M8 as a dedicated B&W camera

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
1:27 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
View My Gallery
I've had the M9 for the better part of a month now and there's no question it is THE camera I will pick up first when I go to shoot, for a long time to come. I intend to keep my M8, though, and I'm thinking I might sell all my UV/IR filters and use the M8 as a dedicated monochrome camera, as I once did with my M2. I could set it to DNG+JPG in monochrome mode, so that it only displays B&W, then make a new profile for it in Lightroom so that my computer automatically displays the RAWs as B&W, too.

Anyone else doing something like this? Somehow, psychologically, it makes the M8 seem more inherently appealing to me, even in light of the M9.
 
I use my M8.2 as a dedicated BW camera with maybe 1% of color shots creeping in, if I have a frame, that could be really demanding color.

I shoot DNG only (the digital Leicas are dog sluggish in shooting DNG+JPG).
I have the LCD turned off all the time and don't chimp.
If I need the LCD, it is for checking the histogram in really tricky light, to adapt a more ideal exposure for the best possible raw file or checking composition in really tight situations, where the full frame must sit in the camera with critical framing.

This only can be done, if time is there, to do so - I like shooting the M8.2 like a film Leica - it is a lot more relaxing and natural.

I use Lightroom and have a constantly refined base profile, which inherits all my base settings for development, BW conversion, sharpening, noise reduction, vignetting and grain, etc …

I have set the import profile, to add EXIF data (mail, etc…) and have the previews rendered at 1:1, which makes the first edit a lot quicker.

After having clicked the import button, I prepare a coffee or do other work.

I never bother with filters, never had the IR cut filters and only use clear filters, when shooting in the rain or harmful environments.
I shoot mostly in low light and had filters ruin pictures enough, to throw them in the bin.

Nothing speaks against the M8 as a BW only camera.
 
menos, that's an interesting workflow. I've never considered rendering previews 1:1, or rather didn't realize it was possible...I need to make that adjustment.

kipkeston, no interest in letting it go, I like it.
 
To me, one of the advantages of digital is not having to switch between color and B&W. I can make the photo with either in mind and then make my decision later in LR. I would just use them with different focal lengths.
 
Infrared contamination will also soften the image as it is not as well focused. Look at where the IR index is for the lens, you will have "smearing" of the IR that makes it through the absorbing glass out to that point.
 
I do this with the RD1. Some say ''oh the rd1 colors are so great". I like the 1600iso B+W jpeg the camera makes. The "problem" with the M8 will be the Jpeg write speed. I use mine in BW jpeg sometimes with an R72 filter to do near IR Digital BW shoots. It looks great but, the camera really bogs down on writing those jpegs to the card. So much that if you click of 3,4,5 shots in a row quickly it can freeze up and need a battery removal reset 🙁
 
IdeaDog said:
I do this. The M9 is my first choice. It's full frame, high quality, all that... But I enjoy treating the M8 as a film camera. The M8 plays the role my MP used to, with a lot less workflow fuss and more flexibility.

Usually I just shoot jpegs in black and white. The slower write speed of jpeg doesn't bother me because I'm not shot-gunning. I don't pixel peep or print large so RAW isn't really needed. The small file sizes are a breeze. Any grain is fine, and I might even add grain in Lightroom. The black and white results I get are every bit as satisfying as what I got from my MP, and I'm really happy to be able to get there with a digital workflow.
Click to expand...

Now we're talkin'!
 
This sounds pretty sweet. I have never really thought about creating a separate profile for B&W - I like using silver efex, but I think I will try it out.

It's kind of like choosing a prime lens over a zoom. More simplicity, focus, and clarity. You can usually 'see' the finished product better before the shutter snaps.

I wonder, why not just have a separate profile for the M9? Is only using the M8 in this way part of the "zen" of the endeavor?
 
Erm..

You have an M9 and you want to sell your IR filters so you can use the M8 for BW... If you have to ask such a thing then you probably know what you want to do, isn't it? 😉
 
Kozhe said:
Erm..

You have an M9 and you want to sell your IR filters so you can use the M8 for BW... If you have to ask such a thing then you probably know what you want to do, isn't it? 😉
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure! I'm sure I'm gonna do this, there's no reason to use the M8 for color when the M9 is so much better at it. But the M8's a great camera, and I'm kind of looking for a reason to keep it in service as something other than a backup.

The Meaness is right, it's the zen of the thing. I don't have the time or patience to develop and scan film anymore and like my digi workflow, but it would be nice to think of the M8 the way I once thought of the M2 loaded with Tri-X.
 
So, for my print sizes (not very big) and low ISOs, my M8.2s serve just as well for color.

Sweeping statements like the M9 "is so much better for color" are generally not very useful, nor accurate.

I find that papers, inks, profiles, software settings, careful processing...and other variables...have a far greater effect on results than the M8 versus the M9 files at modest print sizes and ISOs. I bet you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test using modest sized prints.

Jeff
 
Jeff S said:
So, for my print sizes (not very big) and low ISOs, my M8.2s serve just as well for color.

Sweeping statements like the M9 "is so much better for color" are generally not very useful, nor accurate.

I find that papers, inks, profiles, software settings, careful processing...and other variables...have a far greater effect on results than the M8 versus the M9 files at modest print sizes and ISOs. I bet you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test using modest sized prints.

Jeff
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're pushing back on this--I don't think it is remotely controversial to say the M9 has an improved sensor. On the M8, at 1250 in artificial light, my photos are very, very hard to get natural-looking color out of. The M9 at 1600 gives immediately better results that are much more receptive to careful processing, plus more pixels to work with, giving me more room to crop.

At low ISO of course they're comparable. But not at 1600. And since I have both, in these circumstances, I reach for the one that works better.
 
mabelsound said:
I'm not sure why you're pushing back on this--I don't think it is remotely controversial to say the M9 has an improved sensor.
Click to expand...

Not improved...bigger (and that can introduce other issues). And that helps for some people in some circumstances. But, I'm pushing back only on your statement that the M9 is "so much better for color" than the M8. Just not so in the circumstances I mention.

No beef...just trying to clarify so that other readers considering purchase and usage options are not misled. Different strokes, is all.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom