Original M Monochrom Still a Good Buy?

[airfrogusmc]

I must have looked at different files than you have seen but i have processed files from the D800E and the MM and I prefer the files from the MM. Not because I have one but because I have found for B&W they have more in them and they are as sharp and you can really see it in prints. But 3200 from film is a very different beast than 3200 from the MM.

Here's a little sump'm of mine that Leica featured just in case you are interested and hadn't seen it. Kinda gets to why I prefer the MM.
http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/12/15/spontaneous-relationships/

I also have no desire to upgrade to the new MM not saying that some shouldn't have done that. I just prefer the simpler menu and that stuff it doesn't have like video and live view.

So I think it is still a great buy if you shoot B&W and you can find them for a good price these days.

And for those that do not fully understand why a true monochrome sensor is sharper, has better low light capabilities and better DR than it's color cousin here is a decent, simple explanation.
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/color-monochrome-camera-sensors

 

[BuzzyOne]

I just pulled the trigger on black M9M with just over 1000 clicks for $3K. Original sensor, but I don't really care if I need to get it replaced. The wait gives me something to live for.

It will be my first digital M. I bought it to use while I wait for my M10.

 

[cz23]

I just pulled the trigger on black M9M with just over 1000 clicks for $3K. Original sensor, but I don't really care if I need to get it replaced. The wait gives me something to live for.

It will be my first digital M. I bought it to use while I wait for my M10.

Congratulations! And a pretty good price. Be sure to join us in the MM pics thread.

John

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Nice! Not a bad price either, especially for the click count.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I just pulled the trigger on black M9M with just over 1000 clicks for $3K. Original sensor, but I don't really care if I need to get it replaced. The wait gives me something to live for.

It will be my first digital M. I bought it to use while I wait for my M10.

Congrats. Good price.

I still love mine.

 

[SaveKodak]

21,818 will be the number to keep an eye on then. That's how many frames of Tri-X $3-Grand buys you. 1s and 0s vs silver, wood, and bone. I know what I'm picking as a medium. 😛

 

[airfrogusmc]

Can't go from 320 to 3200 ISO from one frame to the next and get really good results at 3200 with tri x and I think of all the thousands of images I have made with my MM over the past 4 1/2 years and because I no longer have a darkroom that I would maybe would not have made. 2 large one man exhibits and been selected to be in two different group shows in New York all images made with the MM over the past 4 1/2 years.

 

[SaveKodak]

Can't go from 320 to 3200 ISO from one frame to the next and get really good results at 3200 with tri x and I think of all the thousands of images I have made with my MM over the past 4 1/2 years and because I no longer have a darkroom that I would maybe would not have made. 2 large one man exhibits and been selected to be in two different group shows in New York all images made with the MM over the past 4 1/2 years.

You could literally add an M3-6 body to my math and still make it work with only maybe a 1/3rd fewer frames, but 2 Ms. Tri-X in one and if not Tri-X pushed to 3200 then Delta.

I was mostly being tongue and cheek though, I don't actually resent anyone's choices here. Just enjoy injecting thought alternatives involving film in case anyone is considering picking up an analog M.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I love film, shot it for decades. I also love digital. 3200 on the MM is a very different beast than 3200 ISO film or worse trip pushed 3 stops which I never liked much.

 

[SaveKodak]

I'm pretty sure they're both black and white photos so it's really not that different.

 

[airfrogusmc]

in large prints there is a huge difference.

Some stuff I shot at 3200 on the MM for a hospital client of mine. The image quality is amazing.

Huge prints in the main stairwell.

 

[SaveKodak]

I gotta tell ya, nobody cares how sharp or grainless your pictures are. They just have to be good. Delta 3200 would render those images perfectly well, and there would be a lot of grain, and no one would object.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well my client wouldn't have found that kind of grain acceptable

 

[SaveKodak]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you never actually showed them a grainy option and asked their opinion.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I have worked with this client for decades and they specifically said they wanted clean not grainy images. They were worried about it, for one, how close the work was to viewers.

Really nice to have a B&W digital camera that can give you these kinds of files from high ISO.

 

[SaveKodak]

So no, they never saw a grainy option. Nor did they have a chance to evaluate it at any distance, and so you can't know whether they would have found it acceptable.

Here is a random Delta 3200 scan I have on my phone. What would stop me from printing it large? Would resolving more hairs on the dog make it a better photo of a dog? Nothing, and no.

 

[airfrogusmc]

So no, they never saw a grainy option. Nor did they have a chance to evaluate it at any distance, and so you can't know whether they would have found it acceptable.

Here is a random Delta 3200 scan I have on my phone. What would stop me from printing it large? Would resolving more hairs on the dog make it a better photo of a dog? Nothing, and no.

They specifically said they didn't want grainy images. Either I do that or they get someone that will. Sometimes grain is a good thing. Sometimes not. This was on of this not times. Good thing is I can always grain up the files if need be.

 

[SaveKodak]

Meh, I don't buy your story. *shrug*

 

[airfrogusmc]

You don't have to. You didn't pay the invoice.

BTW 80 kb compressed jpgs on a forum is no way to judge IQ.

 

[SaveKodak]

Sure it is. You look at the photo and decide if you like it. No pixel peeping necessary. This has been the theme of our entire discussion. "IQ" has very little to do with the quality of a photograph.