cam
the need for speed
there is no doubt in my mind that the M8 produces superior black and white images to the M9... but saying it's better than the Monocrom? from my own limited experience, no. especially at high ISO, there is absolutely no comparison.
the tonalities of the two cameras are very different, however, and i can see how the M8 can be more pleasing to some -- especially at the base ISO. plus, with the M8 you have more control over those tones if you like to tinker with your post-processing.
for me, the main reason to get a Monochrom is how astonishing it looks at high ISO. i like to shoot in dark bars at night and f/1 2500 isn't enough if i want to avoid shutter-shake or motion blur. i have tried under-exposing on both the M8 and M9 in these instances and the results aren't that pretty when trying to bring it back up -- very ugly noise, loss of detail and tone.
moreover, as much as i adore my old Noctilux, i sometimes would like to have a wider viewpoint but even f/1.4 isn't fast enough. and/or, when it's so dark that precise focussing is difficult, i'd like to be able to stop down a bit. again, it's impossible with the M8/M9 without suffering noise and loss of detail/tone.
after shooting on the M8 most of the summer (my M9 went haywire), i fell madly in love with it again. it really is a huge leap above the M9 for b/w work, especially without the IR filters... but i was even more limited at night -- which is when i love to shoot.
if i had my druthers, i would keep the M8 and buy a Monochrom
the tonalities of the two cameras are very different, however, and i can see how the M8 can be more pleasing to some -- especially at the base ISO. plus, with the M8 you have more control over those tones if you like to tinker with your post-processing.
for me, the main reason to get a Monochrom is how astonishing it looks at high ISO. i like to shoot in dark bars at night and f/1 2500 isn't enough if i want to avoid shutter-shake or motion blur. i have tried under-exposing on both the M8 and M9 in these instances and the results aren't that pretty when trying to bring it back up -- very ugly noise, loss of detail and tone.
moreover, as much as i adore my old Noctilux, i sometimes would like to have a wider viewpoint but even f/1.4 isn't fast enough. and/or, when it's so dark that precise focussing is difficult, i'd like to be able to stop down a bit. again, it's impossible with the M8/M9 without suffering noise and loss of detail/tone.
after shooting on the M8 most of the summer (my M9 went haywire), i fell madly in love with it again. it really is a huge leap above the M9 for b/w work, especially without the IR filters... but i was even more limited at night -- which is when i love to shoot.
if i had my druthers, i would keep the M8 and buy a Monochrom
TennesseJones
Well-known
Interesting, maybe a used m8 is a good idea after all....
IEDEI
Well-known
it's comical to read people throw so much negativity at the original poster-----when the raw truth is that the M8 is a VERY good B&W camera....without a doubt better than the M9, and i wouldn't be surprised if it handles as good as the MM.
the M8 is a flawed camera, that's for sure. However due to its IR sensitivity it makes for very beautiful B&W photos. It is not delusional to suggest this.....i think it's a fair point and that would indeed make the M8 a very low cost alternative to the MM which is a very expensive camera.
i take primarily B&W, and one of the reasons i bought my M8 was for its very unique abilities as a B&W shooter. I have not been disappointed.
the M8 is a flawed camera, that's for sure. However due to its IR sensitivity it makes for very beautiful B&W photos. It is not delusional to suggest this.....i think it's a fair point and that would indeed make the M8 a very low cost alternative to the MM which is a very expensive camera.
i take primarily B&W, and one of the reasons i bought my M8 was for its very unique abilities as a B&W shooter. I have not been disappointed.
FrankS
Registered User
After 57 posts, this is the first rational explanation given to support the OP.
twopointeight
Well-known
As I mentioned in a previous post I shoot primarily with M8.2 w/35mm summilux, but I always leave my UV-IR filter on, just in case I want to use the image in color. If I'm going for optimum B&W quality with the M8.2, does it really make a difference, filter on or off?
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
Now there'll be a rush on used M8s in the classifieds. M8 prices will go up!
Seriously, though I had never heard that the M8 had advantages over the M9 when it came to b&w, (me, I'm still living in the film age).
One advantage of the M8 over the MM; when all the b&w hype blows over, you'll still be able to shoot color.
Seriously, though I had never heard that the M8 had advantages over the M9 when it came to b&w, (me, I'm still living in the film age).
One advantage of the M8 over the MM; when all the b&w hype blows over, you'll still be able to shoot color.
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
The M8 - The King of B&W
There, I coined it...
Now people can add it to their classified adds.
There, I coined it...
