MP 240 or Monochrom 246? Buyer's remorse I guess...

[uhoh7]

You ain't alone. Look at Airfroggy case. He was all over it at the time Monochrome was released, he was saying he only see it in bw on the street and what he gets now... Leica with normal sensor. 🙂

LOL love this, man 🙂

To be fair, I think he'll often use two bodies....oh I can barely type laughing at this, and I'm big fan of his 🙂

 

[fad gadget]

Well... It's the exact opposite for me, I haven't shot my M240 since I got my M246, and that's been around eight months now.

If I want to shoot colour, I prefer my M6 and Portra.

 

[Keith]

There is a big technical difference between the M9 and the Ur-Monochrome in dynamic range.

Not so when comparing the 246 with 240-bw rendered color images, if you read the spec.

Return the 246, get a 240 and some cash, and when you want to shoot B+W configure the 240 LCD (with color filters if you like) to show you B+W only. The out-of-camera 240 B+W jpegs are outstanding, and you can keep raw for color.

Roland.

I remember you mentioning this before .... I'll have to give it a try! 🙂

 

[Dante_Stella]

Unless your cravings for color are inextricably linked with Leicas, it's a gross waste of money to own both an M240 and 246 - you are far better served by adding color along with some capability you don't have - AF, great video, panoramas, etc. This is more of an X100T or A6000 thing.

I don't agree with the comment about using the M240 as a b/w substitute. The structure of the M246 files is different. it performs better with older lenses (because it doesn't see CA), and b/w filtration using actual filters works much better than the +/-20 on Lightroom sliders that you get before the halos set in.

A film camera for color is a nonstarter unless you are willing to deal with C-41 processing at home or have a really good lab nearby.

D

 

[YYV_146]

Unless your cravings for color are inextricably linked with Leicas, it's a gross waste of money to own both an M240 and 246 - you are far better served by adding color along with some capability you don't have - AF, great video, panoramas, etc. This is more of an X100T or A6000 thing.

I don't agree with the comment about using the M240 as a b/w substitute. The structure of the M246 files is different. it performs better with older lenses (because it doesn't see CA), and b/w filtration using actual filters works much better than the +/-20 on Lightroom sliders that you get before the halos set in.

A film camera for color is a nonstarter unless you are willing to deal with C-41 processing at home or have a really good lab nearby.

D

Removing CA is a one-click affair if you have LR, CC or Capture One. As for pixel level detail - that's what the unsharpen mask is designed for. Good processing involves much more finesse than cranking a few sliders. And yes, knowing a digital camera entails knowing how far you can push files until they break, and how much sharpening is needed for a given print size.

That puts the 240 at a much closer position to the 246. Is it as good for B&W? No, but I doubt anyone would notice the difference unless printing at something like 16*24...and shooting with a reasonably sharp lens.

 

[ian_watts]

Maybe return/sell the M246 and get the Mamiya 7 you once adored? Once you get over the Monochrom-bug (it took me over two years) you realise that digital B&W is still digital and it's not a proper substitute for film.😀

 

[Richard G]

Agree with those who say stick with it and add an X100. I went to France with the Ur-Monochrom (liking that term) and an X100 and was completely happy with the combination.

 

[giulio stucchi]

i am a film, b&w only shooter but let's say my m2 is your M246 and i would like to shoot color without the trouble of scanning...I would go for a ricoh GR or similar

 

[Freakscene]

Removing CA is a one-click affair if you have LR, CC or Capture One.

At edges, with lateral CA, yes. Longitudinal and spherochromatic CA, no. And you can never fix the effects of CA on fine texture and tonality.

As for pixel level detail - that's what the unsharpen mask is designed for. Good processing involves much more finesse than cranking a few sliders. And yes, knowing a digital camera entails knowing how far you can push files until they break, and how much sharpening is needed for a given print size.

The unsharp mask increases local contrast, it cannot create detail where none exists.

That puts the 240 at a much closer position to the 246. Is it as good for B&W? No, but I doubt anyone would notice the difference unless printing at something like 16*24...and shooting with a reasonably sharp lens.

The only situation where a 240 is preferable for B&W is if you use a process that needs the colour information - and if you have the skill to convert the hue contrast and saturation into monochrome tonality. And if you do that, you need the best modern Leica glass to capitalise on that information, or the inherent problems with colour transmission become quite apparent. At 12x18 the difference is clear, if you know what you're looking for, and if you care.

