M9 or MM as second body

[aaaced]

Hi RFFs

I've been thinking of getting rid of my EOS system for the lightweight and more compact Leica Ms. I've been debating whether I should get an M9 or a V1 monochron. I have an M typ 240, and i'm looking for something different. I have had M8 for a while and liked how it maintains the shadow detail, especially in B&W. However, i'm not sure how much B&W I would shoot to justify owning an MM.

Any suggestions? M9, MM, or not at all.

Thanks

 

[xyz3450]

Not sure I can offer much advice here, except I'm interested in thoughts on buying an M9 in 2016 too.... (ps. there is an M9M in the classifieds currently...)

 

[jsrockit]

However, i'm not sure how much B&W I would shoot to justify owning an MM.

Well, this is the crux of the issue. Only you can answer this...

 

[aaaced]

Well, this is the crux of the issue. Only you can answer this...

That's right, I currently shoot B&W on film, about 1 rolls per week? I send them off for processing which is expensive and time consuming. Not sure if switching to digital would make me shooting more B&W.

 

[jsrockit]

It's certainly cool. How often do you convert your M240 files in to B&W?

 

[pechelman]

as for m9 or m9m/mm you can judge for yourself by viewing all of your favorite photos with your graphics card set to fully desaturate the screen. This is easiest of course if you have pictures uploaded to a central place like flickr, 500px, instgrm, or facebook, but works in lightroom too.

That was the deciding bit for me when I discovered that ~90% of the shots i liked and shared with others looked just as good if not sometimes better in bw. I also discovered that I wasnt coverting to b&w as much as maybe I wanted because of the added steps\effort\time to get what I wanted. Really a no-brainer after that.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

I don't think an M9 would make a very good "something different" complement to the M240. Alternating between them would magnify the differences in operation, and you might end up really favoring one and ignoring the other.

The MM is its own thing and you will think differently when you shoot with it. Better than assessing how your favorite color images play in desaturated form, I think, is to consider your b/w work, how you felt creating it, and whether that is something you want from digital.

When I was shooting mostly film I had a good mix of color and b/w, and I thought about things very differently depending on which film was in the camera. With digital, my strong tendency has been to shoot color. I recently got a Monochrom and, as expected, it forces me to think in b/w terms in a way I just do not do when shooting full-spectrum digital.

 

[aaaced]

I don't think an M9 would make a very good "something different" complement to the M240. Alternating between them would magnify the differences in operation, and you might end up really favoring one and ignoring the other.

The MM is its own thing and you will think differently when you shoot with it. Better than assessing how your favorite color images play in desaturated form, I think, is to consider your b/w work, how you felt creating it, and whether that is something you want from digital.

When I was shooting mostly film I had a good mix of color and b/w, and I thought about things very differently depending on which film was in the camera. With digital, my strong tendency has been to shoot color. I recently got a Monochrom and, as expected, it forces me to think in b/w terms in a way I just do not do when shooting full-spectrum digital.

Maybe it was just me. I always feel the B&W converted from the color images are different from taken directly from B&W, i.e. B&W film.

When I shoot B&W I mostly shoot streets, so I use B&W to draw attention to the main objects rather than distracting with color. Heard MM has much sharper image and better high ISO performance.

 

[aaaced]

So you mean M9 is very similar to M240?

I don't think an M9 would make a very good "something different" complement to the M240. Alternating between them would magnify the differences in operation, and you might end up really favoring one and ignoring the other.

The MM is its own thing and you will think differently when you shoot with it. Better than assessing how your favorite color images play in desaturated form, I think, is to consider your b/w work, how you felt creating it, and whether that is something you want from digital.

When I was shooting mostly film I had a good mix of color and b/w, and I thought about things very differently depending on which film was in the camera. With digital, my strong tendency has been to shoot color. I recently got a Monochrom and, as expected, it forces me to think in b/w terms in a way I just do not do when shooting full-spectrum digital.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

So you mean M9 is very similar to M240?

Having used both my M-E (stripped M-9) and a loaner M240. To me they are very different in many ways. Yet both shoot colour. If it were me and I used a film camera to shoot B&W I'd choose the digital MM to take advantage of your, I assume, existing filters. Plus, I'd consider the M240 based MM so you can use the same batteries and chargers.

 

[tightsqueez]

Keep your EOS.

You have the M240 and seldom convert to B&W. The M240 makes fine B&W files if adjusted correctly. If you were exclusively shooting mono then I'd say yes to the Monochrom (It's the camera I use 24/7).

 

[Matthew Runkel]

I wouldn't say they are very similar, but if I had both I doubt I would look at the M9 as a refreshing change of pace. I think I would find them frustratingly different in operation, and that I would find myself reaching for the camera with operational and ISO advantages (M240) in every situation that did not demand the special image qualities of M9 CCD. If I were actually working with the two cameras at the same time, they would be similar enough yet with enough differences as to drive me nuts.

So you mean M9 is very similar to M240?

 

[icebear]

If you do like the M240 and want to shoot bw then get a M246 and not the MM. I currently have the MM and a Q in my bag. The M9 was basically retired after I got the Q. For bw nothing beats the MM but ISO100 medium format film. If you don't develop you film and print in your own darkroom, you won't be able to exploit the potential of film. With the MM or M246 you can do everything of adjustments with LR or whatever your favorite software is. I am not a software freak and I can easily do adjustments that was never able to do in the darkroom. And being at the mercy of a lab for developing my films, no thanks, dust, fingerprints, drying marks and even scratches...😡
Why I recommend the M246 over the MM has purely to do with the them being essentially the same camera, having the same menu layout and button functions. If you want to quickly switch between cameras, there is no pressing the wrong button or getting into the wrong menu first. If that adjustment is no big deal as you use you smartphone with your eyes closed, then forget about it😉. Also the M240/246 has no sensor corrosion issue as of yet...

 

[rscheffler]

So you mean M9 is very similar to M240?

There are differences in color and tonality, but not all that huge, IMO. The differences are more in how the cameras function. While outwardly very similar, the M9 is noticeably less responsive and IMO more 'quirky' and apt to 'flake out' electronically. The M240 is electronically more robust, at least now with later firmware versions, if not quite to the level of most Japanese camera brands.

I have both and IMO I wouldn't consider them different enough, if I understand you correctly. A Monochrom on the other hand forces you to shoot how you would shoot B&W instead of color... The original MM of course being a M9 variant comes with the quirks of that camera... but maybe you'll shoot it in a manner where that's less problematic.

IMO, the MM files are quite different from the color cameras. Not just because they're monochrome instead of color. Rather, the files have a significant degree of malleability that just doesn't seem to exist with most color digital files.

 

[aaaced]

I wouldn't say they are very similar, but if I had both I doubt I would look at the M9 as a refreshing change of pace. I think I would find them frustratingly different in operation, and that I would find myself reaching for the camera with operational and ISO advantages (M240) in every situation that did not demand the special image qualities of M9 CCD. If I were actually working with the two cameras at the same time, they would be similar enough yet with enough differences as to drive me nuts.

Ok. That's essentially like me with the M8, driving me nuts when having to make a choice of camera before shooting, therefore I sold the M8... in this case I should pass M9 then.

 

[aaaced]

If you do like the M240 and want to shoot bw then get a M246 and not the MM. I currently have the MM and a Q in my bag. The M9 was basically retired after I got the Q. For bw nothing beats the MM but ISO100 medium format film. If you don't develop you film and print in your own darkroom, you won't be able to exploit the potential of film. With the MM or M246 you can do everything of adjustments with LR or whatever your favorite software is. I am not a software freak and I can easily do adjustments that was never able to do in the darkroom. And being at the mercy of a lab for developing my films, no thanks, dust, fingerprints, drying marks and even scratches...😡
Why I recommend the M246 over the MM has purely to do with the them being essentially the same camera, having the same menu layout and button functions. If you want to quickly switch between cameras, there is no pressing the wrong button or getting into the wrong menu first. If that adjustment is no big deal as you use you smartphone with your eyes closed, then forget about it😉. Also the M240/246 has no sensor corrosion issue as of yet...

I'd love to develop B&W myself if I have the time and energy( I have a 2 year old). I actually shoot delta 100 and 100 tmax on my 120, I would be much nicer to have everything under control

 

[willie_901]

Just curious... do you use raw or in-camera JPEGs.

Do you use an IR filter with the M8 for B&W work?

Shadow detail of rendered raw files is a primarily a function the raw data signal-to-noise ratio. Less SNR means less information.. which in turn increases uncertainty in the data. Uncertainty affects detail.

Shadow region SNR depends on a combination of the camera's data stream electronics and the exposure. The M typ 240 has a higher SNR compared to the M8.

Perhaps the shadow region differences involve tonality and micro-contrast more than detail?

So the shadow region rendering differences could be due to a couple of other factors: differences in metering (which affects exposure) and differences in the light frequencies that actually reach the each sensor site (pixel). The latter is significant because the M typ 240 and M8 transmit different amounts of IR light to the sensor. This certainly could affect shadow region rendering. Also, these cameras most likely use different RGB color-filter array materials. So it's possible differences in the unavoidable contamination of R&G to the B channel, B&R to the G channel, etc. is responsible for the differences in shadow region perception.

If the the light frequency response of the color-filter array materials for the two cameras is slightly different, then slightly different different raw rendering parameters should create similar shadow region aesthetics. This is how come IR filter usage is relevant... it could have the largest affect (given similar exposures).

If you use JPGs the in-camera JPEG rendering engine algorithms could be responsible for the differences.

 

[aaaced]

Just curious... do you use raw or in-camera JPEGs.

Do you use an IR filter with the M8 for B&W work?

Shadow detail of rendered raw files is a primarily a function the raw data signal-to-noise ratio. Less SNR means less information.. which in turn increases uncertainty in the data. Uncertainty affects detail.

Shadow region SNR depends on a combination of the camera's data stream electronics and the exposure. The M typ 240 has a higher SNR compared to the M8.

Perhaps the shadow region differences involve tonality and micro-contrast more than detail?

So the shadow region rendering differences could be due to a couple of other factors: differences in metering (which affects exposure) and differences in the light frequencies that actually reach the each sensor site (pixel). The latter is significant because the M typ 240 and M8 transmit different amounts of IR light to the sensor. This certainly could affect shadow region rendering. Also, these cameras most likely use different RGB color-filter array materials. So it's possible differences in the unavoidable contamination of R&G to the B channel, B&R to the G channel, etc. is responsible for the differences in shadow region perception.

If the the light frequency response of the color-filter array materials for the two cameras is slightly different, then slightly different different raw rendering parameters should create similar shadow region aesthetics. This is how come IR filter usage is relevant... it could have the largest affect (given similar exposures).

If you use JPGs the in-camera JPEG rendering engine algorithms could be responsible for the differences.

I shot both in DNG, and For M8, I shot B&W without IR filter to get maximum shadow detail

 

[Gregm61]

I'm currently using an M262 as my main "M" body, but do also have a black paint M9, converted to "P" specs at some point before it found its way into my hands, and I've subsequently sent it in to Leica earlier this year, had the new sensor installed and use it as a second body.

About the time I picked up my first M9 I purchased a set of profiles for the M9 developed by Huelight for Lightroom and Photoshop, which includes a very nice Monochrome conversion.

http://www.colorfidelity.com/leica.htm

It's been $25 well spend for me.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Agree on the M246 over the MM. Unless you are hung up on CCD, the M246 will be far more pleasant to work with. It's been improved in pretty much every way.

Dante