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

[f16sunshine]

The recent thread posted by Keith (re:M240) and my newfound enthusiasm for the 40mm M Rokkor and RF workflow, ... have me looking at images from both the Monochrom and the M240 in a serious consideration of acquiring one of the two models.
I love shooting with B+W film but let's face it.... When one has a 20+ roll backlog to develop and you are still shooting nearly 10-30 frames per day it might be time to consider digital M's again!
The Fujis have been great for me but I love using a RF.

There is something about the M240 images converted to B+W that seems to give it a more natural air (not my image) as compared to the Monochrom. At least when viewed on screen.
Maybe it's the less surgical look and more "secure" highlights I see from the M240 and M9 for that matter.
The seemingly less intense contrast yet highly detailed images as compared to the sometimes very contrasty and slightly clipped Monochrom images.
Or maybe it's simply the way folks have been processing M240 files for B+W.
After years of using the color sliders during conversions maybe some photographers are getting results a Monochrom sensor can also get but with greater knowledge not yet acquired by all Monochrom users.
I never used that Camera but understand it has it's own special demands and concerns (as well as abilities).

Is it possible the M240 model is the "better" camera for B+W ?

Comments and images are most welcome. I'm actually truly considering jumping in the a Leica DRF again.

Cheers!

 

[mfogiel]

Shoot with a -2 stop correction, then pull up the shadows, and you will make an almost acceptable B&W camera from any digital. You will lose 2 stops of speed and 4 stops of latitude, but let's face it : digital is convenient.

 

[tomtofa]

I haven't used either, but from the pics I've seen the MM seems to provide more tonal gradation in the lower quadrant (with, as you say, less secure highlights - must be a delicate balancing act to process those things).

That extended gradation in the darker areas, for those who process to bring it out, is the defining characteristic of MM to me. A lot of people don't seem to process for it, going for the high contrast, clipped looking images you mention. For those that do it well, though, the images do seem to have 'something' that I rarely see in other good B&W digital output.

 

[icebear]

There is for sure a steeper learning curve getting good files from the MM than the M240.
You'll need to optimize the exposure using the histogram as control.

The native MM DNG files are balanced and do not come out of the camera very contrasty as many posted example look like.
This is just a preference in post processing. As for the highlight recovery, yes that's a valid point for a color sensor.
If you blow it on the MM, there is not a lot to recover.
I have a M9 and MM, so I do have to option to shoot color if needed but maybe 95% I shoot with the MM.
If you want to shoot color too, then the choice is easy.

There are subtle differences in M240 bw conversion vs MM bw but without direct comparison of the exact same scene,
it will be very difficult to tell which file is from which camera/sensor type.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The prints from the MM are spectacular. A computer screen in my opinion is no way to judge DR and IQ. 80 KB jpgs are not what makes a good B&W image. I still love silver gelatin but the files from the MM are the first all digital B&W process I have been fond of.

The MM is also better in low light than the M 240 but as Klaus mentioned if you need color then go for the M 240.

 

[pieter]

I own both and my preference for the Monochrom makes it harder to enjoy M240 bw conversions. While processing to bw I find myself thinking too much "I wish I had used my Monochrom..."

The M240 is both much more contrasty and much less sharp.

I dislike the contrasty M240 bw conversions and dislike both the highlights and shadow detail. But one persons' over the top contrast is anothers' film like contrast.
Personally I rate the per pixel sharpness of the M9 above that of the M240, and the MM sharpness is way beyond both of them. But one persons' muddyness/lack of sharpness is anothers' smoothness.

But this sharpness and these amazing tonal graduations of the MM can seem too much. Touch the clarity slider and it quickly becomes fake and way too digital for my taste. And with too soft processing of the tonal graduation it sometimes seems like a strange mix of medium format greys in a 35mm picture... Some might think that an artificial mix of characteristics.

In the end, I'm not that impressed by the CMOS sensor of the M240, which to my eye does bw conversions like many other CMOS cameras. My personal favorite is the Monochrom, the most extra ordinary CCD camera, unlike any other (including film).
But I enjoy the idea that some prefer the M240, although this doesn't seem to be a very widely held view.

Only your own eyes can tell you which you prefer. Oh and the Monochrom really should be seen in big prints or at least a very good monitor, since most monitors are quite bad for viewing black & white imagery (it's not like the picture quality for monochrome imagery is very high on most monitor-manufacturers priority list)

 

[raid]

Changing the M8 to a 16bit camera makes it as good as the M9 in terms of resolution captured. Food for thought.

 

[rscheffler]

The initial comparisons were the M9 vs. MM and here I think there is a fair difference, based on the MM DNGs I've processed, in part because of how the M9 trends towards splotchy chroma noise as the ISO increases, whereas the MM never has to deal with the Bayer CFA process and interpolation to generate the image. The M240 has a finer grained higher ISO look compared to the M9 and will probably allow fairly similar processing to the MM, though doubt it will quite match it in terms of very fine details. The MM's files really are remarkably resilient, capable of withstanding a lot of abuse in post. If the M240 narrows the gap between a 'color' sensor vs the MM's 'monochrome' sensor, then whenever Leica releases the M240-M, we'll probably see similar gains by it vs. the M240 as the MM revealed against the M9... until the next higher resolution 'color' M.

Having used an M240 now for half a year, after three with the M9, it really pains me to shoot with the M9 again, just because of the way it feels less crisp and responsive. It's about the only thing that would keep me from liking the MM, other than cost...

 

[Kwesi]

Hi Andy,
After comparing images online I think there is more difference in Asph / non Asph Leica BW images than between the M240 and MM. That said I think the MM will make you a better BW photographer than the M240. BUT you will enjoy the Leica DRF experience more with an M240.

Kwesi

 

[jsrockit]

I would never make this type of decision by looking at someone else's photos online... perhaps the M240 user is better at PP than the monochrome user? So many variables that you can only make thse decisions by using both yourself.

 

[anerjee]

Resolution compared

Resolution compared

I looked at PopPhoto's tests -- these seem to be only online source of quantitative information on resolution of the MM vs. M240 vs. M9. It seems that the MM and the M240 are tied at 2800 lines per picture height at base ISO.

Are these tests reliable?

 

[Kwesi]

I would never make this type of decision by looking at someone else's photos online... perhaps the M240 user is better at PP than the monochrome user? So many variables that you can only make thse decisions by using both yourself.

The point I was trying to make (albeit poorly) is that the 2 cameras are geared towards very different photographic mindsets. That doesn't mean the same photographer can't benefit from owning both.

You definitely don't need to actually use both to figure out which is best for you.
Both cameras are meant for a person who already has a strong sense of photographic self.

 

[jsrockit]

The point I was trying to make (albeit poorly) is that the 2 cameras are geared towards very different photographic mindsets. That doesn't mean the same photographer can't benefit from owning both.

You definitely don't need to actually use both to figure out which is best for you.
Both cameras are meant for a person who already has a strong sense of photographic self.

And my comment wasn't directed at you, but instead to the OP. My point still remains that it is not wise to decide what a camera excels at by (1) looking at others work and (2) by images on the internet.

 

[YYV_146]

Hmmm...my experience is that the Monochrom needs to be shot in a particular way. The sensor does not have any highlight tolerance whatsoever - if you blow the lights, they're gone for good. On the M240 a visual blowout may only be the loss of one channel, and detail can then be pulled from the other two.

On the other hand the Monochrom's shadows are rich and can take abuse in processing. It is an older sensor, so DR still lags behind the M240...I guess at the end of the day the tradeoff mostly occurs between highlight space and absolute resolution. Pixel-wise the MM holds its own against medium format backs, while the M240 has the more malleable files.

 

[thompsonks]

I looked at the linked image that's supposedly 'more natural', and IMO more natural would have to mean 'more like Tri-X.' If it had been shot with MM and exposed correctly, there'd be more detail in the turban /towel, and much subtler skin tones. MM images can look like medium format, or even large, in their tonal gradations. In this sense they're 'unnatural' in comparison to 35mm film.

The MM images you might have seen here on the RFF MM thread that are so contrasty are the result of what Michael Johnson has called 'slidercide' - killing off the potential of MM files with overzealous post-processing. If you're willful or naive about it, you can turn MM files into pictures that might have been taken with any other camera.

Kirk

 

[Kwesi]

And my comment wasn't directed at you, but instead to the OP. My point still remains that it is not wise to decide what a camera excels at by (1) looking at others work and (2) by images on the internet.

My apologies. I thought you were responding to my comment.

 

[Kwesi]

Hmmm...my experience is that the Monochrom needs to be shot in a particular way. The sensor does not have any highlight tolerance whatsoever - if you blow the lights, they're gone for good. On the M240 a visual blowout may only be the loss of one channel, and detail can then be pulled from the other two.

On the other hand the Monochrom's shadows are rich and can take abuse in processing. It is an older sensor, so DR still lags behind the M240...I guess at the end of the day the tradeoff mostly occurs between highlight space and absolute resolution. Pixel-wise the MM holds its own against medium format backs, while the M240 has the more malleable files.

Good points.
My very subjective vote goes for the one with "more malleable files".🙂

 

[Dektol Dan]

The Texture of Grain

The Texture of Grain

What makes the Mono so special is that as ISO Speeds are juggled the pixels it renders closely match the grain pattern, clump, and distribution of the old film types from Panatomic X, Verichrome Pan to Tri-X and even Royal X (Kodak spoken here).

I'm giving away my age by discussing this, but just as tube amps create better harmonics than solid state amps, and if you weren't round to live with the older sound and film, you have nothing to compare it with.

Most folks have some kind of misconception that black and white is Tri-X, the end. In Photoshop they crank up the contrast and blacks of digitally produced images and say, 'there you have it, THAT'S black and white!'

The Mono goes farther than the competition in the mimicking of grain. I've posted this one before, this is what only the Mono can do. If this isn't Panatomic X, I don't know what it is.
Here ASA 25 is matched by the Mono at ISO 320.

2.8 Summaron

 

[YYV_146]

Good points.
My very subjective vote goes for the one with "more malleable files".🙂

I'd also add that the MM has vastly better high iso performance. The M240 displays banding at 3200 iso and above, and even below color noise becomes an issue before chroma noise does. The chroma noise is also "clumped" as with most digital cameras, which looks disturbing in prints.

The MM has beautiful grain all the way up, filmic, almost Tri-X-like. Grain is kept at pixel level which gracefully decays the image. I'd say ISO 5000 is usable, and beyond that can still work if you do some careful processing.

In my experience the only color cameras that can match the MM are the new Sony A7S and Nikon DF. But these are dedicated high ISO bodies. Base ISO performance is not nearly as good as the MM.

 

[JohnTF]

Changing the M8 to a 16bit camera makes it as good as the M9 in terms of resolution captured. Food for thought.

I have you to blame for holding on to my M8, Raid. ;-)

John