highly rated Tokina macro lens. With the recent purchase of an M10M, I had the aha idea a couple of weeks ago to compare it to the D850 for scanning, picked up a Nikon to M adapter for the Tokina, and my conclusion is that it may be slightly better, but at the expense of practicality, such as getting correct focus as the negs swell (I use the Nikon magnifying angle viewfinder), and lack of tethering - which is huge because you don't want to have to be re-aligning the camera every time you need to make a scan, having to remove the camera from the stand to change cards and batteries. Just too many variables that are difficult to control with the M on a copy stand. Plus a used D850 or similar can be had much cheaper. 

Now where the M10M shines is in high iso. I regularly shoot at 12.5K iso and one wouldn't really know it looking at the files (see second pic).

 

 

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!

[ejg1890]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Hard to know when you don’t acknowledge posts from others, nor post again.

Jeff

Far point.  

[Erato]

Vintage look? Film grain? Yes, these images were taken by M10 Monochrom and with proper post-process in a few seconds.

I am lazy enough but it doesn't mean that the M10 Monochrom is not good enough.

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 April 12, 2022 by Erato
adding another image

[Erato]

Antique look.

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!

[Erato]

I love the image quality while I compare the 35mm images scanned by Hasselblad Flextight X5 against M10 Monochrom. 

TBH, I like the finest outcome via M10 Monochrom sometime and it preserves all the details for further process if I intend to get something special but I often leave it as it is since it looks fine to me.

For instance, you may experience the finest details via the following portrait was taken by GX680 III(medium format) found on the Flickr. And there's nothing wrong about "super clean", isn't it?

Copyright belongs to www.instagram.com/buchetteportraits/

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 April 13, 2022 by Erato

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[davidmknoble]

@Jacobjuul, I’m a little late getting here, but I’ve shot black and white 35mm film since the 1980’s.  I still shoot black and white with the Leica M and Leica R series and love it.  On the other hand, I have also used all three monochrom bodies, currently using the M10M.  Here is what I might offer you to think about.

Black and white films are not all the same and they do not render the same in chemical printing.  I really only use 3 films, and one less than the other two.  I love the classic look of Ilford FP4+ and the crispness of Kodak Tri X 400.  I bulk roll these into metal snap cap canisters and a bunch of IXMOO’s for my M3.  Where I used to print in the darkroom, now I scan and go digital from there, but the qualities of each film remain in the scanning process.  

The M10M is the newest of the MM’s and it has a super sensor size, but it is not ‘crisp’ compared to film.  I have some M3 shots with my APO 50mm summicron that put some other digital shots with older lenses to shame.  In fact, I just picked up a great copy of a 1957 35mm Summaron f/2.8.  It is by no means ‘crisp’ on the M10M.

I think the difference is that the digital MM’s have brought an in-between process from digital color to black and white film.  The end use determines what we use no matter what.  If I am looking for a large enlargement from a 35mm negative, I’ll use the FP4+ with an APO lens so that my print corners remain sharp, instead of falling off like older lenses.  I have printed 17x22 prints from the M10M at ISO 50,000.   The lens, the light and the print size are what I am after, regardless of whether it is film or digital.  What I have found in the M10M is that the density of the sensor really allows the older lenses to shine.  The nuances of the different areas of sharpness and the falloff are much better preserved than with the older 18mp camera sensors. 

I shoot both film and digital on a regular basis, and I always have both with me.  I’m not trying to talk you into digital, but I firmly believe the difference is in how you use it, not whether it is digital or film.

[Jacobjuul]

1 hour ago, davidmknoble said:

@Jacobjuul, I’m a little late getting here, but I’ve shot black and white 35mm film since the 1980’s.  I still shoot black and white with the Leica M and Leica R series and love it.  On the other hand, I have also used all three monochrom bodies, currently using the M10M.  Here is what I might offer you to think about.

Black and white films are not all the same and they do not render the same in chemical printing.  I really only use 3 films, and one less than the other two.  I love the classic look of Ilford FP4+ and the crispness of Kodak Tri X 400.  I bulk roll these into metal snap cap canisters and a bunch of IXMOO’s for my M3.  Where I used to print in the darkroom, now I scan and go digital from there, but the qualities of each film remain in the scanning process.  

The M10M is the newest of the MM’s and it has a super sensor size, but it is not ‘crisp’ compared to film.  I have some M3 shots with my APO 50mm summicron that put some other digital shots with older lenses to shame.  In fact, I just picked up a great copy of a 1957 35mm Summaron f/2.8.  It is by no means ‘crisp’ on the M10M.

I think the difference is that the digital MM’s have brought an in-between process from digital color to black and white film.  The end use determines what we use no matter what.  If I am looking for a large enlargement from a 35mm negative, I’ll use the FP4+ with an APO lens so that my print corners remain sharp, instead of falling off like older lenses.  I have printed 17x22 prints from the M10M at ISO 50,000.   The lens, the light and the print size are what I am after, regardless of whether it is film or digital.  What I have found in the M10M is that the density of the sensor really allows the older lenses to shine.  The nuances of the different areas of sharpness and the falloff are much better preserved than with the older 18mp camera sensors. 

I shoot both film and digital on a regular basis, and I always have both with me.  I’m not trying to talk you into digital, but I firmly believe the difference is in how you use it, not whether it is digital or film.

great food for thought. 

I've since played around with a m10m a bit and it's a lovely camera. But I struggle to see the benefit over film. Film comes out as flat or as "done" as I'd like depending on how I develop it. I feel like with the m10m there is no way around silverefex to get the look I want. But if I do decide to buy a digital M, the monochrome would be it.