M Typ 240 vs M Monochrom

[Vickko]

Keeping M9 for colour and Pana GF-1 for mindless point and shoot.

But, many film cameras for BW and even colour negatives, and a Durst L1200 that I am loving.

 

[semilog]

I'd say that creating a full frame digital rangefinder was a heck of an innovation.

For the M8, they got Kodak to add eccentric microlenses (a technology not developed by Leica) to an off-the-shelf CCD from Kodak. There was nothing particularly novel about the sensor, the electronics, or the firmware, and there was nothing particularly novel about the rest of the camera. For the M9, they used a bigger off-the-shelf sensor from Kodak, and remembered to add the IR cut filter. For the M9M, they left the Beyer array out.

The result was a very good camera, but not a particularly innovative one.

I did not say that there was zero innovation. I said there was not much innovation. I absolutely stand by that assertion. The M240 is a much more innovative camera than the M8 or M9 were, but again it's mostly an amalgamation of an M3 with technologies that other manufacturers have developed.

The point is that everyone copies including Leica, so it's not terribly incisive to call out Fuji for "copying" Leica when Leica themselves have not added many new technologies or ideas to camera design in decades. Especially when Fuji have brought to market a genuinely new set of viewfinder technologies (in the X100 and X-Pro), a legitimately innovative sensor, and the algorithms needed to accurately demosiac that sensor. A company intent on just copying Leica would not have bothered to spend years developing those new technologies.

Innovation is, by the way, a different question than what you personally might want to shoot. I shoot M's for film because I like their handling and I've not found a film camera I like better. For digital, I prefer the small size and low weight of the X-E1 and X-100, and since digital sensor technology is still rapidly improving, I think it foolish to spend $5000+ on any camera body. With stunningly good cameras like the NEX-7 and X-E1 available, I wouldn't drop $3k on a 5DIII, either. It's just not cost-effective. At least Leica lenses hold their value.

If you like the digital M's, go for it. But you don't need fall into the trap of justifying your choice by denigrating other cameras and their designers.

 

[BNLee]

For the M8, they got Kodak to add eccentric microlenses (a technology not developed by Leica) to an off-the-shelf CCD from Kodak. There was nothing particularly novel about the sensor, the electronics, or the firmware, and there was nothing particularly novel about the rest of the camera. For the M9, they used a bigger off-the-shelf sensor from Kodak, and remembered to add the IR cut filter. For the M9M, they left the Beyer array out.

The result was a very good camera, but not a particularly innovative one.

I did not say that there was zero innovation. I said there was not much innovation. I absolutely stand by that assertion. The M240 is a much more innovative camera than the M8 or M9 were, but again it's mostly an amalgamation of an M3 with technologies that other manufacturers have developed.

The point is that everyone copies including Leica, so it's not terribly incisive to call out Fuji for "copying" Leica when Leica themselves have not added many new technologies or ideas to camera design in decades. Especially when Fuji have brought to market a genuinely new set of viewfinder technologies (in the X100 and X-Pro), a legitimately innovative sensor, and the algorithms needed to accurately demosiac that sensor. A company intent on just copying Leica would not have bothered to spend years developing those new technologies.

Innovation is, by the way, a different question than what you personally might want to shoot. I shoot M's for film because I like their handling and I've not found a film camera I like better. For digital, I prefer the small size and low weight of the X-E1 and X-100, and since digital sensor technology is still rapidly improving, I think it foolish to spend $5000+ on any camera body. With stunningly good cameras like the NEX-7 and X-E1 available, I wouldn't drop $3k on a 5DIII, either. It's just not cost-effective. At least Leica lenses hold their value.

If you like the digital M's, go for it. But you don't need fall into the trap of justifying your choice by denigrating other cameras and their designers.

Relax man, that is why I said "for some"... For some, Leica will still be the cult, whereas, many would already have accepted the fact that the Fuji cameras are taking over a big portion of the mirrorless market... Many if not most of the users in this forum like Leica's. And it is beacause Leica has kept it simple and straight to the point, in a similar package from over 60 years ago. I can imagine if Leica makes a vast change in the M body which would affect either the aesthetic value or practicality of the camera, even if it would be better, many would still reject it due to the fact that it does not resemble the previous M's. A very good example would be the M5.😉

 

[Harry S.]

Monochrom is like an overly glazed piece of imitation plastic Tri-X. Resolution may be good (and it is) but it just has zero soul/feel. Reminds me of Teflon.

I agree with this. I feel the MM files tend to look like high contrast technical film with without grain. Superb latitude at the cost of ugly images if I'm brutally honest. I welcome examples to the contrary.

 

[jaapv]

I agree with this. I feel the MM files tend to look like high contrast technical film with without grain. Superb latitude at the cost of ugly images if I'm brutally honest. I welcome examples to the contrary.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/255311-leica-monochrom-shots-post-them-here.html


I must say I have a bit of a problem with people expressing their personal opinion as if it were the absolute truth.
Personally I never liked Tri-X and regarded it as an example of all there is wrong with the film technology. Most images were effect over content, especially in the time that it was trendy. But that is in my opinion. A matter of taste. In painting give me Willink over van Gogh any day. Needless to say that Sobol's images with the Monochrom were not to my taste either.
As it is I prefer the output of the Monochrom to any film for its precision and tonal rendering. And the files are so malleable that one can produce any look one wants.
That it does not (have to) look like film is a big plus. Imitating film in a digital image is simply kitsch, or at best a fun exercise with no real artistic value. Imo, of course...😉

 

[srtiwari]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/255311-leica-monochrom-shots-post-them-here.html


I must say I have a bit of a problem with people expressing their personal opinion as if it were the absolute truth.
Personally I never liked Tri-X and regarded it as an example of all there is wrong with the film technology. Most images were effect over content, especially in the time that it was trendy. But that is in my opinion. A matter of taste. In painting give me Willink over van Gogh any day. Needless to say that Sobol's images with the Monochrom were not to my taste either.
As it is I prefer the output of the Monochrom to any film for its precision and tonal rendering. And the files are so malleable that one can produce any look one wants.
That it does not (have to) look like film is a big plus. Imitating film in a digital image is simply kitsch, or at best a fun exercise with no real artistic value. Imo, of course...😉

I agree with you re: the "look" from (good) digital, being preferable to grainy film images. One of the reasons I'm close to selling much of my stash of film is that I do not like grain. One can seemingly get beautiful images from MM/Typ240/M9/etc., and not have to worry about fine grain developers, slow film, scanning, grain aliaising etc. The MM images look the best to my eyes.

 

[jsrockit]

I have no issue with grain. I love a lot of the images from the past and they are full of grain. I prefer digital for my style of photography these days, but I like all different types of photographic mediums.

What I can't understand is why people seem to associate grain with soul or autheticity... the MM is a different beast and great work will be made with it. Someone always comes a long and does it with any major camera available.

 

[semilog]

the MM is a different beast and great work will be made with it. Someone always comes a long and does it with any major camera available.

Maybe. There are not a lot of MM's in the world, and they're expensive. It's an open question how many will find their way into the hands of truly great photographers, and how many of that subset will then be used for important work.

Time will tell.

 

[Vince Lupo]

In my (short) experience with the Monochrom, I've found that I can get various 'looks' with the final image, and actually without a whole lot of input from programs like Silver Efex etc. It definitely has you (or me anyway) relearning how to look at exposure, and for me it's been a definite asset to the way I take black and white photos.

I sold my M9 and got the Monochrom because for me the Monochrom was the highest expression of black and white image capture (here again, this is just for me, and I've shot with a lot of cameras, used a lot of film, and tried a bunch of processes over my 35 years of taking pictures). And I like the 'restriction' of the Monochrom, if I could call it that.

The M9 is fine, but the one thing that I wasn't crazy about was its image rendering at higher ISO's. So if you're not interested in shooting at high ISO's and you like the idea of being able to shoot colour and very nice black and white, keep the M9. If, however, you like the idea of being able to shoot video, using R-type lenses and the flexibility that all that brings, then get the M240. If you shoot black and white exclusively and want the best (just my opinion, mind) 35mm format black and white currently available, and you like the idea of being 'restricted' to black and white only, then get the Monochrom.

Cost? Well yeah, they're all expensive. Doesn't necessarily mean that anyone's 'rich', whatever that means (I am certainly not!). Maybe we just forego other things in favour of the camera that we really want, or we just work really really hard to save the money for the camera we want.