To the OP, just get out and take photos.

Marty

 

[jsrockit]

Return the M246, buy a M240 used and a Mamiya 7...

 

[Landberg]

That sucks, it's a lot of money an for most a real sacrifice. It has to feel right. The only m I could afford was a M-E. I wanted a M monochrom, the first one but could not afford it!😉

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Agree with those who say stick with it and add an X100. I went to France with the Ur-Monochrom (liking that term) and an X100 and was completely happy with the combination.

I'm on that team too!

 

[Vince Lupo]

I have a 246 and am very glad I made the switch from the first Monochrom to this version. I agree with others about the X100T -- it's the perfect complement to the 246.

 

[jsrockit]

I think most answers here have been biased by preference... B&W photographers saying keep it and color photographers saying get rid of it... the truth is that we can't make that decision for you. AND you can still make usable B&W images from color digital cameras.

 

[Calzone]

I think most answers here have been biased by preference... B&W photographers saying keep it and color photographers saying get rid of it... the truth is that we can't make that decision for you. AND you can still make usable B&W images from color digital cameras.

John,

That is pretty honest. As a B&W shooter I have my bias and preference.

Cal

 

[MCTuomey]

Natural tendency on gear forums is for every one to tout what each believes and does as a solution for your (the OP's) individual conundrum. As John says, "bias by preference." Good way to generate ideas, bad if you start to discriminate among them lacking a healthy dose of your own experience and needs.

Seems quite reasonable, having concentrated all your resources into a one-camera/one-lens outfit, to experience some doubt. But, fact is you developed a plan. Carry it out long enough so your nagging doubt is eliminated or confirmed. Then you can make a clearer decision. Another digi M, a different digi M, non-M digi body, a film M, a non-M film body - all these ideas have merit. But they have to become yours with the benefit of some experience or you will just end up playing gear roulette.

Good luck and have fun with that lovely camera.

 

[willie_901]

Despite the clear and real advantages of eliminating the color-filter array layer, Nik's Silver Efex Pro does an excellent job converting RGB raw to monochrome.

 

[Rayt]

I bought a used Monochrom 240 at KEH during their Black Friday sale. Upto now I have been a 100% film shooter nearly all b/w so the Monochrom is a good supplement. My justification is that I can shoot for another hour with the Monochrom when the light gets too low for film pushed to 800. Well last week I went to Kyoto and the leaves were just awesome in yellow and red. I only had the Monochrom with me and of course the awesome yellow and red leaves were shades of grey. I would have shot Portra if I had the M7 with me. I then got a used M8 as my color solution since I can use an extra battery and backup charger anyway.

 

[ferider]

Natural tendency on gear forums is for every one to tout what each believes and does as a solution for your (the OP's) individual conundrum. As John says, "bias by preference." Good way to generate ideas, bad if you start to discriminate among them lacking a healthy dose of your own experience and needs.

Seems quite reasonable, having concentrated all your resources into a one-camera/one-lens outfit, to experience some doubt. But, fact is you developed a plan. Carry it out long enough so your nagging doubt is eliminated or confirmed. Then you can make a clearer decision. Another digi M, a different digi M, non-M digi body, a film M, a non-M film body - all these ideas have merit. But they have to become yours with the benefit of some experience or you will just end up playing gear roulette.

Good luck and have fun with that lovely camera.

That's all good and true, Mike, and you know I respect your opinion.

But if the OP wants to shoot color and cann't, IMHO, he doesn't need a long time of self-chastizing to figure out that his original plan had a gap. Life is too short.

My "bias by preference": I like to shoot B+W landscapes, too. But sometimes, color is a must. And in particular for B+W landscapes: starting from a color original and adding a red/yellow/orange/green filter in post is a huge plus of the digital medium, I feel.

Roland.

 

[xenohip]

I would love to own an M246! [Side note about reluctance to walk around with gear worth as much as a car: I might still not own an M246 even if it were *easily* affordable].

How about heading over to maxmax.com and getting a Sony A6000 converted to monochrome? Buy an unconverted A6000 with 24mm Sonnar and 55mm Sonnar (or 50mm Loxia or whatever).

One lens on each body, moderate wide, moderate tele, switch as needed. $2000 + $400ish +$900 +$1000ish.

NB: This is a purely hypothetical suggestion-- I have not used any of the mentioned equipment.

OR... buy a Leica X2?