M Typ 240 vs M Monochrom

[Rotarysmp]

Also missing my option.

7) Keep the M8.

 

[HenningW]

Since the thing that annoyed me most about the M9 (and 8) was the sluggishness in various operations, the M240 is the camera for me. I'll keep the M9 for backup/second camera for a while, but it will probably go.

The M240 files are so good that now, after a month and a half of experience, they outperform the M9 files by a noticeable margin. On top of that, the camera is of course a lot more responsive and in use feels much more like a film M than the 8 or 9 did. The extra weight 'disappears' after shooting with it a bit. I also don't like the bottom plate, as it's existence is even more problematic on the M240 than it was on the 8 & 9, and I really dislike the exporsure compensation contortions, but that is hopefully! fixable in firmware. For the most part, the M240 is a much more 'transparent' camera than the M9, and provides a more fluid shooting experience.

The live view is another option and welcome, but will play a minor part in my use. I've yet to push the 'M' button intentionally.

Henning

 

[airfrogusmc]

Sounds perfectly logical, you'll love the MM.

Agree....
I love mine.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Tough choice: Kodachrome 64 or Pan-F?

 

[clayne]

Knowing what i know now, I'd love to have k64 back with the ability to actually get it processed. 🙂

 

[Turtle]

One has to accept that if using digital you need to know your post processing in order to achieve the results you want. I spent a hell of a lot of time working on my wet processing, so why should I expect a digital camera to give me 'the perfect look' right out of the box?

Monochrom files have bags of tonal flexibility and bags of resolution. Sounds rather like MF film to me, only you can do whatever you want in post. I own one and, as an experienced film and Canon digital user, am very confident that it is miles ahead of my 5D III for B&W.

There are no shortcuts to being a master of your craft. Using TriX won't make your prints look like Salgado's any quicker than "XXXX' digital camera will speed up the process of becoming a digital master. Print making is a separate art and the Monochrom offers a superb starting point.

Monochrom is like an overly glazed piece of imitation plastic Tri-X. Resolution may be good (and it is) but it just has zero soul/feel. Reminds me of Teflon.

 

[Vince Lupo]

One has to accept that if using digital you need to know your post processing in order to achieve the results you want. I spent a hell of a lot of time working on my wet processing, so why should I expect a digital camera to give me 'the perfect look' right out of the box?

Monochrom files have bags of tonal flexibility and bags of resolution. Sounds rather like MF film to me, only you can do whatever you want in post. I own one and, as an experienced film and Canon digital user, am very confident that it is miles ahead of my 5D III for B&W.

There are no shortcuts to being a master of your craft. Using TriX won't make your prints look like Salgado's any quicker than "XXXX' digital camera will speed up the process of becoming a digital master. Print making is a separate art and the Monochrom offers a superb starting point.

+1 to this. I suspect that many people who dismiss the Monochrom as a poor imitation of what black and white 'should' be have likely never seen a print from a Monochrom file. In a word, they are stunning, and (to my potentially questionable eye, anyway) they are every bit as good as a print from a 35mm neg.

 

[airfrogusmc]

+1 to this. I suspect that many people who dismiss the Monochrom as a poor imitation of what black and white 'should' be have likely never seen a print from a Monochrom file. In a word, they are stunning, and (to my potentially questionable eye, anyway) they are every bit as good as a print from a 35mm neg.

+2 to this.... The prints form the MM are amazing.

 

[srtiwari]

+1 to this. I suspect that many people who dismiss the Monochrom as a poor imitation of what black and white 'should' be have likely never seen a print from a Monochrom file. In a word, they are stunning, and (to my potentially questionable eye, anyway) they are every bit as good as a print from a 35mm neg.

Haven't seen a real print from MM yet, but the online images are very nice. I just love your picture of the little girl on page 82 of the Monochrom thread. Of course, thats the kind of picture (IMHO) that would have been stunning with almost any camera. This one is all about the photographer's skill !

 

[f16sunshine]

Haven't seen a real print from MM yet, but the online images are very nice. I just love your picture of the little girl on page 82 of the Monochrom thread. Of course, thats the kind of picture (IMHO) that would have been stunning with almost any camera. This one is all about the photographer's skill !

I have seen a few prints (even a couple large ones). Quite frankly they looked like prints front 6x9 negatives.
The 50 Summilux and 40 year pro doing the shooting and post probably helped a lot to get it there.

Thing is. I feel that with work I could get close with some other cameras so I'm not tempted yet.
The statement from our member turtle above is more true than any other.

Working on having mastery of post processing is much more crucial than what digital camera you are using.
I'm sticking with the fuji-X for now. Just so I can master one thing that covers both my bases (at color and B+W). Also it is in my bag and not on a waiting list.
The M240 or follower may come later. I have kept the best of my M mount lenses in the event I get my hands on one.

 

[srtiwari]

One has to accept that if using digital you need to know your post processing in order to achieve the results you want. I spent a hell of a lot of time working on my wet processing, so why should I expect a digital camera to give me 'the perfect look' right out of the box?

Monochrom files have bags of tonal flexibility and bags of resolution. Sounds rather like MF film to me, only you can do whatever you want in post. I own one and, as an experienced film and Canon digital user, am very confident that it is miles ahead of my 5D III for B&W.

There are no shortcuts to being a master of your craft. Using TriX won't make your prints look like Salgado's any quicker than "XXXX' digital camera will speed up the process of becoming a digital master. Print making is a separate art and the Monochrom offers a superb starting point.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Tijmendal]

Keep M9 or upgrade to M 240 (either) and buy an M2 to shoot B&W film with; you'll be a much happier person.

 

[srtiwari]

Keep M9 or upgrade to M 240 (either) and buy an M2 to shoot B&W film with; you'll be a much happier person.

Following your advice 🙂
Sold M9, should have the Typ 240 in a year or so, but am in line.
Love my M2. Selling one (see ad) and keeping one.
I already feel happier 😀

 

[Shade]

I have always been with 2 main cameras for my job, wedding. The first choice would be my xpro1, because it gives me predictable but great results that I can easily control in almost any situation. My second body would be either a choice of my M9 or my OM-D, depending on my moods and needs.

Just a few days ago I got an unusual chance of purchasing an m240 at slightly BELOW list price, new and unused (thats a different story to tell), and immediately after 2 days of trial I sold my M-E away.

This saturday I have a wedding to shoot and it will most likely accompany me.

 

[jaapv]

Haven't seen a real print from MM yet, but the online images are very nice. I just love your picture of the little girl on page 82 of the Monochrom thread. Of course, thats the kind of picture (IMHO) that would have been stunning with almost any camera. This one is all about the photographer's skill !

I have a bunch of A3+ Baryta prints I made and they are stunning, far better than I ever managed with converted M9 files - and a lot easier to get there.

 

[Calzone]

Last year about half my shooting was medium format, then I got a Monochrom in February. Its getting pretty hard to justify all my 120 cameras, but I still love film though...

The Monochrome is that good, especially with modern ASPH Leica glass. Also for high ISO it kinda is unbeatable.

Cal

 

[2WK]

I too went with the MM and I have an X-pro for color. Portra in the M6 / Mam 7ii also keeps me happy.

 

[Calzone]

Well, 80% of my work is black and white so I guess the monochrom is probably the best for me. I too would like an M and MM but my bank account can only handle one camera so my thoughts are a M mono with the color going to the X-Pro1 and maybe my M8 as well.

How logical does this sound?

E,

The Monochrom is kinda unbeatable, except it can't do color.

Cal

 

[Riccis]

Haven't seen a real print from MM yet, but the online images are very nice. I just love your picture of the little girl on page 82 of the Monochrom thread. Of course, thats the kind of picture (IMHO) that would have been stunning with almost any camera. This one is all about the photographer's skill !

If you drive down to Boca, we can meet and I can show you a 30x40 print of this image that I made on the MM. This is 3200 ISO with a 35.

Cheers,

 

[soultheworld]

i have a Monochrom as a loaner until my lenses and m9 come back from coding.

i opted for the MM because i thought it was going to be fun and i always wanted to try it. after 2 weeks with it i know that this camera is not for me.
in my normal setup i have an m9 and an m6 with kodak tx for black and white. i shot a bunch of pic with mm in the first week but soon became bored. when i shoot digital, i prefer to shoot in color with the option of "maybe" converting it to black and white. i did not see a major difference that made me go and buy the MM now. in fact, i am really happy to get my m9 back and return the MM.