jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Why should you? throwing away half the data will not do your file any good 🙄
Professional review of M9 Monochrome
- Thread starter BobYIL
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 88
- Views 22K
fotomeow
name under my name
Ya, and why would we do all this work to optimize the foto from $8k camera?
Not to be a curmudgeon, but I thought the fotos were pretty lackluster.
Sharp and contrasty in daylight, so what?
icebear
Veteran
For me going digital with the M9 is perfect. For my purpose I am happy with it and the files look just gorgeous to me but when I desaturate these files, they do look like just that:
Color images w/o the color. I have not tried to a lot of conversions as I was put off right away. Maybe if you are good in Photoshop or LR4x, you can actually achieve decent results. I#m not there yet.
It's the same if you have an original Japanese bonsai and see and exhibition somewhere in the West at a local bonsai club. Nice try but sorry these are just little trees ... I'm not sure if someone can relate to the example.
Since I moved years ago and lost the option to use a friends pro lab and darkroom for my own film processing and printing, I never enjoyed using b/w film as all labs turned out mediocre quality. I was lucky to get the negatives w/o scratches and fingerprints... I have hopes on the Monochrom and signed up for their NYC workshop in October to give it a try. Have to buy lottery tickets...
Color images w/o the color. I have not tried to a lot of conversions as I was put off right away. Maybe if you are good in Photoshop or LR4x, you can actually achieve decent results. I#m not there yet.
It's the same if you have an original Japanese bonsai and see and exhibition somewhere in the West at a local bonsai club. Nice try but sorry these are just little trees ... I'm not sure if someone can relate to the example.
Since I moved years ago and lost the option to use a friends pro lab and darkroom for my own film processing and printing, I never enjoyed using b/w film as all labs turned out mediocre quality. I was lucky to get the negatives w/o scratches and fingerprints... I have hopes on the Monochrom and signed up for their NYC workshop in October to give it a try. Have to buy lottery tickets...
C_R
Established
You hit the nail, this camera is a tool. In the hand of a pro, with good light you will see stellar results, IMO
Example: this week the first Monochrom cameras were delivered in Germany.
My jaw dropped when I saw this Monochrom shot from a german pro, Robert Brembeck:
http://www.brembeck.de/work/new
He stated "That was a snapshot in a cafe. Beautiful light from a window left. 1.4 / 320 iso / DNG / Lightroom little darker more contrast and some clarity."
The proof is in the print, sure. But this shot convinced me, really.
Carsten
http://www.carstenranke.com
redisburning
Well-known
Ive been really impressed with some of the files I've seen lately.
If I were selling enough b&w pictures to pay for it, I would do it. They just look a lot better than the Caninikon b&w conversions I see around and I just assume I can't do it better than those guys.
If I were selling enough b&w pictures to pay for it, I would do it. They just look a lot better than the Caninikon b&w conversions I see around and I just assume I can't do it better than those guys.
F
fstops
Guest
Open any RAW file in photoshop, convert the color mode to LAB, select the lightness channel.
BobYIL
Well-known
Just out of curiosity: What really made your "jaw dropped"? Was it a nicely lit, well composed, finely depicted picture that was hard to capture under those conditions or was it not possible with an M9 for example? Or such a picture was impossible to shoot with any other camera? Or does it seem to you something better than what could be achieved with film?
It undoubtedly is a beautiful picture, nicely depicted, well processed however when it comes to "jaw dropping" we have seen better ones than this one taken with an M8, for instance, or even with a Digilux 2 in Thorsten Overgaard's site. BTW, maybe some of your own pictures seem better to others' eyes than this one.
C_R
Established
As I said already: the proof is in the print.
Unfortunately, we cannot discuss here our prints hanging on the wall, we compare tiny, downsized web pictures.
BUT- even in this small web size you can see (not regularly, but often) subtle tonal difference, in a downsized MF versus 24x36, for example.
I have looked into some Monochrom DNG samples, from Jono Slack and others. I would suggest that you do this for yourself, before you claim that this could have been shot with an M8 or Digilux2.
Of course, when you are happy with a small websize shot or a small print, then you are right. I remember how happy I have been with my good old Sigma DP1 / DP2. Great tonal quality, but no large prints.
So, what made my jaw drop here ? When you have seen a Monochrom file in original size, and see this photo then you can anticipate really excellent tonal quality in the print.
BTW, I find it pointless to ask for a comparison of film and digital. If you are happy with film go for film. If you can live with the cost and need for digital postprocessing, this camera is just great for B&W photography, IMO.
Hey don't be snarky.
The green channel is the most sensitive to light, therefore it is the cleanest. So when you sharpen only the green channel and discarding the other two channels your black and white details are cleaner.
Have a look at the individual channels in photoshop and see for yourself before being rude.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Unless you manually adjust the exposure compensation in-camera before the shot, the green channel-only image will be under-exposed. Advise bumping up the exposure +1/3 - +1/2 or until the histogram looks properly exposed to the right.
~Joe
~Joe
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes - and you are still losing data, whereas the MM has a vast advantage, as it has no color channels at all. On top of that if you only use the green channel the tonal response curve is all over the place.
leicashot
Well-known
I'd love to compare the MM and 35/1.4 FLE to my D800E with the Zeiss ZF.2 35/1.4. The D800E is very hard to beat. Here with the Zeiss ZF.2 25/2
KJD_2447b by Kristian Dowling, on Flickr
KJD_2447b by Kristian Dowling, on Flickr
Turtle
Veteran
There is no doubt the D800 is amazing, but sadly it is a relatively large and heavy SLR without dedicated MF screen options (at the moment).
The MM is a different beast: inferior in many ways, but arguably better in others.
For those who say it is outdates 2009 technology, they are right, but where is the competition? Outdated at 2009 perhaps, but without the bayer array it is apparently capable of quite astonishing things in 2012 as long as you shoot only B&W. Time will tell.
The MM is a different beast: inferior in many ways, but arguably better in others.
For those who say it is outdates 2009 technology, they are right, but where is the competition? Outdated at 2009 perhaps, but without the bayer array it is apparently capable of quite astonishing things in 2012 as long as you shoot only B&W. Time will tell.
leicashot
Well-known
Good point. I couldn't care less about dating or technology as long as I have the right camera in my hands. Maybe it's the MM, but I won't know until I try it myself. You interested Turtle?
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'd love to compare the MM and 35/1.4 FLE to my D800E with the Zeiss ZF.2 35/1.4. The D800E is very hard to beat. Here with the Zeiss ZF.2 25/2
KJD_2447b by Kristian Dowling, on Flickr
Not really an appropriate image to be discussing the technical aspects of thousands of pounds worth of camera equipment.
leicashot
Well-known
Man, seriously what is going on with this forum. I don't understand the modern rangefinder photographer. If this image is offensive, the moderators are free to remove it....next time It'll be a picture of a cat
leicashot
Well-known
I think bobbyrab was implying that I was showing off my expensive camera to my subjects as i was shooting, then ran them over in my Rolls Royce. Maybe next time I should use a disposable camera and have it approved by my subjects to ensure its also within 'their' budget too. I've been back on this forum for a day and I'm already getting attacked for contributing.....swell crowd that reminds me why i left in the first place.
ChrisN
Striving
K, don't let it get to you. Some of the people around here these days just have a massive downer on anything Leica, and especially the M9 and MM. They've chased some good people away from this forum, which is a real loss. Too much envy and bitterness. Best to ignore them, and just continue the conversation with those who want to contribute something.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If you're still around Kristian? 😀
What do you think of the MM's tendency to blow highlights and how hard is it going to be to judge exposure because of this? Resolution is neither here nor there IMO because it seems more than adequate but some of those blowouts in Seal's flickr stream are quite severe ... though they were shot in what looked like quite difficult lighting and obviously he's still getting used to the camera!.
What do you think of the MM's tendency to blow highlights and how hard is it going to be to judge exposure because of this? Resolution is neither here nor there IMO because it seems more than adequate but some of those blowouts in Seal's flickr stream are quite severe ... though they were shot in what looked like quite difficult lighting and obviously he's still getting used to the camera!.
leicashot
Well-known
Hey Keith still here :bang:
I'm not seeing anything that looks out of the ordinary to be honest. I have no reason to think the MM has less dynamic range than other current cameras.
I honestly don't see any advantages of tones or disadvantages of exposure or dynamic range. The overexpsoure I'm seeing is the result of either exposing for the mid-shadows, which would blow out any scene if the lighting was strong, or some inaccurate metering choices by the photographer(s).
The other issue when analysing these pictures is that:
a. We don't know what processing was done, and
b. Because they were shot in b+w it's more difficult to see what 'type' of light it was shot in, by not being able to see the color temperature.
The last point is very important in determining how much the sensor is recording. i.e more tonal range can ge recorded around sunset, compared to midday, giving the appearance of extended dynamic range. Most of thee shots were not taken in such light.
I seriously doubt that Leica would release a b+w camera that has less dynamic range than the M9, especially when charging a premium price over the color version. Now I'm not defending Leica or praising them, but until I can get my hands on one and compare it to my D800E, I won't be praising or bashing the product. All we can do is make assumptions and not even serious ones.
I would bet though that the D800E with the top Zeiss lenses would resolve more detail, but that's not the point. A potential buyer of the MM (who intends to use it regularly) would be buying it for reasons other than just detail - tonal range potential, nostalgia, simplicity, size, weight and the M-system.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