 

[jsrockit]

Maybe. There are not a lot of MM's in the world, and they're expensive. It's an open question how many will find their way into the hands of truly great photographers, and how many of that subset will then be used for important work.

Time will tell.

I was already impressed with the photo that came with my buddy calzone's MM. To me, great work was already made by that guy.

 

[srtiwari]

In my (short)......
I sold my M9 and got the Monochrom because for me the Monochrom was the highest expression of black and white image capture (here again, this is just for me, and I've shot with a lot of cameras, used a lot of film, and tried a bunch of processes over my 35 years of taking pictures). And I like the 'restriction' of the Monochrom, if I could call it that. ...

I am getting closer to the crux of the matter. The question that can help me decide, is this- How much better can/will B+W images from the MM be, compared to the M Typ 240, in terms of IQ (tonality/sharpness/resolution) ?

 

[Vince Lupo]

I think Steve Huff in his recent review of the 240 answers the question pretty well. Here again, I think one area in which the Monochrom excels is in the higher ISO's / lower light. Even with the 240's new sensor, Steve still feels that the Monochrom has it beat in higher ISO's. But it's possible that we're splitting hairs!

BTW, here is a set of photos that I did last year with my M9 -- all shot RAW, but I used the JPEG to help me 'see' the scene in black and white:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/8070349810/in/set-72157631728477365/lightbox/

And here is one that I did over Christmas with the Monochrom. Now, I had just gotten the camera, so I was still getting used to it.....heck, I think I am STILL getting used to it!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/8332954073/in/set-72157632399810869/lightbox/

 

[semilog]

Run a yellow filter on the lens with your M240 or M9 (or 5DIII), and you won't be tempted to RAW convert into color. Problem solved.

 

[srtiwari]

... and you won't be tempted to RAW convert into color. Problem solved.

Sorry, could you explain that a little bit ?

 

[clayne]

I think Steve Huff in his recent review of the 240 answers the question pretty well. Here again, I think one area in which the Monochrom excels is in the higher ISO's / lower light. Even with the 240's new sensor, Steve still feels that the Monochrom has it beat in higher ISO's. But it's possible that we're splitting hairs!

BTW, here is a set of photos that I did last year with my M9 -- all shot RAW, but I used the JPEG to help me 'see' the scene in black and white:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/8070349810/in/set-72157631728477365/lightbox/

And here is one that I did over Christmas with the Monochrom. Now, I had just gotten the camera, so I was still getting used to it.....heck, I think I am STILL getting used to it!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/8332954073/in/set-72157632399810869/lightbox/

ISO, RAW, whatever, the contrast is absolutely too much in those shots. Not everything has to be biting and punchy.

 

[Vince Lupo]

ISO, RAW, whatever, the contrast is absolutely too much in those shots. Not everything has to be biting and punchy.

Images can look totally different from computer screen to computer screen. They look fine to me.

 

[semilog]

Sorry, could you explain that a little bit ?

A major argument raised by many here in favor of the Monochrom is that it simplifies a photographer's choices by removing the temptation to shoot color. A yellow filter on front of the lens does the same thing.

 

[MCTuomey]

A major argument raised by many here in favor of the Monochrom is that it simplifies a photographer's choices by removing the temptation to shoot color. A yellow filter on front of the lens does the same thing.

That's not the way I'd phrase it. The Monochrom is more about encouraging a particular, some would say disciplined, approach to visualizing one's pictures, rather than removing a temptation. It's a positive choice, not a negation. A yellow filter on my M9 or my 5D II is not even close to the same thing as shooting with the Monochrom. I was in a club this evening with a Monochrom shooting at iso 5000. An M9 with a filter surely isn't the equivalent.

 

[jaapv]

Images can look totally different from computer screen to computer screen. They look fine to me.

And to me.....

 

[noimmunity]

It's a positive choice, not a negation.

Always better to run towards something rather than run away from something.

The MM is inevitably controversial because it confuses the line between subjective and objective criteria. It's kind of symptomatic of the globalized interconnected world in which we live that people feel very uneasy in the presence of others with their own subjective judgment, and seek to rely on quantified data. There is something about images in general that ought to give pause to thought about the follies of this approach, but few seem to heed it.