Leica Monochrom M246

[Godfrey]

Looks nice. Maybe I'll order one this afternoon.

G

 

[Calzone]

With the new M246, you wouldn't need the speed. Maybe the character of f/1.4, but certainly not speed!

Good point, but shutter speed is always your best friend when shooting digital.

Also you are right: the 28 Cron wide open and a 50 Lux ASPH wide open are kinda wonderful. I also need to share these lenses, because I can't afford more.

Cal

 

[Corran]

The true advantage of a MM is the resolution. No example I could upload would show you what this camera can do. You can make crazy Salgado sized prints of 60x72 inches if you have a high shutter speed and perfect technic.

So, assuming you cropped to that aspect ratio from a 24mp file, you would have a 4800x4000 pixel file. That equates to a bit under 70dpi.

Hmm. I don't think that's going to hold up. Even if its the sharpest and most perfect 24mp out there.

 

[Monochrom]

Savings

Savings

I´ll start to save money seriously.

 

[SuperUJ]

the Bayer Filter Array degrades resolution by about a third.

This image from the OP may help illustrate Cal's point.

Mikhail's questions is almost similar to this one in film:
Does a color negative have the same dynamic range as a regular b&w film negative?
http://www.largeformatphotography.i...amic-range-as-a-regular-b-amp-w-film-negative

For me, it's not (only) the resolution. Rather, the dynamic range, the use of contrast filters (like in B&W films), the simplicity (purity), the post processing of the MM that make it one of a kind. The low noise in high ISO does not hurt neither.

John

 

[MIkhail]

Mikhail,
The true advantage of a MM is the resolution. No example I could upload would show you what this camera can do. You can make crazy Salgado sized prints of 60x72 inches if you have a high shutter speed and perfect technic.
You make a very good point that if one never prints beyond big meaning huge that perhaps this advantage is kinda moot.
Cal

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are experienced enough as a photographer to be able to answer this question for your self

Calzone: Thank you for such a detailed answer.

Kwesi: Obviously I made my own choice a while ago (one year of my daughter enjoying college life in dorm vs. at home is not worth the camera for me), but I am not trying to belittle somebody else’s decision, just curious to understand.
Apparently, I was looking for the wrong advantages.Resolution is not even in my top 10 definition of “good photograph”, but again, that’s me... Still, I cannot imagine that all the people buying MM are after printing huge…
Thanks again.

 

[MIkhail]

This image from the OP may help illustrate Cal's point.


Mikhail's questions is almost similar to this one in film:
Does a color negative have the same dynamic range as a regular b&w film negative?

For me, it's not (only) the resolution. Rather, the dynamic range, the use of contrast filters (like in B&W films), the simplicity (purity), the post processing of the MM that make it one of a kind. The low noise in high ISO does not hurt neither.

John

Now, dynamic range is something I can understand. So please, show the example of something, as I was asking originally.

 

[jsrockit]

Still, I cannot imagine that all the people buying MM are after printing huge…

Note that you already told people you weren't interested in what is most likely the #1 reason most people buy the camera.

 

[Calzone]

So, assuming you cropped to that aspect ratio from a 24mp file, you would have a 4800x4000 pixel file. That equates to a bit under 70dpi.

Hmm. I don't think that's going to hold up. Even if its the sharpest and most perfect 24mp out there.

Corran,

I don't doubt your math. 70 dpi is not much.

The zoomed in crop was an 8x10 of a 60x72 inch print that was wet printed. I'm not saying that the wet print on fiber wasn't a little fuzzy, but still the resolution was remarkable. In such a large print it still somehow held together.

Salgado in his Genesis show made these monster sized prints from Pentax 645 negatives and a Canon DSLR making wet prints via digital 4x5 inch negatives. The IQ was kinda stunning, but even with this custom lab in Paris you could see a little fuzzyness if I zoomed in and eyeballed for detail on the supersized prints real close up.

I kinda decided that 24x36 inch was plenty big for the Monochrom but I also saw that I could come pretty close to Salgado using DSI. At a certain point proper viewing distance obscures the fine detail to the point that you really have to get remarkably close to see any fuzziness to the same kinda level as in the Genesis exhibition.

In comparing a wet print to an ink jet print, the detail is sharper in my inkjet prints, but the wet prints are smoother, and this smoothness of the wet print seems to get exaggerated as you print bigger. This is when comparing the same files shot with the Monochrom.

Help me understand what is going on here.

Cal

 

[segedi]

My reasons for buying would be:
Dedicated B&W camera

High ISO - the ability to photograph in a basement jazz club for example where the ISO 10,000 of the MM was a stretch at f/1.4

Same form factor as M240 making it an easier system to pair up with what I have.

M mount lenses - I have a very nice DSLR and the lenses simply don't compare. M-mount lenses have a look that I like very much.

Dynamic range - judging on a very good monitor and prints are an advantage. Though I'm not lacking that in the M240.

 

[segedi]

I kinda decided that 24x36 inch was plenty big for the Monochrom...

Full frame prints!

 

[jsrockit]

So, assuming you cropped to that aspect ratio from a 24mp file, you would have a 4800x4000 pixel file. That equates to a bit under 70dpi.

Hmm. I don't think that's going to hold up. Even if its the sharpest and most perfect 24mp out there.

If you are printing a 5x6 foot print, it won't have to hold-up up close. Large images in Museums have been made with way worse files.

 

[MIkhail]

Note that you already told people you weren't interested in what is most likely the #1 reason most people buy the camera.

Are my comments bothering you?

 

[Godfrey]

MIkhail,

grEGORy's review might provide the data you are looking for: http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/

He does a good piece of careful comparison between MM, M240, and M246, at low and high sensitivity settings, and shows examples of the differences.

G

 

[Calzone]

Calzone: Thank you for such a detailed answer.

Kwesi: Obviously I made my own choice a while ago (one year of my daughter enjoying college life in dorm vs. at home is not worth the camera for me), but I am not trying to belittle somebody else’s decision, just curious to understand.
Apparently, I was looking for the wrong advantages.Resolution is not even in my top 10 definition of “good photograph”, but again, that’s me... Still, I cannot imagine that all the people buying MM are after printing huge…
Thanks again.

Mikhail,

The MM is a nitch camera. It offers great resolution, but unused what is the point. For me it is likely an ultimate tool for what I want to do or attempt.

I saw Salgado's Genesis show at ICP. It was really inspiring how far SS took IQ and he printed not big, but huge. It was a very crazy and ambitious thing to do. Anyways the body of work spanned about a decade, but I had to wonder what if Salgado used a Leica Monochrom instead of using a Pentax 645 to shoot medium format film, and a Canon DSLR that had a color sensor.

To get back to your original question, my Monochrom using DSI to make wet prints came really close to Salgado's quality. My shots were handheld and were not tripod shots. Also know I am not SS.

Anyways Genesis was a great show, and some of my images (perfect exposure, high shutter speed, perfect focus) were not that far away in IQ.
BTW the images that meet a Salgado standard to print Salgado huge in my file library are not that many.

Cal

 

[MIkhail]

Anyways Genesis was a great show, and some of my images (perfect exposure, high shutter speed, perfect focus) were not that far away in IQ.
BTW the images that meet a Salgado standard to print Salgado huge in my file library are not that many.

Cal

I saw Salgado in a gallery while visiting Miami street photography festival, but I think those were prints from film. Impressively huge, no doubt.

 

[MIkhail]

MIkhail,

grEGORy's review might provide the data you are looking for: http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/

He does a good piece of careful comparison between MM, M240, and M246, at low and high sensitivity settings, and shows examples of the differences.

G

Thank you.

 

[Corran]

...
The zoomed in crop was an 8x10 of a 60x72 inch print that was wet printed. I'm not saying that the wet print on fiber wasn't a little fuzzy, but still the resolution was remarkable. In such a large print it still somehow held together.

In comparing a wet print to an ink jet print, the detail is sharper in my inkjet prints, but the wet prints are smoother, and this smoothness of the wet print seems to get exaggerated as you print bigger. This is when comparing the same files shot with the Monochrom.

Help me understand what is going on here.

Cal

There's a lot going on from Point A (24mp file) to Point B (digital wet print).

I think there's quite a bit of difference between softness in a wet print and artifacting/pixelation from too low of a DPI on an ink print. And of course you probably aren't printing direct from the file, but uprezzing and processing the file for print. Or your lab is doing it and doing everything to make sure it works acceptably.

Personally, I printed two 36x24 images from my old D700 (about 115 DPI native). I uprezzed them, processed them as well as I could, and had them printed by a lab. One looked absolutely terrible. The other looked okay. The difference was in the images (detail vs. homogeneity, difference in tonality spread. The one with delicate tones looked awful).

This could quickly get into digital vs. film (or ink vs. wet vs. whatever) but honestly I think the reason your prints might look okay is because they are wet printed, which inherently probably smudges the details and therefore the problems and you are left with an okay, if soft, print. Which may be totally acceptable.

As I mostly shoot landscape/architecture/urban stuff I want the detail. Which is part of the reason I use 4x5. I also print my own stuff (wet/ink) so I'm aware of the limitations of the medium(s) and how to get the best I can out of a file. Also, depending on what I'm going for, sometimes I shoot with bold colors, sometimes with very delicate greyscale tones, and in my experience that's the tough part for digital.

If you are printing a 5x6 foot print, it won't have to hold-up up close. Large images in Museums have been made with way worse files.

In my opinion viewing distance in a gallery is a myth. If patrons can get up to the print, they will get up to the print. The usual caveats about billboard images is correct, because no one sees them up close or even within hundreds of feet usually, but something in a gallery is a different animal.

 

[mexipike]

I just got a monochrom last month and I absolutely love it. I knew that the new one would be coming out soon, but I wanted to be shooting now not on a waitlist. And the $2500 in savings off a new one is a lot of money to me.

I think I'm in the same boat as calzone, in that Leica made a digital camera just for me in the monochrom! Unfortunately, I don't have the funds to get the new one too, but I'm not worried about that.

I shoot 90% black and white film and print in a darkroom. I've used a m6 for years a long with a mamiya 7ii and a rollei 6008af. For me the new monochrom is not so much about the high resolution print size, though I do like that a lot, it's about the ability to capture images with a long incredible tonal scale the same way I can work with film. Of course one could do a great job with a color camera, but for me, and it sounds like Calzone too, if what you really care about is black and white imagery why not get a camera designed for that.

 

[Calzone]

There's a lot going on from Point A (24mp file) to Point B (digital wet print).

I think there's quite a bit of difference between softness in a wet print and artifacting/pixelation from too low of a DPI on an ink print. And of course you probably aren't printing direct from the file, but uprezzing and processing the file for print. Or your lab is doing it and doing everything to make sure it works acceptably.

Personally, I printed two 36x24 images from my old D700 (about 115 DPI native). I uprezzed them, processed them as well as I could, and had them printed by a lab. One looked absolutely terrible. The other looked okay. The difference was in the images (detail vs. homogeneity, difference in tonality spread. The one with delicate tones looked awful).

This could quickly get into digital vs. film (or ink vs. wet vs. whatever) but honestly I think the reason your prints might look okay is because they are wet printed, which inherently probably smudges the details and therefore the problems and you are left with an okay, if soft, print. Which may be totally acceptable.

As I mostly shoot landscape/architecture/urban stuff I want the detail. Which is part of the reason I use 4x5. I also print my own stuff (wet/ink) so I'm aware of the limitations of the medium(s) and how to get the best I can out of a file. Also, depending on what I'm going for, sometimes I shoot with bold colors, sometimes with very delicate greyscale tones, and in my experience that's the tough part for digital.



In my opinion viewing distance in a gallery is a myth. If patrons can get up to the print, they will get up to the print. The usual caveats about billboard images is correct, because no one sees them up close or even within hundreds of feet usually, but something in a gallery is a different animal.

Corran,

Thanks for your insights. Your explanation about the smudging of detail makes sense. BTW the one file that I was considering for printing huge was an urban landscape that has mucho detail.

Also know that I shoot a lot of B&W in 120 in 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. The Monochrom gets really close to 120 film in tonality, and I definately get the mids of medium format. My trick I learned is to use specifically Heliopan 2X yellow filters marked "Digital." It seems these filters marked "Digital" have both a UV and IR filters built in as well as the 2X yellow that is the sweet spot on my Monochrom. Broad histograms that lack clipping is pretty easy to do. It seems light that otherwise contributes to clipping is tamed to the point that clipping is either greatly reduced or eliminated.

Like a large format shooter I shoot as if I am going to contact print, and my post processing in LR is very minimal. The mids are rich. Also the 28 Cron is a magic lens on the MM.

Also know that I'm using Piezography on a 3880 for B&W. Really complements my MM.

Cal