Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm not the client for stairway sized prints, but to me the only size Delta 3200 in 135 format doesn't sucks is at Flickr thumbnail.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Allen,
I still love mine too. Should have it back from Leica very soon. Perhaps by the end of the month. I used the waiting list and shipped my camera in mid December and was told 8-10 week turnaround.
BTW I think the Monochrom can print a lot bigger than 135 film because of higher IQ. At a certain point grain can get distracting and hurts an image.
Cal
cz23
-
Out of regard for Nathan, may I suggest you guys take the film discussion to another thread? He clearly asked for guidance on a digital M. Why derail his thread with a film/digital argument?
John
John
Richard G
Veteran
Back to the topic. I have an M9-P and M9M. The M9P is terrific but the Monochrom is better, smoother, possibly quieter. It mostly has a Canadian 50 Summicron version IV on it and it hangs around with me like my M4-2 did back in the '80s. I like to bond with an important tool. Naturally I agree with aifrogusmc about this camera.
To get one now at a good price would be brilliant. I bought mine when the 240 came out. I didn't care if that was better. The increased weight and the ugly form factor firmed my decision to stick with M9 form cameras for as long as possible. This is the great thing about Leica. Is my M6 better than my M2? Demonstrably, but my M2 has the magical single frame lines and the best shutter release of any camera: I never really needed to trade my M4-2 for the M6. Last year's or last century's Leica is more than good enough.
To get one now at a good price would be brilliant. I bought mine when the 240 came out. I didn't care if that was better. The increased weight and the ugly form factor firmed my decision to stick with M9 form cameras for as long as possible. This is the great thing about Leica. Is my M6 better than my M2? Demonstrably, but my M2 has the magical single frame lines and the best shutter release of any camera: I never really needed to trade my M4-2 for the M6. Last year's or last century's Leica is more than good enough.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
Thanks for reminding me to stay on topic. I bought my MM new about 4 years ago. It has been trouble free, and I used mine heavily. The six month wait for a sensor replacement really can be curbed to 8-10 weeks if you go the waiting list route. My sensor corrosion only stopped me from taking pictures because I sent my camera in for sensor replacement.
I know that some people complain about needing to carry three batteries, but I never needed more than two.
Compared to my SL the MM is a rather primitive camera, and for me is most like shooting a film camera because it is so basic. Anyways after four years of shooting, I still love this camera.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Richard,
I would argue that the original MM does have an advantage over the M-246: huge midrange that more closely resembles larger formats.
The M-246 is definitely a more advanced camera, with features I don't need like video, but it does have better highlight roll off, more shadow detail, superior high ISO, and more dynamic range, but to me the rendering is kinda scooped.
Also because the MM is more basic it has it's charm. It this manner it is more like a film camera.
Cal
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Either you exceed your clients expectations consistently or you are out of business and we are talking about very large prints(as you can see) in this case. The fact you are in a contained area and close to those large prints so grain size, sharpness and all of that do become important especially if the client says it is.
The bigger question is why do you see yourself as the film savior and why wander into a thread trying to convince those that buying film and a film camera should is a smarter option? Maybe for some it is but I know for some that it isn't. If I had not gone digital some years back I wouldn't be in business today. I still love film and actually love it's limitations at times but I do know that the files from the MM far exceed IQ wise any pushed tri-x and especially 3200. Now if that's important to someone or not that's their business but those things are at times important to me and to my clients.
It is really nice to get the IQ you need for the message and the type of image you are creating. The MM is a great choice and it is still a great choice for those looking for one.
BuzzyOne
Established
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.
What a nonsensical thing to say.
BuzzyOne
Established
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Agree. Over the years here at RFF I've never been able to understand why 'some' film shooters feel the need to enter threads that are obviously about digital to tell us that film is their choice of medium. I suspect it's some weird badge of honour thing that I'll never get!
BuzzyOne
Established
To the OP:
I am in a similar boat as you. I shoot lots of film and have an M3 around my neck most days (unless I grab the Rollei). I have DSLR cameras for macro and high-speed stuff, Fuji X100T, but I just love film. However, I am getting older and film is a commitment. The MM1 will be my first Leica digital. (I bought it to tide me over until my damn M10 arrives!)
You can't really go wrong with the MM1. Try and find one with a replaced sensor or grab one with original guts and shoot the hell out of it. If needed, send off to the Mother Ship and they will make like new. If you hate it, you can get most of your money back depending on the deal you get when purchased.
Just remember, not too long ago people were falling all over themselves paying 8 Grand to get one of these babies!
I am in a similar boat as you. I shoot lots of film and have an M3 around my neck most days (unless I grab the Rollei). I have DSLR cameras for macro and high-speed stuff, Fuji X100T, but I just love film. However, I am getting older and film is a commitment. The MM1 will be my first Leica digital. (I bought it to tide me over until my damn M10 arrives!)
You can't really go wrong with the MM1. Try and find one with a replaced sensor or grab one with original guts and shoot the hell out of it. If needed, send off to the Mother Ship and they will make like new. If you hate it, you can get most of your money back depending on the deal you get when purchased.
Just remember, not too long ago people were falling all over themselves paying 8 Grand to get one of these babies!
BuzzyOne
Established
Agree. Over the years here at RFF I've never been able to understand why 'some' film shooters feel the need to enter threads that are obviously about digital to tell us that film is their choice of medium. I suspect it's some weird badge of honour thing that I'll never get!
Humans.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Agree. Over the years here at RFF I've never been able to understand why 'some' film shooters feel the need to enter threads that are obviously about digital to tell us that film is their choice of medium. I suspect it's some weird badge of honour thing that I'll never get!
Me too , it`s very odd and not very helpful to the OP in this case either.
Richard G
Veteran
Trying to think of a reason not to get the original Monochrom. (Taken with the original Monochrom, but he's not to know that.)
L2007334.jpg by Richard, on Flickr
L2007334.jpg by Richard, on Flickr
icebear
Veteran
I think the easiest answer to the OP question is to visit the Monochrom thread.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123460
Just my $0.02.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123460
Just my $0.02.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I think Richard made a point above in his post in reference to analog cameras, and it kinda seems the MM is such a basic camera. In this manner it is kinda like a M2 or M4 in that it is the most basic camera although digital.
What is wrong with that? Certainly a M10 is a much more advanced M-body.
Also I kinda hate one sided rigid thinking. I for one still shoot film, own film M-bodies and medium format, but I consider digital a separate medium. I favor both mediums and encourage both. I don't feel like I have to make a choice or say one is better.
What is the matter with having flexible thinking and being open?
Cal
What is wrong with that? Certainly a M10 is a much more advanced M-body.
Also I kinda hate one sided rigid thinking. I for one still shoot film, own film M-bodies and medium format, but I consider digital a separate medium. I favor both mediums and encourage both. I don't feel like I have to make a choice or say one is better.
What is the matter with having flexible thinking and being open?
Cal
SaveKodak
Well-known
Agree. Over the years here at RFF I've never been able to understand why 'some' film shooters feel the need to enter threads that are obviously about digital to tell us that film is their choice of medium. I suspect it's some weird badge of honour thing that I'll never get!
Well you wouldn't be so confused if you quoted this part of what I was saying:
"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."
The conversation I was having with airfrog was about how to evaluate an image, what's acceptable to clients. There is a notion on "the internet" that ties the quality of a photograph to the accuracy of a photograph. This is something I'll take any and every opportunity to dispel.
For the record, I even have MM images in my portfolio. They look great. I would never say that the camera is not capable of excellent results*, I just make the argument that it's simply a poorly made camera. From my experience B&W conversions from better sensors still do better than those old CCDs which are literally rotting from the inside out. If they were cheaper one could say it's worthwhile, but $3 grand is more than what I paid for my M240. It ain't worth it. And any extra resolving power due to the lack of a CFA is simply meaningless in real world pictorial applications.
The absolute key advantage of the MM IMO is that it's a camera that simply cannot be color. You lose that element of choice paralysis and can focus on making pictures with it. I wish more brands would put out monochrome sensors for that reason. If Fuji put out a Mono X100 I'd seriously consider buying it just to have an always-B&W camera for my weddings. Choice paralysis represents one of the worst aspects of digital photography in my opinion. I just resent the premium and the mythologizing.
*This is actually not saying much. The lowest-end Canon Rebel's imaging sensor is fully capable of breathtaking results, under the right set of circumstances and in the right hands.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Did you ever consider that many here on RFF already own film M's? Did you ever consider that many here might shoot both film M's and digital M's? Might many here have mucho decades of shooting film?
I say this "tongue in cheek." LOL.
Cal
SaveKodak
Well-known
Which one of my points are you actually addressing? It seems like you're seeing an argument that I didn't actually try to make.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Read your quote. I find this mucho funny. Now double funny. I guess you don't read what you write.
Kinda funny that someone on this Leicacentric Rangefinder forum might not consider an analog M or be interested in film. Do you really need to state the obvious.
Then again: do you think that Monochrom owners do not have film "M" bodies? Do you think others here do not have mucho experience shooting film?
Tongue in cheek: it comes across that way.
Cal