New: MONOPAN 50 – the new black-and-white 35 mm film from Leica

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

Given that Kodak discontinued their Chromogenic film, BW400, in 2014 because of lack of sales, it would be an odd decision for Leica to issue one. I rather like Ilford XP-2 Chromogenic but others complain about its lack of grain and character. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned. If you take it at ISO 100, it is super sharp and has more than enough contrast. If you push up from the standard rating of 400 ISO, it does get a bit soft. 

Wilson

 

I enjoyed using BW400CN for its convenience. It retained the orange tint on its negatives for maximum convenience in printing within the C41 environment, as well as its developing. As I recall, XP2 looked like conventional b/w negatives after development, which was easier for subsequent printing using conventional b/w darkroom chemistry. I worked mostly in C41 colour negatives (not slides) and it just wasn't worth the hassle and expense of colour processing for the number of films that I used.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

My problem for self developing film is a sensitivity to hydroquinone as a result of past years' carelessness over wearing gloves. I have tried HQ-free Rodinal in my Rondinax tanks (I have both 35mm and 120 daylight tanks) and the results are just about acceptable but not as good as the much missed Peak Imaging used to get with my B&W films. The images always seem a tad soft with Rodinal, OK for 120 but not really good enough for high res scans on 35mm. I am so sensitive to Hydroquinone that I now have to air out the negatives when they come back from the processor, as otherwise if I touch them too soon without gloves on, I will come out in hives all over my hands. 

Wilson

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

My problem for self developing film is a sensitivity to hydroquinone as a result of past years' carelessness over wearing gloves. I have tried HQ-free Rodinal in my Rondinax tanks (I have both 35mm and 120 daylight tanks) and the results are just about acceptable but not as good as the much missed Peak Imaging used to get with my B&W films. The images always seem a tad soft with Rodinal, OK for 120 but not really good enough for high res scans on 35mm. I am so sensitive to Hydroquinone that I now have to air out the negatives when they come back from the processor, as otherwise if I touch them too soon without gloves on, I will come out in hives all over my hands. 

Wilson

I know this is off topic, but your negs should not be soft with Rodinal, it is an acutance developer and should create extremely sharp grained negatives when processed properly. Grain might be accentuated, but not soft. Try 1+50 or 1+100 with a semi-stand development. Agitate the first minute, and then do one gentle inversion every three minutes or so thereafter. I believe I got around 18 minutes with this process for Acros (version 1). No need to use stop bath, water is fine. The only thing to be aware of is that you need to have about 7-10mL of concentrate per roll, so at 1+100 you are looking at 1L of solution per roll. If you don't do this, it will still develop but your contrast will be low and your shadows will be underdeveloped. Btw, XTOL is also HQ free and probably the best developer we have. Low toxicity, economical, easy to mix, environmentally friendly and cheap. It has been the developer I used at my low volume custom lab since it started.

Btw, a lot of "grain softness" is just the poor film positioning of Epson scanners, if that is what you used. If your scanner does not have AF, it might just need adjustment. The V850 has stepped adjusters for its negative holders that need to be calibrated. The Imacon and Hasselblad scanners have AF, which is easier and more accurate, but obviously they are not easy to come by or cheap these days. Camera based scanning is probably best for most people at this point, but that is another topic.

As for the monopan, I guess it does not hurt to have a new film, but I have to admit it feels like Leica is really just becoming a rebranding project...most of their new lenses in L mount and a lot of their accessories are stuff that you can get from another place in a different package for less than half of the price with the same quality. It's a bit of a bummer.

The 100 years Leica product page is an M11P, a teddy bear that they don't make, a pen they don't make, a bunch of pins and cufflinks and bags, and now a rebadged film. The magnifier looks nice and made by them though, which is nice. I don't want to go at them too hard, but I hope they announce some really innovative products by the end of the year. If not, it is kind of a disappointment.

Edited June 19 by Stuart Richardson

[wlaidlaw]

You can't do an inversion with the Rondinax tanks or all the liquid will fall out. Where this is recommended, I just do one turn of the handle.  I was using a bottle of pre-mix Rodinal so not sure what dilution it was. It may have been partially due to the film, Fomapan 100, which has attracted adverse comments from others, especially in comparison to their excellent Fomapan 200. The other film which I developed in my big Rondinax tank was a roll of 120 Ferrania P30 and again it was slightly soft and lowish contrast. Part of the problem may be that the chemicals are often too warm with an ambient temperature in the mid 30s in my south of France house. I don't really take enough B&W these days to get set up properly and my local French lab, Labo Argentique does an excellent job and scans very well also. I only have the Epson V700 flat bed with me in France, which is not great as it does not hold 35mm film dead flat but is OK for 120. I use a Leitz BEOON in the UK with my SL601 and a 5200ºk light pad for scanning there.

I think this coming winter, I am getting my study back after 15 years, when it has been a grandchildren's bedroom, but they are now on the big size for bunk beds and we have done up the two attic bedrooms with new beds, windows and extended the central heating up to there, so they will use those instead now. I can therefore re-create the digital darkroom I used to have in my study. I will take my 5K iMac back to the UK with me at the end of August and I will get a second 27" screen. 

Wilson

[drew.saunders]

Freestyle in the US sells Ilford Pan F+ for $16 for a 36-exposure roll, and Adox HR-50 for $7.50 (out of stock now), so even if Leica doubles the price, it won't be obscenely expensive for an ISO 50 film. I'm intrigued enough that I just requested Freestyle to notify me when the Adox is back in stock, but not intrigued enough to pay Leica 2x for the same film, although the boxes look cool! Maybe one roll...maybe.

Has anyone tried the Adox HR-50 and had it developed by The Darkroom in So. Cal? I don't want to buy a special developer just to play with a film that I may not like.

[otto.f]

On 6/18/2025 at 3:28 PM, Andreas_Kreuz said:

It 'sounds' like being "ADOX HR-50 135/36".

 

If so, it would not be the most easy film to develop. 

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/18/2025 at 10:19 PM, Bliz said:

scala 50

I would have been more interested if they had finetuned and re-released the Scala 160 which was much easier to handle in every aspect and had an amazing tonal scale. ASA 50 doesn’t get much use in daily life and is thus not very M like. If I would go out for landscape with a tripod I’d prefer a Mamyia 7 or so. 

[otto.f]

.

Edited June 20 by otto.f

[LocalHero1953]

16 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I hope they announce some really innovative products by the end of the year. If not, it is kind of a disappointment.

+1

[NZDavid]

Long ago, I used Pan F (down to ISO 32 in Perceptol for even finer grain), Agfapan 25, in Rodinal IIRC, and Kodak Panatomic X a few times.

I’m curious what speed film the first Leicas used.

[LocalHero1953]

13 minutes ago, NZDavid said:

Long ago, I used Pan F (down to ISO 32 in Perceptol for even finer grain), Agfapan 25, in Rodinal IIRC, and Kodak Panatomic X a few times.

I’m curious what speed film the first Leicas used.

This long thread discusses the first films for Leica in a number of places, in some detail.

The thread is worth reading in full for its own sake, but you may have to do a search for the film-specific sections. 

Edited June 20 by LocalHero1953

[Michi D]

Looking at the spectral response curve, I am sure it is the ADOX HR 50. The curves look identical to me.

https://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-hr-50/

https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-122831-Leica-Monopan50_Technical-Data_de.pdf

 

[adan]

41 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The thread is worth reading in full for its own sake, but you may have to do a search for the film-specific sections. 

But a simple summary would be that 35mm motion-picture film in the 1920s, which the Leica was designed for, was

Orthchromatic (blind to red light) - ISO-equivalent 20-30
Panchromatic film                           - ISO-equivalent 10-15

.......which explains why the US motion-picture industry decamped from NYC to sunny southern California rather rapidly about then, and also adopted Klieg Lights (up to 800 million candlepower). 🤪

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klieg_light

Ilford, Agfa and Kodak managed to boost film speeds into the low 100s during the 1930s. Ilford's first HP (Hypersensitive Panchromatic) rolled film originated as ISO 160 equivalent in 1935.

[wlaidlaw]

At first one thinks, how on earth did folks manage with an f3.5 lens and an ISO of 10-15. Then I remembered my father managed for years, admittedly with f2 available on his Summar ,using Kodachrome, which from memory, was again 10 ASA. I do recall him being very pleased when the film speed was increased to 25 ASA and then to a heady 64 ASA. 

Wilson

[BernardC]

33 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

At first one thinks, how on earth did folks manage with an f3.5 lens and an ISO of 10-15. Then I remembered my father managed for years, admittedly with f2 available on his Summar ,using Kodachrome, which from memory, was again 10 ASA. I do recall him being very pleased when the film speed was increased to 25 ASA and then to a heady 64 ASA. 

