jarski
Veteran
how would more IR-sensitive sensor (vs. newer) improve normal B&W conversions?
curious about this, as most of my own Monochrom shots were at night in very low light (read: high ISO)... i found those images a breeze in PP.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.
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.
curious about this, as most of my own Monochrom shots were at night in very low light (read: high ISO)... i found those images a breeze in PP.
but i do agree that lower ISO images on the Monochrom can look almost Medium format to my eyes... do you find that those need more finessing to achieve that look?
After 57 posts, this is the first rational explanation given to support the OP.
What the hell? I mentioned the weak IR filter as the reason on the first page of the thread (post 18).
If you ARE actually interested in the topic (I'm beginning to suspect trolling) then get the back number of LFI I mentioned above: November 2010. The front cover headline: "M8 revisited - infrared sensitivity meets black & white: a good combination". There's 8 pages of explanation (with images) as to why the M8 is so great for b&w.
Naturally I don't expect anyone to actually go and buy this back number. Why bother getting real information when knee-jerk opinions and ignorance work just as well when discussing stuff on the net?
No need to get all hot and bothered. This is simply a discussion forum. My opinion based only on logic and reason (see post #2 - no horse in this race) is that the M8 does not produce Tecnically better results than the M mono. You have a different opinion. Fine. I'd like to see some proof one way or the other. Did the article you refer to do this comparison? No?
Hey man - you're getting it all wrong AGAIN. You just don't bother actually listening to what's being said. NOWHERE do I say the M8 is technically better than the Monochrom. I'd expect the reverse. What I said is that it would be a more interesting comparison than the MM vs the M9.
Helluva hang-up you've got about this issue, bud.
thank you, Gabriel.I only have a handful that I played with, most at anything over 1250.
Yeah, given a properly post-processed M8 file, if I give a file from the Monochrom the same attention, the Monochrom definitely wins. I wouldn't be surprised that when given it a "quick" processing, the same shot with same high ISO settings on both cameras, the Monochrom would win hands down in any read-over-lunch online review.
Anyway, that's why after I got these shots that I was even more dismayed that Leica decided to use some awfully-processed photos to introduce the camera. I really think that the same thought and care they put into engineering, that they could put into their editing and marketing department. Those photos they showed when they announced the camera are a technical fail. They may be nice to look at and surely they'd fetch thousands of dollars. But are not representative of what the Monochrom can do. Those photos could have been shot with my smartphone and made to look that way in post-processing.
But then again, reading intertoobes forum postings show that when extrapolation and speculation reign over actually knowing and showing what you're talking about --yes, the irony doesn't escape me when I'm not posting any photos; since I have not uploaded those shots because they're really crappy, I'm not going to go out of my way to post it here (posting photos directly to RFF is a major pain in the b.)
i haven't been around here much, obviously, but i was interested in what Gabriel had to say. and i would have been interested with your thoughts as well, but i guess i missed that.Still a waste of bandwidth, this thread
i haven't been around here much, obviously, but i was interested in what Gabriel had to say. and i would have been interested with your thoughts as well, but i guess i missed that.
and i'd like to think maybe i helped somebody?
sorry i/we bored you.
but now i remember why i've been staying away from the forums.
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.
I have compared the MM against both the M9 and M8 as I own all three of them .For black and white I would rate them MM-gap-M8-M9.Hey man - you're getting it all wrong AGAIN. You just don't bother actually listening to what's being said. NOWHERE do I say the M8 is technically better than the Monochrom. I'd expect the reverse. What I said is that it would be a more interesting comparison than the MM vs the M9.
Helluva hang-up you've got about this issue, bud.
I have compared the MM against both the M9 and M8 as I own all three of them .For black and white I would rate them MM-gap-M8-M9.
Let alone be bothered to take any meaningful comparisons....cause hopefully they care more about going and shooting meaningful work.
fair enough, Kristen. and, apologies, i really didn't mean to attack you (if it sounded that way) 😱
i think the Monochrom is the bees knees and would have it in my hands if i had the money. it is the digital camera that has my name on it.
however, i gained a new appreciation (even though i always realised it) in b/w work for the M8 after getting quite a few prints professionally done from both the M8 and the M9. the one that really stood out (could have been subject matter as well, a portrait of my aunt on the canal in Amsterdam with beautiful fall light) was one from the M8 at base ISO.
i don't doubt that that the Monochrom can better it, but the tonality is definitely different. i accept that people have different likes/dislikes and may prefer one over the other. (though at higher ISO -- absolutely NO comparison!)
silly me.