Film to Digital Leica Advice

[molsondog]

I'd like some input from this august group please: I'm almost ready make the move from my beloved M7 to the digital realm of Leica. I only shoot B&W film in the M7 and I enjoy the experience of looking at the world in terms of light and shadow rather than color.

As such, the M246 Monochrom is the seemingly obvious choice. But... Why not go with the M240 and convert to B&W in LR?

Can there be that much of a difference in results between the Bayer vs. non Bayer capture?

Anyone here who struggled with as well? Your input is appreciated. My apologies to the M240 Facebook group where I've asked the same question.

Thanks!

 

[Pete B]

I saw a review somewhere demonstrating quite a noticeable difference in sharpness. I'm considering trying digital once again and struggle with 240 vs 246. I think I'd appreciate the versatility offered by the colour channels in B+W conversion over the high iso and sharpness since I only view on the web and rarely print. That said, I enjoy film and I ask myself why bother with all the expense that the move involves.
Pete

 

[Luke_Miller]

I can't speak to the M240 vs M246 question, but I shoot with the M9 and M9 Monochrom and the difference there is pretty significant. Eliminating the Bayer filter not only makes the sensor more sensitive, but allows it to resolve much more detail. Since B&W shooting is much about textures, tonality, and detail I find the Monochrome to be the better choice. Some respected reviewers liken the resolving power of the 18mb M9 Monochrom to the 36mb Nikon D800 series.

 

[MCTuomey]

I find the B&W conversions from the M240 sufficient for my needs. I agree with Luke re the M9 vs original Monochrom, however. My experience is that I can get the M240 conversions fairly close to the original MM results (I owned one for nearly two years so it's my digital B&W benchmark), which as I say is fine for me. Looking at online files I think the M246 would be optimal for someone like yourself who is basically a B&W shooter. They look beautiful, esp at higher iso's. Why compromise if you really don't need color files?

 

[mfogiel]

The Monochrom makes images which from what I can see around are ON AVERAGE more "acceptable" in B&W than these from colour digital cameras. It's a bit like a comparison of Tri X with a desaturated colour film. There are some types of images which you can take on the Monochrom, which on film are practically impossible: you can shoot wide open in very subdued light, yet get enough resolution for the image to hold up.
However, till now, unless you only shoot limited contrast range subjects ( no bright sunshine, no contre jour, no lamps in the frame), there is no digital sensor that can really give satisfactory B&W results (for me...).
I advise to borrow a Monochrom for a week and make your tests, and ONLY THEN decide to ditch your M7 if really convinced.

 

[molsondog]

I use a Nikon D800 for DSLR purposes. I'm spoiled by the dynamic range for color in landscapes and the like. For journeys to urban environments and reportage I enjoy the size of the M7 and the subtlety of the equipment. The digital world of Leica beckons and I want to make sure I'm making the right replacement for the M7.

 

[MCTuomey]

Renting to try is a good idea. $294/week here:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/leica/cameras

Is your urban/reportage work 100% B&W with your M7?

 

[mani]

I recently went into a bit of a lull in my photography (I'm not really out of it yet). I decided to start using digital again a bit, but in a really short time I simply tired of it - the images just disappointed me somehow. Make sure you're certain before sinking lots of money in a change you may regret.

 

[molsondog]

My urban stuff is always BW film. I just wish it was suitable for low light. And thanks for the Lensrental link!

 

[rscheffler]

The grain pattern of the Monochroms is sharper than converted color files. Desaturated color files tend to have a more splotchy, mottled grain structure that isn't quite as well defined. But you have to look really close to see it.

Since you also shoot digital, you already know you need to watch the highlights. But it's even more so the case with the Monochroms because once highlights are clipped, that's it. Unlike color digital cameras where if only one channel, or even two, are clipped, you can still pull something back, with the Monochroms clipped is clipped. It's not going to have the same highlight rolloff with extreme highlights and specular light sources - they just go pure white.

Something that impressed me with the original Monochrom, and is likely true with the M246, is how extremely malleable the files are in post. Compared to the M9 on which the original MM is based, the files can withstand a lot more abuse and still look really good.

 

[willie_901]

Eliminating the color-filter array does make a difference.

If you plan to use film simulation plug-ins (Silver Efex Pro 2 for instance), enjoy older lenses with "glow" or do a lot of work at rather low ambient light levels (low signal-to-noise ratios), I wonder how much difference the Monochrome provides. In all of those cases the final image resolution is well below what either sensor can deliver.

Even if RGB monochrome rendering does "have a more splotchy, mottled grain structure that isn't quite as well defined" it would surprise me if this difference was visible in prints (although it might be in extraordinarily large prints or normal-sized prints from extreme crops).

 

[ray*j*gun]

Interesting issue/question in that the only reason I use digital is for the color. I still can not get satisfied with digital monochrome even on my M8. I will use it for B&W on occasion but am always disappointed in the results. I have not owned nor used the MM which of course is the OP's question....I suppose, in short, I would also stay with film for monochrome shooting

 

[molsondog]

Thanks, everyone, for your insights. Tomorrow I take advantage of an opportunity to shoot a M240 and take the card home and play with it. If I can't find a generous soul to do the same with a M246 I will rent one for a week from Lens Rentals. Nothing like DYI to make the final decision. I will post the final decision.

 

[Freakscene]

The question you need to ask is if the colour information is important to you when shooting in b&w. If you use filters with your B&W film make sure you borrow a 246 or Monochrom and check that you like the output before you buy. Filtering the b&w Leica digital cameras is a lot less predictable than filtering film - I found the effect was much less, focus shift was a problem, and flare was worse with highly corrected lenses (like the 75/2 aa and 50/1.4 asph). But also be aware that learning to convert colour files to B&W isn't exactly straightforward.

Marty

 

[Hsg]

High dynamic range, megapixel resolution (higher better) and lack of bayer filter, these are what I'd be looking for in a camera for b&w.

Since I have no brand preference, Sony A7r, A7rII and upcoming RX1RII would interest me.


Since you want a Leica then I'd say the higher dynamic range of the M240 is more useful for b&w than the sharpness of M mono.

 

[ferider]

Since you want a Leica then I'd say the higher dynamic range of the M240 is more useful for b&w than the sharpness of M mono.

What he said. Plus the 240 in camera produced jpg files are very usable, and you can add yellow or red filter by firmware. My 240 shows B+W with yellow filter on the LCD at all times.

The "Ur Monochrome" really made a difference when compared to M9. The 246 compared to 240 not so much.

Roland.

 

[uhoh7]

If you shoot film there's a very good reason to concentrate on BW. It's way cheaper and easier to deal with, whatever you want to do with the results.

But Leica digital cameras and the lenses produce some of the best, most admired, color of any option available.

Yes the MM and 246 are sharper. But like the 36mp Nikon or 42 mp Sony, the sensor sharpness is most apparent when cropping. Look at the best BW work from M9 and 240 shooters. It's great and those cameras shoot incredible color on command.

Also worthy of note you might prefer the M9 or MM which are smaller and more similar to the M7 in shooting and processing.

 

[MCTuomey]

Thanks, everyone, for your insights. Tomorrow I take advantage of an opportunity to shoot a M240 and take the card home and play with it. If I can't find a generous soul to do the same with a M246 I will rent one for a week from Lens Rentals. Nothing like DYI to make the final decision. I will post the final decision.

good plan! interested to hear what you decide.

here is an M240 conversion, shot at 3200-4000 in Detroit's loveliest jazz dungeon, Cliff Bell's:

20150118-056-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr

i sold my monochrome v1 after trialing the M240 for my club & other lowlight stuff. good enough at iso 3200-4000 and always have the color option.

 

[molsondog]

Hey, I was a child of the 60's in Detroit. Best music ever, and not just the birth of Motown.

 

[noisycheese]

I'd like some input from this august group please: I'm almost ready make the move from my beloved M7 to the digital realm of Leica. I only shoot B&W film in the M7 and I enjoy the experience of looking at the world in terms of light and shadow rather than color.

As such, the M246 Monochrom is the seemingly obvious choice. But... Why not go with the M240 and convert to B&W in LR?

Can there be that much of a difference in results between the Bayer vs. non Bayer capture?

Anyone here who struggled with as well? Your input is appreciated. My apologies to the M240 Facebook group where I've asked the same question.

Thanks!

I think you sort of answered your own question.

If B&W truly is your thing, get the M246 Monochrom and don't look back. If you want to shoot color down the road for a specific project, buy a brick of C-41 and use your M7 for color work.

If you shoot B&W 90-100% of the time, it would make no sense (IMHO) to get the M240 or M-P instead of the Monochrom.