Now people can add it to their classified adds.
cam
the need for speed
the M8 can still make stunning b/w even with the IR filter on.
however, there is a slight edge to using it without -- something i didn't really notice until i started shooting it after my M9 broke and i had my boyfriend bring the M8 to me for back-up. i forgot to tell him to bring the filters too, duh!
i honestly prefer it sans filters, but that is just because i like as much tonal sensitivity as i can get, especially for details in black. but the difference is probably minute and i'm just being anal.
if you use C1 to process your images, btw, Jamie Roberts made some beautiful profiles to deal with the whole IR issue so it is possible to shoot sans-filter and still get good colour.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'd believe that at first try the tools one is used to might produce better results than something new and very different which likely requires different skills in processing.
Shooting something like Adox CMS for the first time when one is used to using Tri-X comes to mind.
Shooting something like Adox CMS for the first time when one is used to using Tri-X comes to mind.
douglasf13
Well-known
Without controlled testing scenarios and examples posted, I find all of opinions about the M8 vs M9 vs MM rather dubious.
cam
the need for speed
definitely!
(add to that the possibly having to use different programs -- i really dislike Lightroom)
the interesting thing about the Monochrom is truly how little processing it needs in most cases. even as high ISO, especially when you nail exposure. there is something about the way it records that reminds me of low contrast film (but that could be because i shot it with older pre-asph lenses). in fact, the Monochrom has given new breath into a lot of my older lenses. i haven't seen such beautiful tones out of them since i shot on my R-D1 or M2.
cam
the need for speed
i could care less about brick walls.
i'm much more interested in the opinion of people that have shot all three cameras in similar situations and, yes, that also have an affinity for black and white (rather than it being a novelty).
even then, it's all subjective.
but i find the opinion of people that go through the boredom of pouring over controlled testing subjective as well.
twopointeight
Well-known
Thanks Cam for an experienced insight. I'll run a couple of tests today. I like LR because it's easy. I wonder why you don't like it? Where is that Jamie Roberts profile? Good work on Flickr. Do you go above 640 iso with the M8 in B&W?
Also, earlier in this thread, someone asked how I make 17X22 prints from M8 files. Here a very non-technical answer. I process RAW file in LR4 until it looks good. Export a large enough jpeg at 300 dpi. Import that jpeg back into LR and print. It works for me, although I am open to better workflow suggestions.
Also, earlier in this thread, someone asked how I make 17X22 prints from M8 files. Here a very non-technical answer. I process RAW file in LR4 until it looks good. Export a large enough jpeg at 300 dpi. Import that jpeg back into LR and print. It works for me, although I am open to better workflow suggestions.
cam
the need for speed
i took forever to get my head around C1 and, as convoluted as it is, it's my RAW processor of choice (i then take it into CS3 to tweak).... i just don't feel i have the same control in Lightroom... familiarity and all that!
Jamie's profiles were made only for C1, so it won't do you any good... back then, that's what came with and was recommended for the M's.
almost everything i do *is* b/w -- that's just the way i shoot... i look for light and lines and all that... if you do colour a lot, keep the filter on and don't be fussed!
i used to limit the M8 to 1250... i've gotten over that now, and will happily go up to 2500 when necessary. i've found exposing high ISO properly was more important than the actual number. i've also learned to embrace the noise and, when necessary, do a lot more dodging and burning rather than use noise reduction when it really gets up there.
btw, i even shot at 2500 on the M8 with the Noctilux this summer and (gasp!) kept it in colour. the lighting of the event and lack of IR filter made it almost look like it was shot in a strip bar -- just gorgeous skin tones
play around but, truly, don't get too fussed about it. more importantly, just go out and shoot and enjoy. the M8 is a wonderful camera!
icebear
Veteran
all words no photos... I own an M8, would love to own an MM some day, but probably won't in the near future. I'm a little colour blind so I convert most of my files to B&W unless my girlfriend helps me correct colour. I'm happy with what the M8 gives me. I usually only print as gifts to friends, so print size doesn't matter much for me. The M8 has a certain quality to the images it produces that can't be replaced by the newer digital M's (which I find produce files that are a little too plastic-y).
I don't know if it's better than the MM, but here's what I do with my M8, and I'm happy. I don't think the OP is delusional or absurd.
Hi Patrick,
thanks for posting these M8 B&W examples. I haven't jumped the wagon on a M8 when it came out but I was the first posting M8 shots here (color) on RFF. This camera is able to capture great images and if any owner is happy with the results this is great.
Hi folks,
I also think that the few examples of MM files (low quality max 200kb jpgs) will give anyone the idea that the MM is clearly ahead in IQ. That just give the MM owner the potential to produce a great image - if a dog or cat shot falls into this category is another matter. There have been B&W samples shown here that have been shot on different cameras than M8 or MM and these are truely great shots, no matter what equipment.