Same here. My father used Kodachrome, which I remember as 25 ASA (he preferred it to the 64), but it would have been less than that in shots taken before I was born.

ISO 10-15 gives you f:5.6 at a comfortable speed (1/60 to 1/125) in daylight, depending on cloud cover and time of day. That's not a particularly difficult exposure setting.

[TomB_tx]

41 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

At first one thinks, how on earth did folks manage with an f3.5 lens and an ISO of 10-15. Then I remembered my father managed for years, admittedly with f2 available on his Summar ,using Kodachrome, which from memory, was again 10 ASA. I do recall him being very pleased when the film speed was increased to 25 ASA and then to a heady 64 ASA. 

Wilson

My father also always used Kodachrome through the 1950s & 60s in his Stereo Realist with f3.5 lenses, and didn't go to K64 when it came out - too contrasty he said. Also he didn't use a light meter, so didn't want to try anything new. He gave me a Realist before I left for college, and I also used KII at 25 ASA - even doing some nighttime shots of events and indoor stuff. After moving to "regular" cameras (including an M4) my preferred film was still Panatomic-X as grain was considered an enemy. By then I had my fastest lenses: f2.0!  (I did shoot some ice-hocky with 2475 recording film at high EV with a 135 f3.5, which gave new meaning to grain!)

My Morgan & Morgan Leica handbook from the early 1950s covers high-speed films of 125 or so... I still like to use ISO 100 film in my III series Leicas as a reminder of what was possible back then.

[budrichard]

I used Kodachrome extensively as a boy with an ASA of 10, then later in life Kodachrome II at 25 ASA or type 'A' at 40 and later KX, 64 ASA and then K200.

The positives from early Kodachrome and KII and K25 were superb and will never be equaled.

You could purchase in 20 roll clear wrapped packages  with mailers to send to Kodak for processing. Never had a single problem!

KX was a little more grainy and I infrequently used it.

K200 was very grainy and I only used it for sports photography.

I actually preferred High Speed Ecktachome and you get it pushed to 320 ASA.

The demise of Kodachrome was after I retired and I never shot color positive film again.

I have or had about 60 rolls in my freezer and had one of the last batches processed.

I really never had a problem with lack of ASA.

My first real camera was a Contaflex 1 with Zeiss 2.8 Tessar.

Shot Jack Kimberley in a Birdcage Maserati at speed at Road America with a pan shot that caught the knockoff hubs perfectly!

Next was my Nikon F's, fastest lens was a 50mm f2.0 Nikkor, followed bu 135 f2.8 Nikkor and then the beautiful 24mm f2.8 Nikkor.

500mm f5.0 Nikkor was a beast and I only used it once

No problems with ASA but you carried a Honeywell 500v strobe and pack for indoors and flood light in your car.

Spot news was mostly TRi-X at the time.

Color was sports front page.

-Richard

 

 

 

 

 

[FrozenInTime]

@budrichard  K200 was fun - like Tri-X with added magenta ... even more when pushed by the pro-service.

Tech-pan 2415 and HR-50 / rebadged Monopan 50 look to have the similar issues - always fighting contrast with special developers; the pre-flash hopefully gives improvements, but tough to see it as an everyday film ... but at least it should survive X-Ray/CT scanning.

Is sensitivity >720nm going to provide a 'Leica glow' with many lenses - remember that IR mark that was once common on MF SLR lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Bliz]

On 6/19/2025 at 2:49 PM, BernardC said:

Dialing-in a black and white film isn't a simple process. Unlike C41 and E6, manufacturers' recommendations are just a starting point. You need to determine your own EI, using your own equipment (meter, lens, shutter, etc.), and find the right development to reach your target contrast.

You’re right, still I never had as bad results as with hr50 with any other film, even tried a couple of rolls with the proprietary hr-dev and didn’t like the results one bit. I routinely shoot ilford, foma and my beloved rollei superpan 200 developing them in XTOL stock or 1+1 with excellent results.

Of course that’s just my experience, I’m sure a lot of people like hr50.

Edited June 20 by Bliz

[250swb]

HR-50 is a wonderful full toned film if treated right and in sympathy, as you would do with any film rather than sloshing it around in whatever you have in the cupboard. But there is one test that will tell you if it's rebadged HR-50 or Ilford Pan F, you will get 36 exposures with HR-50, and 38 exposures with Ilford.