Vince Lupo
Whatever
Thanks Chris. Appreciated as well.
The one thing that I'm wrestling with is whether it's worth 'upgrading' -- it always seems that the newest and latest makes the 'old' one seem like yesterday's news. And I'm sure when the Monochrom 3 comes out down the road, it will be the same thing all over again.
It's a bit of a personal battle, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
The one thing that I'm wrestling with is whether it's worth 'upgrading' -- it always seems that the newest and latest makes the 'old' one seem like yesterday's news. And I'm sure when the Monochrom 3 comes out down the road, it will be the same thing all over again.
It's a bit of a personal battle, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
You are not alone (is there a song title in there somewhere/ ) Current internal debate is M240 (available UK at £3500 as new) versus M-A £3,100, yes chalk and cheese, but that's the nature of these personal decisions and my M8 persists in producing files just as good as it did in 2007
willie_901
Veteran
Yes, it is a battle. For any (every) camera, if one is enjoys using the camera and if the work is not limited by what the camera can do, upgrading is a luxury.
I have nothing against luxury. Of course what seems to be a luxury to me is a necessity to someone else, and vice versa.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Willie,
Thanks for your insights and sharing. Things get rather complicated and overwelming fast. Your explaination makes a lot of sense. IR can both contribute and compromise IQ depending on how it is utilized. No one good answer which allows for creative possibilities.
Cal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
For me, the M-P typ 240 has been almost revelatory ... I love this camera, it has pushed me to finally say "Enough! I don't need all this stuff..." and I'm selling off the absurd excess of photo gear that I've accumulated in the past few years.
My intent since the M-P arrived and proved itself to me has been to whittle down this vast over-much to the M-P, the X, and the E-M1 as my 'working' set of digital cameras, retain a few of my nostalgic favorite film cameras (M4-2, Nikon F, SWC, Rollei 35S, Voigtländer Perkeo II), and sell off everything else. It's been proceeding well.
The new MM246, however, I will add to my working camera kit. With the M-P as my main camera, I'd been thinking of buying a second body as a backup ... the MM246 will provide that and add new capability. For doing pinhole photography it will be outstanding due to the extreme sensitivity.
Back to the sales program... five more things to put on Ebay today.
G
My intent since the M-P arrived and proved itself to me has been to whittle down this vast over-much to the M-P, the X, and the E-M1 as my 'working' set of digital cameras, retain a few of my nostalgic favorite film cameras (M4-2, Nikon F, SWC, Rollei 35S, Voigtländer Perkeo II), and sell off everything else. It's been proceeding well.
The new MM246, however, I will add to my working camera kit. With the M-P as my main camera, I'd been thinking of buying a second body as a backup ... the MM246 will provide that and add new capability. For doing pinhole photography it will be outstanding due to the extreme sensitivity.
Back to the sales program... five more things to put on Ebay today.
G
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
P,
I'm still a very happy MM9 owner. My sensor after almost 2 1/2 years remains clean. Seldom go above 800 ISO. When and if I get any corrosion, at that time I'd likely upgrade, meanwhile I'll remain happy.
Also know that I don't have the additional funds required. Perhaps when my time comes up I might be able to get a chrome version of a MP-246.
There is a Chinese expression: Time is the best weapon; but in my case, "time is my friend."
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Godfrey,
You are correct. One could do a lot of great photography with a M-P 240 and a M-246 and cull down to only a few "secondary" cameras. Been thinking about this a lot too. Funds could be spent on printing.
Do I really need medium format? Film involves more work, but I still kinda love it.
Cal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I love 6x6 format, and the SWC is too special to let go of a second time. Even though I don't use it much, I missed my first one for the entire decade until I bought the second.
The real question is whether to let go of the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000. I have other ways of scanning/capturing 6x6 negs for processing, but the 9000 does the best job of it. On the other hand, it's a huge beast, I use it only rarely, I have to put it in the bedroom to store it since there's no place in the office, and selling it would pay for nearly half the price of the MM246.
Decision yet to be made.
G
Jager
Established
I love 6x6 format, and the SWC is too special to let go of a second time. Even though I don't use it much, I missed my first one for the entire decade until I bought the second.
The real question is whether to let go of the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000. I have other ways of scanning/capturing 6x6 negs for processing, but the 9000 does the best job of it. On the other hand, it's a huge beast, I use it only rarely, I have to put it in the bedroom to store it since there's no place in the office, and selling it would pay for nearly half the price of the MM246.
Decision yet to be made.
G
Buy the Hasselblad Flextight X1 (or X5). It is very tall vertically, but has a very modest footprint. Very space efficient!
The sterling image quality is a bonus... ;-)
KM-25
Well-known
I think my favorite thing about these cameras is that I have noticed it has more people trying black and white film which is good for me because that is as good as it gets in photography and helps to keep it healthy. Some now do both and a couple ( on Leica User Forum ) have sold the MM and gone completely over to wet printing.
Good for Leica for doing it and keeping it going with new models, taking care of those who use digital products.
Good for Leica for doing it and keeping it going with new models, taking care of those who use digital products.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I wouldn't have a space to store that either, it's actually more problematic than the Nikon box, and the notion of spending $6000-$12,000 to acquire one does nothing to help fund the purchase of the MM246 even if I sold the Nikon for $3500.
Thanks for the suggestion, however.
G
uhoh7
Veteran
Thorsten Overgaard: [re new 246] "On behalf of the finical department, I'm thrilled!"
He goes on:
"The glory of the new Leica M Monochrom Type 246 - from an accountants viewpoint - is that it is basically a Leica M-P 240 with a different paint and leather, plus a different sensor and firmware. It's the ideal camera in terms of research & development costs, production planning and actual production."
that said, I think he likes it.
http://overgaard.dk/leica-M-Monochrom-Type-246-Digital-Rangefinder-Camera-black-and-white-sensor-page-26-The-Leica-M-246-CMOS-Monochrom.html
He goes on:
"The glory of the new Leica M Monochrom Type 246 - from an accountants viewpoint - is that it is basically a Leica M-P 240 with a different paint and leather, plus a different sensor and firmware. It's the ideal camera in terms of research & development costs, production planning and actual production."
that said, I think he likes it.
http://overgaard.dk/leica-M-Monochrom-Type-246-Digital-Rangefinder-Camera-black-and-white-sensor-page-26-The-Leica-M-246-CMOS-Monochrom.html
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I love 6x6 format, and the SWC is too special to let go of a second time. Even though I don't use it much, I missed my first one for the entire decade until I bought the second.
The real question is whether to let go of the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000. I have other ways of scanning/capturing 6x6 negs for processing, but the 9000 does the best job of it. On the other hand, it's a huge beast, I use it only rarely, I have to put it in the bedroom to store it since there's no place in the office, and selling it would pay for nearly half the price of the MM246.
Decision yet to be made.
G
Godfrey,
I have a Whiteface 3.5F 120/220 Rollie that I only paid $999.00 for that I had to get Fleenored because it was a Shelf Queen. No way I'll ever get another Rollie like this one.
If I didn't own a Plaubel 69W "Proshift" I'd have to buy a SWC.
I understand your dilema rather fully. Shooting the square is a very different experience, and so is shooting medium format film. For me I seem to annoy people because with film I shoot with the intention to only wet print, and I never intended to scan. One day I hope to have a darkroom again to wet print again.
May I suggest keeping on shooting film, but consider eventually wet printing. My reason for concentrating on image capture is that currently film is still readily available and affordable. I really went crazy with shooting a lot of film when I could buy rebranded Acros for $1.89 a roll and rebranded Tri-X for $2.89 a roll. Nothing wrong with concentrating on image capture, except you will annoy people. LOL. BTW one summer I averaged shooting 150 rolls a month. Of course I also processed all that film myself.
I think perhaps in a decade or decade and a half when film becomes no longer practical due to limited availability and high costs that I will be very happy that I wisely concentrated on making just negatives and put off the printing for later.
Cal
jcrutcher
Veteran
Godfrey,
I agree with Cal. I thought of selling my 9000 also for the same reason, space. Before I did I tried many scanning sources for my medium format (favorite is Rollei 3.5F just like Cal's). I only shoot 2-3 rolls per month of 6X6 so I thought I would find someone to scan them. Wrong, after trying 4 different sources with lackluster results i pulled the scanner out this weekend and I'm in love again. 465M for a 6X6 and 45M's for a 35mm negative. Thats the reason I'm keeping the 9000, nothing compares.
For what it's worth.
Jim
I agree with Cal. I thought of selling my 9000 also for the same reason, space. Before I did I tried many scanning sources for my medium format (favorite is Rollei 3.5F just like Cal's). I only shoot 2-3 rolls per month of 6X6 so I thought I would find someone to scan them. Wrong, after trying 4 different sources with lackluster results i pulled the scanner out this weekend and I'm in love again. 465M for a 6X6 and 45M's for a 35mm negative. Thats the reason I'm keeping the 9000, nothing compares.
For what it's worth.
Jim
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Hypothetically then :
camera A has a 10 stop dynamic range and a 14 bit depth
camera B has a 12 stop dynamic range and a 12 bit depth.
camera A will have excelent tonality on low contrast scenes.
camera A will blow the highlights or lose shadow detail in harsh light.
camera B will have limited mid tone differentiation
camera B will retain more shadow and highlight detail in harsh light.
camera A is equivalent to a film with normal development
camera B is equivalent to a film with pull processing.
Is this analogy flawed ?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Cal,
Rolleiflex TLRs were my first love in MF: My grandfather loaned me the same 1949 Rolleiflex Automat that my uncle learned photography with when I started High School. Over the years I had five of them, including the 3.5F Whiteface, and loved them all. I'm afraid to look at them nowadays as I usually give in to the impulse buy... ;-)
Enjoy your Whiteface and your Plaubel! For me it's come down to the pocketable Perkeo II and the ultra-wide SWC. I don't shoot MF in any volume, never did other than a brief period when a Mamiya 645 was my only camera, but when I do I enjoy it immensely. I think it's the modest pace of shooting and keeping the keeper count up that I love about it, besides the feel and texture of medium format film images.