Whatever camera you use, enjoy it, get out there and shoot and show some results. Don't get all hung up if anyone has a different toy that scored a few % more in a set up lab test shooting test charts or brick walls
.An unprocessed file from the MM :
2/50 Planar, just resized for posting, no sharpening, no adjustments whatsoever.
borge
Established
I don't understand the point of this thread, as these are two totally different cameras that really can't be compared (1.3x crop versus full 35mm sensor).
I don't have anything against the M8, it's great for what it is if you can live with a crop sensor without lenses that are adapted to a crop sensor (like the Fuji X series or MFT's are for example).
The biggest reason for me to get the MM was to be able to go out during pitch black evenings, and do hand-held shooting at high ISO without any problem what-so-ever. The MM is very usable at 10000 ISO, and it is a blast to shoot hand-held with during the darkest period of the evening and night with only available light.
For my style of shooting the M9 wasn't good enough either. I do (and enjoy) low-light shooting a whole lot, and the MM is the first Leica that is usable for my style of shooting. And hopefully not the last.
I'll see your 640 (?) ISO with a 10000 ISO OOC JPEG @ f/1.4 that is properly exposed (high contrast and sharpness in camera, no NR) - totally uninteresting shot, I know, it IS a test-shot:
I don't have anything against the M8, it's great for what it is if you can live with a crop sensor without lenses that are adapted to a crop sensor (like the Fuji X series or MFT's are for example).
The biggest reason for me to get the MM was to be able to go out during pitch black evenings, and do hand-held shooting at high ISO without any problem what-so-ever. The MM is very usable at 10000 ISO, and it is a blast to shoot hand-held with during the darkest period of the evening and night with only available light.
For my style of shooting the M9 wasn't good enough either. I do (and enjoy) low-light shooting a whole lot, and the MM is the first Leica that is usable for my style of shooting. And hopefully not the last.
I'll see your 640 (?) ISO with a 10000 ISO OOC JPEG @ f/1.4 that is properly exposed (high contrast and sharpness in camera, no NR) - totally uninteresting shot, I know, it IS a test-shot:
Monochrom
Well-known
Ive owned an m8 and an m9...it´s true the m8 delivers punching files, but the m9 does it as well...
Besides high iso performance and crop faxctor i reaaly don´t see much difference between both cameras...
This shot was taken with my late m8 "upgrade" using the zeiss biogon 35/2 lens...at f4...
The lens has focus shift and this sample was optimized at f2.
I think the best way to use either camera is to match lighting conditions in order to get the best possible dynamic range and avoid higher contrast spots by decreasing in camera contrast or using less contrasty lenses...
Bye!
Besides high iso performance and crop faxctor i reaaly don´t see much difference between both cameras...
This shot was taken with my late m8 "upgrade" using the zeiss biogon 35/2 lens...at f4...
The lens has focus shift and this sample was optimized at f2.
I think the best way to use either camera is to match lighting conditions in order to get the best possible dynamic range and avoid higher contrast spots by decreasing in camera contrast or using less contrasty lenses...
Bye!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Comparison made by someone who owns M8 but doesn't own the Monochrome has been questioned by some who also own the M8 but don't own the Monochrome.
I own the M8 and not the Monochrome. I too have tested the Monochrome.
Eleskin has not shared results, only an opinion on what he saw in his results. We have also shared an opinion on what we have seen.
So: really. Seriously.
agianelo
Established
A comparsion of infrared pictures would probably show the M8 to be a clear winner, but alas, I have only tried this on my M8. Has someone else tried infrared on the M9 or MM?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I have made prints of both color and B&W M8 photos enlarged to 40x60cm that I contributed to a little exhibition w/others, one shot in ISO 640, and the other at ISO 1280 (guess which one was in B&W). The M8 is an incredibly capable camera that simply needs a bit more attention in post-processing. People didn't believe the B&W shot was an ISO 1280 from the M8. People who trash the M8 as "unusable at 640 and above" have no clue and will not be convinced because their postprocessing workflow is itself unusable for M8 files.
Anyway, people get trapped in the dichotomy "if it's not better then it's bad".
I think the Monochrome delivers awesome B&W files that when also post-processed properly have a very visible edge over the M8 at B&W.
When comparing a Big Mac to a Mac Cheeseburger, if you add lots of ketchup to both, true, there won't be much difference, and you may think the Cheeseburger is better...if you don't like the crunchiness of the lettuce.
Yes yes, bad comparison because the M8 is not a cheeseburger...