Going back and forth on Monochrom typ 246 purchase

[Vince Lupo]

I typically dial in -0.7 EV exposure compensation in my M246 on sunny days. But I avoid sunny days even with my color bodies when possible. Nothing like cloudy or even rainy days for photography. 🙂

Good point - in general, shooting in that 11am-3pm window on a sunny day in the summer isn't great light anyways, for any camera.

 

[cz23]

noisycheese, since you mention printing, I'll share a recent experience.

I just completed an extensive printing project of 12x18" BW prints from a variety of digital cameras I own or have owned—MM1, GR, X-Pro1, Nex 7 and others. At that print size I sure don't see any difference, nor does anyone else I've shown them to. Actually, the prints might look a little different, but at that size at least, all are excellent and none jump out as superior.

I certainly get the appeal of rangefinders and Leica build and ownership. But if your interest is printing at modest sizes, I'd say lighting and picture content and post-processing trump anything a particular camera offers.

John

 

[Vince Lupo]

I can definitely tell the difference between prints from my D4, my X100T and prints from my Monochrom (either the original Monochrom or the 246). Much prefer the Monochrom prints, but as others have stated, I might be the only one who notices.

But then again, never underestimate your audience!

 

[Calzone]

I can definitely tell the difference between prints from my D4, my X100T and prints from my Monochrom (either the original Monochrom or the 246). Much prefer the Monochrom prints, but as others have stated, I might be the only one who notices.

But then again, never underestimate your audience!

On 13x19.5 prints it is easy to see a jump in tonality, resolution, and detail between desaturated D3X files and my Monochrom files. Also the resolution and detail scales up to 20x30 on 24x36 to display the difference even more.

For B&W, I will add that the Monochrom files require minimum tweaking and the least amount of PP.

The difference to me is dramatic.

Cal

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yes I agree with both Vince and Cal. The prints at 13 X 19 and larger are just spectacular from the MM. I have the original. I can only imagine the print quality of the new MM. It must really be spectacular.

 

[mretina]

I am in the same exact situation (i.e. about to buy a Monochrome as my first digital leica).

Having the choice, would anyone buy the old MM (m9 ccd) instead of the new one (typ 246 CMOS) leaving aside cost differential?

(quite substantial though!)

i. e. film-like look, crispiness vs creaminess in daylight / street shooting, nicer unedited look of raw files, nicer grain, subjective taste?

Would be curious, because I tried them both yesterday and I was surprised by liking the look of original MM files better.

While I am trying to convince myself to press ahead and buy the better quality, newer, camera.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Godfrey]

I use the original MM. From what I see of both, neither looks particularly "film-like," although I'm never really sure what that means, given the variety of films and processing methods. The files from both look digital to me, meaning very clean and smooth. Personally, I've grown to prefer that look, as well as the consistency digital offers. Of course, you can beat them up like you would any digital file.

I'm really not interested in trying to simulate film, I'm just interested in making excellent prints. 🙂

Regards contrasty days and such, I've found it a truism: long lenses on contrasty days and some effort to pick scenes that work within the available dynamic range, short lenses on days with softer light. Works for me...

G

 

[Calzone]

Regards contrasty days and such, I've found it a truism: long lenses on contrasty days and some effort to pick scenes that work within the available dynamic range, short lenses on days with softer light. Works for me...

G

Godfrey,

Thanks for posting this. I find it helpful.

Cal

 

[noisycheese]

I am done going back and forth. Have decided to get the Monochrom 246. Now all I have to do is figure out how to pay for it. 🙄

 

[Popey]

I am done going back and forth. Have decided to get the Monochrom 246. Now all I have to do is figure out how to pay for it. 🙄

Good for you. I don't think you will regret your decision.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I am done going back and forth. Have decided to get the Monochrom 246. Now all I have to do is figure out how to pay for it. 🙄

Yea I agree that I think it is a good decision and one you will not regret.

 

[mexipike]

I'm about to send my original monochrom in and I'm considering upgrading to the 246. I think I'll probably stick to the CCD and just get it back with a new sensor. Not having an extra $3500 in my pocket is definitely a big factor!

For those of you that have/have had both what do you think regarding iq only? I'm well about the convenience- battery, ISO live view etc.

I figure I can keep shooting with my CCD version until used 246s go down to the same as the upgrade price then I get to keep both.

 

[Luke_Miller]

I have both. I got the M-246 when I sent my MM1 in for sensor replacement. My thinking was I would sell the MM1 after it got back. I have not been able to bring myself to do that. Both are suburb in their own right. The M-246 is clearly the better camera, but there is something in the files from the MM1 I don't see in its replacement. So I keep them both. I think you plan is a good one. Shoot with the MM1 until you can get a killer deal on a M-246. Then you'll have the same problen I have. 😀

 

[infrequent]

How do y'all keep track of gazillion different M Typs and their peculiarities (read features)? Leica's naming scheme is doing my head in. Even the marketing material (website) does not make it very clear what is what. And I thought Nikon's naming scheme was confusing!