Day
Member
Im pretty much a b&w-only-type. Shooting film with my GR1v and
digital on my M8. I'm a pretty happy owner of a standalone darkroom
where I can wet-printing whenever I want. But I also like my digital darkroom
Macbook Pro Retina, Eizo and Wacom pad.
So that brings me to my question: I got the money of a Monochrome.
But would It make a huge difference? I don't need high ISO.
I dont upload any picture to flickr or whatever.
Who did the step from M8 to MM? Did you regret it?
Was it worth so much money?
digital on my M8. I'm a pretty happy owner of a standalone darkroom
where I can wet-printing whenever I want. But I also like my digital darkroom
Macbook Pro Retina, Eizo and Wacom pad.
So that brings me to my question: I got the money of a Monochrome.
But would It make a huge difference? I don't need high ISO.
I dont upload any picture to flickr or whatever.
Who did the step from M8 to MM? Did you regret it?
Was it worth so much money?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I would loooooove an MM ... but at ten grand here in Oz ... not so much! 
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
I have to admit I don't understand the appeal of the MM.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Worth it. Would never turn back.
And BTW it's Monochrom - no 'e'.
And BTW it's Monochrom - no 'e'.
Day
Member
rbelyell
Well-known
so the question is not 'do you want a monochrome' but rather if you dont care about high iso, what are the specific advantages of a monochrome over an m8? great question, i too am very curious about how that question gets answered.
Day
Member
Yes, I think thats the point. I know I want it, but when I think about the workflow: picture->LR->SEP->final picture I don't know if I could say:
Ahhh, thats the MM and thats the old, weak M8.
So if I shot a picture and take a SEP present, theres no difference at all I think. I'm afraid of this. But the MM is sex.
Ansel
Well-known
I would stick with film, much much better than the Monocrhom IMO.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
For me an MM removes an important option. I agree with Ansel that film is a more direct medium for B&W and less expensive.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Hard to really judge without looking at side-by-side prints (forget judging on a computer screen). I had an M9 and I was able to make great prints from images it produced, but just from my own personal experience I've found the Monochrom images more flexible, and as far as final image results go I prefer the Monochrom prints.
Now, is it 'better' than film? I don't think it's better, but neither do I think it's worse. For me personally it fits into my personal workflow better, and I have no interest in returning to the 'traditional' darkroom. Here again, just personal preference.
Now, is it 'better' than film? I don't think it's better, but neither do I think it's worse. For me personally it fits into my personal workflow better, and I have no interest in returning to the 'traditional' darkroom. Here again, just personal preference.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I agree with Vince. I love my MM and don't regret buying it at all. I love film and would still be shooting it if I didn't loose my darkroom some years back. (downsized)
One thing besides what Vinced mentioned is I love the fact I can move from 3200 ISO to 320 ISO between one frame and the very next frame. THe fact I can shoot street and be able to shoot at 1/500 and 1/1000 of a sec at f/8 or f/11 and have images that look cleaner than tri-x processed in rodinal is a great plus. But film and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses. I have NO REGRETS buying the MM. It is the only camera that I have used for my personal work since I picked it up in Nov 2012. And as Vince mentioned the prints are spectacular. So much info in those files as compared to say a 5DII or III.
I also wanted to say I haven't felt this strongly about a camera and the overall shooting experience since buying my 500 C/Ms in the mid 1980s or shooting with an 8X10 Deardorff. This camera, for me and the way I see and work, is a perfect fit. I would say if you shoot B&W only and want a digital camera it knocks the socks off of any other 135 format (FF) digital camera I have shot with and i have shot with a lot of them for B&W.
One thing besides what Vinced mentioned is I love the fact I can move from 3200 ISO to 320 ISO between one frame and the very next frame. THe fact I can shoot street and be able to shoot at 1/500 and 1/1000 of a sec at f/8 or f/11 and have images that look cleaner than tri-x processed in rodinal is a great plus. But film and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses. I have NO REGRETS buying the MM. It is the only camera that I have used for my personal work since I picked it up in Nov 2012. And as Vince mentioned the prints are spectacular. So much info in those files as compared to say a 5DII or III.
I also wanted to say I haven't felt this strongly about a camera and the overall shooting experience since buying my 500 C/Ms in the mid 1980s or shooting with an 8X10 Deardorff. This camera, for me and the way I see and work, is a perfect fit. I would say if you shoot B&W only and want a digital camera it knocks the socks off of any other 135 format (FF) digital camera I have shot with and i have shot with a lot of them for B&W.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
If it were sold for no more than £1,000, I might be interested. Failing that, I'm more likely to buy the A7, if I decided I wanted to replace my 5D.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
In the years I've been doing it I have found buying to just settle winds up being more expensive than buying what I really want and need. To me the rangefinder experience and the files from the MM made it worth it. Do I wish it were cheaper? Of course but it is what it is and I am lucky enough that my commercial work allows me to be able to buy what I want and need. I can tell you every time I have gone the route to just settle it has always cost me more in the long run.
icebear
Veteran
If you have the money, just get one. If you don't get "it" , i.e. if you realize it's not for you, you can easily sell it with little loss.
I had a M9 before (no M8 ever) and was on the edge, considering the crazy amount of cash. I took part in a MM workshop and the next day I ordered one. All the stuff you see on the web is nothing against opening a raw file of the MM in your digital darkroom. Obviously you care about quality, so you will immediately see how unique the MM files are. If I can only have one, the M9 or MM, I would choose the MM anytime.
If you are a film grain fetishist for artistic reason then save your money and stay with film. Whatever tools to emulate that with MM files - it just sucks and looks seriously artificial. Just my personal $0.02.
I had a M9 before (no M8 ever) and was on the edge, considering the crazy amount of cash. I took part in a MM workshop and the next day I ordered one. All the stuff you see on the web is nothing against opening a raw file of the MM in your digital darkroom. Obviously you care about quality, so you will immediately see how unique the MM files are. If I can only have one, the M9 or MM, I would choose the MM anytime.
If you are a film grain fetishist for artistic reason then save your money and stay with film. Whatever tools to emulate that with MM files - it just sucks and looks seriously artificial. Just my personal $0.02.
GRN
Member
My 2 cents is ... I am Happy with M5 and M8...but I would not say no any extra M body.. though I could not abandon any of my present Leica bodies...... I would personaly look for cheaper M body example M9 or M-E
Richard G
Veteran
No M8. Love the M9. The Monochrom is a fantastic camera: number one is tonality; next is resolution; then there's high ISO. On the street, 1/1000 at f8 and a useable picture from less than a half of the original frame, if necessary, is a boon. But it's the tonality of the final product that really sets it apart. Love film, but no dark room, increasing costs and most importantly, took up too much of my time, the thing I have in shortest supply. And it's only black and white. That restriction really does make a difference to how you spend a couple of hours with the camera.