Leica Monochrome vs ........

A

Alentejo

Newbie
Local time
12:05 AM
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
5
The Leica Monochrome is out of reach for many amateurs.
Which digital camera comes close in black & white to the Leica Monochrome sensor?
 
A friend, a professional, highly recommended the Fuji X cameras to me for black and white. He switched to an XPro2 from a Leica Monochrom. This was just uploaded from today - it's from an XT30 using the 27mm f2.8 Fuji lens and the Acros film emulation with red filter option. This is a jpeg straight from camera, absolutely no post processing at all.

naturalhistoryhall-1-of-1.jpg
 
Done this a hundred different ways, and the runner-up was the X-trans sensor. And by runner-up, that means #2, not that it was close to an M246. The problem with color cameras is that they do lose resolving power in the translation. It's not 100%, it's more like 20 by the numbers, but the affect of an M246 is like TMY with a light green filter. So it is brutally sharp.

The other piece is that wavelength cuts are far easier to do with glass than software, especially when you get into the equivalent of orange filters. You end up with halos and aliasing if you do it in a raw converter like Lightroom. Fuji's X series internal filters are pretty mild; Charles' picture above is indicative of how these look; if you are a midtone fiend, it is kind of meh.

That said, a Sony R converted for realsies to monochrome and processed that way should be good, and the test pictures show it, though requiring care in conversion. The problem is that it's not that affordable of Monochrome Services does it and super-not-affordable if MaxMax does (LDP).

Dante
 
This is a no brainer. Just buy an Epson or an M8 and enjoy. Those two make the best B&W digital files I've ever seen.
 
I second the Foveon suggestion. I own the DP Merrills and XPro2 and much prefer the sigmas results.
The XPro does deliver nice images and I do use it a lot when taking several pictures (eg Holidays) but for a more selected Nr of images, I always prefer the Foveon but need to spend some time post processing.
 
Alentejo said:
Which digital camera comes close in black & white to the Leica Monochrome sensor?
Click to expand...

I cannot make a direct comparison because I have never owned or used a Leica Monochrome. However, I have been very pleased using the Canon G15 compact and the Olympus micro 4/3 as monochrome cameras.

I use the G15 as a black & white test camera when shooting with a 4x5 view camera because the G15 can give me a 4x5 aspect ratio for composition.

The Olympus micro 4/3 camera with Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 normal lens, Olympus 45mm f/1.8 telephoto lens, and Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 wide-angle lens produces excellent monochrome images.



Digital Monochromes by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
The look of bw is just as color. Very subjective. Some likes M8, some GR. I like Q bw.
Just how it looks on the screen, at typical forum sized picture.
I have seen just very few good pictures with Monochrome. The rest is nothing special to ugly (to me). But those very few good ones, I never seen this good from other cameras.

Also, every time I look at Monochrome large pictures at 1:1 this is where Leica is not surpassed. Maybe Sigma is same or better, but it is not the camera for regular use (IMO).
 
james.liam said:
Any Ricoh GR digital.

Some of the most striking OOC jpegs I've seen.
Click to expand...

I've never shot a MM, but the B&W output from the old Ricoh GR Digital IV is surprisingly good, especially for such a small 10 megapixel, 1/1.7" sensor. Like the MM, it uses a CCD sensor.







 
oldwino said:
This is true...but somehow the Monochrom is its own genre. It’s different than film.
Click to expand...

Actually, the thing you quoted is 100% not true.

A lot of us have film cameras and you can buy a lot of B&W film for the price of these digital paragons...
Click to expand...

"These digital paragons" mentioned in this thread will cost less than money spend on film withing couple of years.
If you are into photography, not just into owning of film camera.
In fact, initial cost (scanner and developing kit) will surpass the cost of some digital cameras mentioned here.

And if you are not developing, scan, print by yourself then the thing you quoted is 100% false.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
"These digital paragons" mentioned in this thread will cost less than money spend on film withing couple of years.
If you are into photography, not just into owning of film camera.
In fact, initial cost (scanner and developing kit) will surpass the cost of some digital cameras mentioned here.

And if you are not developing, scan, print by yourself then the thing you quoted is 100% false.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda onboard with KoFe here.

I paid about $8K more than 5 years ago for my MM. I know that this camera has a crappy LCD, a small buffer, not the best High ISO, no video... but for me it is the one digital camera that is most like a film camera because it is so basic, simple, crude and raw. That is its charm.

Leica overhauled it for me for free, and I had the sensor replaced for free. Happy-happy. I used my MM so heavily that I wore the covering smooth. Also the edges of the top plate are "silvering" because I'm wearing through the black anodize.

I figure that today this camera is well paid for and is now a "free" camera. I know that $8k is a lot of money, the plan when I bought it was to use it a lot, and it does seem like over time it has proven to be very valuable.

In a way the MM made me a much better photographer and also a better printer. Know that I use to be primarily a B&W film only guy who went to art school in the 70's.

Buying the MM (still a great camera) was some of the best money I ever spent. Of course YMMV.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
I'm kinda onboard with KoFe here.

I paid about $8K more than 5 years ago for my MM. I know that this camera has a crappy LCD, a small buffer, not the best High ISO, no video... but for me it is the one digital camera that is most like a film camera because it is so basic, simple, crude and raw. That is its charm.

Leica overhauled it for me for free, and I had the sensor replaced for free. Happy-happy. I used my MM so heavily that I wore the covering smooth. Also the edges of the top plate are "silvering" because I'm wearing through the black anodize.

I figure that today this camera is well paid for and is now a "free" camera. I know that $8k is a lot of money, the plan when I bought it was to use it a lot, and it does seem like over time it has prove to be very valuable.

In a way the MM made me a much better photographer and also a better printer. Know that I use to be primarily a B&W film only guy who went to art school in the 70's.

Buying the MM (still a great camera) was some of the best money I ever spent. Of course YMMV.

Cal
Click to expand...

+++++1 Well Said and I agree. I also have the original and have no plans to upgrade. Well lets see what the M10 version looks like if one ever is made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom