Is the M240 actually a more adept B+W camera than the MM

Work on some DNGs in post and you will see the difference. The MM is sharper, has better tonality, less (and more pleasant) noise at high ISO and the files are much more malleable.

You have to expose carefully due to highlight clipping, but the end result of your care (if it suits your approach) is, IMO, far superior files. The per pixel sharpness is noticeably better too, so I am not sure I agree with popphoto raking them the same. Other reviewers have reached different conclusions. The RAW histogram will allow you to get exposures right, but in some cases this will require negative exposure compensation as the metering is not sophisticated enough to prevent clipping.

I own a Sony A7R and have not compared them directly and in detail yet (the two cameras are on different continents), but overall I prefer the files from the MM and think the MM has a touch less resolution on centre compared to the A7R, but is better at the margins and in the corners. With good lenses, the edge and corner resolution of the MM is staggering. There are also more lenses that can lay down superb cross frame performance at wider apertures.

And yes, those very high contrast files from MM users are down to poor exposure, processing choices, or both. Well exposed files are moderately low contrast and very flexible.

As always, it comes down to preference. You can see more comment on my blog (http://thephotofundamentalist.com/?p=247)
 
Thank you all for your Comments.
I will try the both before deciding via rental (anyone know who has the MM for rent?).
Suggestions that I'm deciding which camera to buy based on internet views are worthless and silly.
Observations online is the basis for this thread and discussion not.... for making a big dollar purchase.
I'll rent them both. Who rents the MM... anyone? Glazer has the M240 I believe which I will try this month.

Klaus and Turtle I appreciate your comments on achieving low(er) Contrast files from the MM if exposing and "developing" properly.
I don't find many of those image examples online rather the opposite with High contrast hard punchy images.

If there was a simply way to compare prints I would but lets face the truth everyone.
Printed images are not the majority of what the majority of us view these days. Of course someone still can brag that they do mostly view prints. But not most of us. I'm in the most of us group.
Electronic viewing is where most of my images will be consumed for non-personal and personal work.
I print a few dozen images a year with extreme care via a professional, a few dozen in the wet darkroom myself, and, a few hundred as snapshots via apple or Costco.
That said....Everything I shoot gets viewed on screen by me and my clients, family, and friends.
If printing was still the majority of my viewing this discussion would not exist as I would simply shoot my M5 and wet print.
In My case as with my other cameras and film(scanned) use...the M240 or MM output will mostly be for electronic viewing. It's 2014 reality is what it is.

The M240 has a much quitter shutter re-cock. Is the MM as bad as the M8 with it's exploding watch sound each time the shutter re-charges?
Please be honest. Is it?
 
f16sunshine said:
Suggestions that I'm deciding which camera to buy based on internet views are worthless and silly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come off that way. My point was to not get fooled into thinking something is great or bad based on someone else's photos... they could be great, or horrible, at exposure and post production.
 
jsrockit said:
Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come off that way. My point was to not get fooled into thinking something is great or bad based on someone else's photos... they could be great, or horrible, at exposure and post production.
Click to expand...

Very true, there are an awful lot of truly horrible MM images, along with a greater number of horrible M240 images doing the rounds, and neither are the responsibility of the camera.

I've got both, and do convert some M240 images to B&W, and while there is a charm to the B&W M240 images, they do not compare in any shape or form to an MM image. But the post processing does make a massive difference to both, and neither are magnificent straight from the camera. After some adjustments it is pretty damned easy to see the MM is some way ahead in tonality and resolution, and with some to spare which allows for post processing that can be far more extreme than is often possible before the image breaks down into a posterised mess.

Questions like this are more to do with priming the conversation with a view, and then hopefully waiting to hear a vote for the safe option, and that an M240 is good enough. Well it is good enough, but if B&W is a serious pursuit where it is a 'no holds barred' choice, then the MM is the camera to go for.

Steve
 
I was in Solms just after the MM came out. They had one of their professional photographers take an identical scene on a M9 and MM and converted the M9 file to b&w. They then made two A2 prints and provided a transparent overlay for the MM print to show the areas of (very) subtle difference. Without this help they would have been difficult to spot and could easily be overridden in the workflow on a daily basis. I do not think you will see any difference on a monitor, however good. Isn't the MM more about the shooting experience and having to "see" in monochrome. The M240 is so much nicer in so many ways,cheaper, and gives the option of both colour and b&w. If it helps..But I understand the MM is still selling strongly..
 
I've seen absolutely beautiful images taken with the MM and M240, and it's pretty clear they are both extremely capable of producing stunning results.

There's no denying that the MM has been optimized for b&w and might have an edge in some respects mentioned earlier in this thread.

But, one very practical reason to favor the M240 would be the ability to manipulate colors in post to change the look and feel of the final b&w image, either subtly or dramatically as the mood strikes. Unless you're willing to lug a bunch of filters with you, and to commit to your choice at the moment of image capture, that gives the M240 a bit of an advantage if using a simpler kit and keeping your options open are important considerations.
 
The MM is not as loud as my 5DIIs and not as quite as an M240.