Hasselblad SWC - Ilford Delta 3200
Personally, I'll likely never wet print again. I was never too fond of the process although I did it for almost 30 years (1963 to 1992). Although I'd like to think that I had become reasonable skilled at it, when I look at prints I started making in 2005 (the year I feel image processing/inkjet printing caught up to my needs with the introduction of the Epson R2400 and some good papers), they are far far better quality than the best of my wet lab prints on every level I consider them by. When it comes to printing, I'm simply much more adept at image processing and managing a good inkjet printer than I'll ever be at the tedium that is wet lab work. So wet lab printing is not an option for me.
I'm getting too old to think about doing things "in a decade or a decade and a half". :-\ Yeah, I hope/expect to still be around and kicking, but planning with that as a premise carries a bit of risk. I'd rather concentrate on doing photography, making photographs, making books, etc, now, while I can enjoy doing and sharing it.
Returning to the subject of this thread, I've ordered an MM246. The wait begins...
G
Rolleiflex TLRs were my first love in MF: My grandfather loaned me the same 1949 Rolleiflex Automat that my uncle learned photography with when I started High School. Over the years I had five of them, including the 3.5F Whiteface, and loved them all. I'm afraid to look at them nowadays as I usually give in to the impulse buy... ;-)
Enjoy your Whiteface and your Plaubel! For me it's come down to the pocketable Perkeo II and the ultra-wide SWC. I don't shoot MF in any volume, never did other than a brief period when a Mamiya 645 was my only camera, but when I do I enjoy it immensely. I think it's the modest pace of shooting and keeping the keeper count up that I love about it, besides the feel and texture of medium format film images.
Hasselblad SWC - Ilford Delta 3200
Personally, I'll likely never wet print again. I was never too fond of the process although I did it for almost 30 years (1963 to 1992). Although I'd like to think that I had become reasonable skilled at it, when I look at prints I started making in 2005 (the year I feel image processing/inkjet printing caught up to my needs with the introduction of the Epson R2400 and some good papers), they are far far better quality than the best of my wet lab prints on every level I consider them by. When it comes to printing, I'm simply much more adept at image processing and managing a good inkjet printer than I'll ever be at the tedium that is wet lab work. So wet lab printing is not an option for me.
I'm getting too old to think about doing things "in a decade or a decade and a half". :-\ Yeah, I hope/expect to still be around and kicking, but planning with that as a premise carries a bit of risk. I'd rather concentrate on doing photography, making photographs, making books, etc, now, while I can enjoy doing and sharing it.
Returning to the subject of this thread, I've ordered an MM246. The wait begins...
G
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
F.I.T.,
I think my use of a Heliopan 2X yellow marked "DIGITAL" (added UV and IR filtering) compresses the contrast to fit the ten stop dynamic range you mention above on my MM9. The 10-zone histogram and the clipping indicators (set at 1%) support what you suggest. The use of this specific filter I think matches the sweet spot of the MM9 sensor (CCD).
I get a very broad histogram that displays mucho midrange that IMHO simulates a medium format film tonality. Also know that very minor if any post processing is required because image capture has been optimized. Also know that the way I shoot is more like a large format shooter who is going to contact print.
I do not have any experience with camera B so I refrain from comment.
Thanks for adding to the conversation.
Cal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Jim,
Oh, I am not seriously thinking of selling the 9000. It's rather a bit of the mind game: "if I were to sell one of the scanners, which one should I sell ... the Coolscan V or the 9000?" I do more 35mm than MF, but the 9000 is an awesome scanner for 35mm too. And for Minox format (I have a custom made adapter for Minox for it ...). Yet I use the V much much more.
I have a very good optical setup to capture 6x6 negs to digital netting ~16 MPixel image resolution, and I've used that to 'scan' about a third of my 6x6 negs in the past year (LOL ... that means 12 exposures!). That's plenty of data for my usual print requirements. It's just not as consistent or automated as using the scanner, and of course the scanner is much higher resolution/pixel count.
G
Oh, I am not seriously thinking of selling the 9000. It's rather a bit of the mind game: "if I were to sell one of the scanners, which one should I sell ... the Coolscan V or the 9000?" I do more 35mm than MF, but the 9000 is an awesome scanner for 35mm too. And for Minox format (I have a custom made adapter for Minox for it ...). Yet I use the V much much more.
I have a very good optical setup to capture 6x6 negs to digital netting ~16 MPixel image resolution, and I've used that to 'scan' about a third of my 6x6 negs in the past year (LOL ... that means 12 exposures!). That's plenty of data for my usual print requirements. It's just not as consistent or automated as using the scanner, and of course the scanner is much higher resolution/pixel count.
G