If you are only using images for screen viewing then why Leica at all? Seems a bit like real overkill to me.
 
+1!

Andy, I thought we were getting somewhere until your last post. if you set your standard at the internet level, then there's no reason to acquire either a 240 or an MM, nor any reason to worry about the difference between them. An X100s or a Sony A7 can meet the standard quite well. I'm very happy with mine for the Internet and wouldn't have considered, let alone acquired, an MM if I didn't plan to use it for prints.

Kirk
 
thompsonks said:
+1!

Andy, I thought we were getting somewhere until your last post. if you set your standard at the internet level, then there's no reason to acquire either a 240 or an MM, nor any reason to worry about the difference between them. An X100s or a Sony A7 can meet the standard quite well. I'm very happy with mine for the Internet and wouldn't have considered, let alone acquired, an MM if I didn't plan to use it for prints.

Kirk
Click to expand...

Thanks air frog. I can live with the sound of the 5Dii. It's not quiet but sounds healthy not like the death moan as the M8 seems to sound.

I do print Kirk. If every image I produced was worthy of a large high quality print I would be stoked. The reality is that there are a few a month.
I have taken some images lately with my iPhone for example that I wish I had a better camera handy.
My point was more that screen viewing is important and viable as well.
It's like a car with high performance capability.
I have an road sedan that rarely gets driven at all and when it does seldom over 75MPH but.... it sure is noise to sit on the power when the time is right!

As far as the other cameras. Well I have a several great digital cameras but seem to always reach for the M5/50 or more recently R3M/40mm. If the x100 gave me that satisfaction and instant response I would not post this thread at all.
I like shoot Reflex cameras in film and digital as well. There I'm quite happy with my Zuikos/Takumars adapted on the 5Dii accompanying a OM2 and Pentax MX.

Looking at going back to a digital M has to do with a constantly well populated que of films to develop.
The main reason I'm considering an MM is that it exists. With the 5Dii I'm content converting images to B+W.

I'll rent some cameras and see what I think for myself.
The flexibility of using channel mixers after the fact may be too well ingrained for me to get on well in short order with the Monochrom.
It took some time getting a satisfactory workflow to convert RAW files to B+W.
From what I'm viewing online from the Monochrom and from comments in this thread.
It looks to me that many folks are having a difficult time making satisfactory Monochrom image as compared to those who have also come to a good RAW conversion workflow.

I'm not stating anything other than my opinion from viewing in order to draw some reposes which I greatly appreciate.
I need to try both and decide for myself.
 
It is not near as loud as a 5DII and sounds a whole lot better.

The files from the MM are night and day from even a 5DIII. There is just SO MUCH there.

I had a show last April here in Chicago (35 prints) and some of my old college friends (zone system snobs as I once was) were all shocked by the image quality from a digital B&W camera. Is it film NO but I like the qualities I get from B&W prints from the MM. It is different from film. If you want the film look I always say shoot film. I shot with 500 C/Ms for decades and the image quality at 3200 ISO reminds me of 120 tri-x processed in rodinal.

I've shot with both the M240 and I have had the MM for almost 2 years and for B&W the MM is the camera hands down but if you are going to shoot color then get the M240.

If you are going to be in Chicago next May/June I have another exhibit at the Rangefinder gallery 300 W Superior. Swing by and see for yourself. Seem though you already had your mind made up before you even asked the question but if you really want a great B&W shooting experience and B&W prints that are truly amazing and aren't looking ot shoot color then get the MM. It is a great tool for that particular job. Better in my opinion than converting.

Please see prints not 80kb smashed jpgs on a computer screen. There is a huge difference.
 
airfrogusmc said:
It is not near as loud as a 5DII and sounds a whole lot better.

The files from the MM are night and day from even a 5DIII. There is just SO MUCH there.

I had a show last April here in Chicago (35 prints) and some of my old college friends (zone system snobs as I once was) were all shocked by the image quality from a digital B&W camera. Is it film NO but I like the qualities I get from B&W prints from the MM. It is different from film. If you want the film look I always say shoot film. I shot with 500 C/Ms for decades and the image quality at 3200 ISO reminds me of 120 tri-x processed in rodinal.

I've shot with both the M240 and I have had the MM for almost 2 years and for B&W the MM is the camera hands down but if you are going to shoot color then get the M240.

If you are going to be in Chicago next May/June I have another exhibit at the Rangefinder gallery 300 W Superior. Swing by and see for yourself. Seem though you already had your mind made up before you even asked the question but if you really want a great B&W shooting experience and B&W prints that are truly amazing and aren't looking ot shoot color then get the MM. It is a great tool for that particular job. Better in my opinion than converting.

Please see prints not 80kb smashed jpgs on a computer screen. There is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything hanging in Seattle at the moment ?
 
No but just had a print in a juried show in New York....

Let me put it this way. I am an old darkroom rat. Love B&W. Did custom color & B&W printing for years. Always processed and printed my on B&W work and that includes 8X10 to 135 and just about everything in between. The only B&W digital that has done it for me are prints and files from the MM.
 
pedaes said:
I was in Solms just after the MM came out. They had one of their professional photographers take an identical scene on a M9 and MM and converted the M9 file to b&w. They then made two A2 prints and provided a transparent overlay for the MM print to show the areas of (very) subtle difference.
Click to expand...

I find this hard to believe, a bit like a car manufacturer gathering the expectant Press to a launch and saying the new model isn't any better than the old one. Even Leica wouldn't do that, particularly as it would entirely contradict what they were saying in Press releases and advertising at the time regarding the MM's improvements. Don't you think it would be tantamount to lying or deception if there was no real difference from an M9?

On a very simple level, one that everybody can understand, an M9 file needs sharpening, and M240 file needs sharpening, but an MM file doesn't need sharpening given average like for like images. Viewing an unsharpened MM file at 100% magnification is like looking at an optimally sharpened M9 file at 100%. Of course for the average it hardly matters what course you take to get a sharp image, a camera that doesn't need sharpening is no better in that respect than a camera that does. What it does show is the potential within the MM image for working outside of the average image parameters, even bigger enlargements, or in the case of the tonality I touched on before, even smoother richer greys able to be manipulated more. In an analogue analogy Adams did an awful lot of work on his prints in the darkroom after the awful lot of work he'd done in the field with filters and exposure. A silver print doesn't break down, and you can do a lot of dodging and burning if you are skilled enough and still make the print look 'natural'. And the MM file is similar to that, the pixels are not competing with each other, red against green against blue, so it is possible to go much further in post processing and still keep a natural looking image, or go wild and make an unnatural one but still keeping smooth transitions between tones.

V
 
What aspect of sharpening does the MM not require: input, output or creative/content sharpening?

We all understand eliminating the AA filter means input sharpening methods to counter AA filtering effects are unnecessary.

Yet the demoasicing interpolation algorithms must estimate edge transitions since digital information is inherently discontinuous. Also, pixels are either pure white or pure black. Generating shades of gray (tonality) requires estimating data you don't have (everything in-between black and white). Obviously the data estimates during raw rendering are very good. But they are not perfect. In every other camera the loss in detail due to the imperfections is reduced by input sharpening. Neither effect is related to color-filter-arrays. They are arise from being forced to model a continuous state-of-nature with discontinuous information.

Creative or content sharpening is one way to selectively enhance contrast. The aesthetic utility of this type of sharpening can not be evaluated since judgement of the results is subjective.

Output sharpening compensates for interpolation issues with printing devices. This has nothing to do with the camera at all. Different printing devices benefit from different sharpening.

I do not contend images from cameras without AA filters require the same amount of sharpening or the sharpening methods used for cameras with AA filters. I prefer systems with no or very weak AA filters.

Nor do I doubt content/creative sharpening is unnecessary with MM images.

I am puzzled how no sharpening whatsoever would be superior to appropriately sharpened images for any digital image.
 
willie_901 said:
What aspect of sharpening does the MM not require: input, output or creative/content sharpening?

We all understand eliminating the AA filter means input sharpening methods to counter AA filtering effects are unnecessary.

Yet the demoasicing interpolation algorithms must estimate edge transitions since digital information is inherently discontinuous. Also, pixels are either pure white or pure black. Generating shades of gray (tonality) requires estimating data you don't have (everything in-between black and white). Obviously the data estimates during raw rendering are very good. But they are not perfect. In every other camera the loss in detail due to the imperfections is reduced by input sharpening. Neither effect is related to color-filter-arrays. They are arise from being forced to model a continuous state-of-nature with discontinuous information.

Creative or content sharpening is one way to selectively enhance contrast. The aesthetic utility of this type of sharpening can not be evaluated since judgement of the results is subjective.

Output sharpening compensates for interpolation issues with printing devices. This has nothing to do with the camera at all. Different printing devices benefit from different sharpening.

I do not contend images from cameras without AA filters require the same amount of sharpening or the sharpening methods used for cameras with AA filters. I prefer systems with no or very weak AA filters.

Nor do I doubt content/creative sharpening is unnecessary with MM images.

I am puzzled how no sharpening whatsoever would be superior to appropriately sharpened images for any digital image.
Click to expand...

Which pixels are either black or white? The photo cells on the sensor?

As for sharpening, I apply a high pass filter to the final full sized image for print. For the internet I just resize the image, but with a smooth sampling method.
 
willie_901 said:
What aspect of sharpening does the MM not require: input, output or creative/content sharpening?...Yet the demoasicing interpolation algorithms must estimate edge transitions since digital information is inherently discontinuous...
Click to expand...
The point is that, since the M-Monochrom has no color filter array (CFA), there is no need for demosaicing, which means that each captured pixel gives one output pixel. Therefore, there are no artifacts resulting from combining of neighboring data that exults from demosaicing, which rsults in substantially better resolution. That also means that capture sharpening is not necessary. You can google "M-Monochrom" and "demosaicing" and find lots of explanations of this.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 15-shot portfolio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom