The Misunderstood Leica Monochrom

[helen.HH]

A Brilliant Camera for sure....but I still prefer shooting FILM 😛
Digi is Fun but does not hold my Attention for Long
Hence a small p&s digi for me

 

[Keith]

A Brilliant Camera for sure....but I still prefer shooting FILM 😛
Digi is Fun but does not hold my Attention for Long
Hence a small p&s digi for me

That small P&S digi is a powerful photographic tool with capabilities way beyond what it's homely appearance suggests! 😀

 

[NY_Dan]

If I shot digital, only BW, and had a lot of money, I'd consider the Monochrom, it's a ballsy product, hats off to Leica for making it.

I don't get the 'Inconspicuous' argument in the article though, it's an unusual looking camera which you raise to your eye, increasingly uncommon these days. If you really wanted to fade into the background, you'd use a DSLR, compact, or phone.

I've considered getting a Nikon F5 just so I have a camera which looks like an everyday DSLR, rather than a Rolleiflex which I've had people stare at like they couldn't believe what they were seeing.

You make good points.

 

[Bill Clark]

B&W film works for me.

 

[mfogiel]

At this point, we should expect a follow up on the Monochrom, with the live view available for using all oddball lenses if one wishes. Apart from this, I'd think, they should work harder on the bit depth=highlight rendition issue. Leica S2 from what I have seen, is capable of better B&W without being a monochromatic camera. I have some old 50, 90 and 135mm lenses waiting for that day - not sharp enough at wider apertures, to be able to show that atrocious skin rendering, typical of Monochrom shots with modern glass.

 

[Vince Lupo]

At this point, we should expect a follow up on the Monochrom, with the live view available for using all oddball lenses if one wishes. Apart from this, I'd think, they should work harder on the bit depth=highlight rendition issue. Leica S2 from what I have seen, is capable of better B&W without being a monochromatic camera.

Never seen results from the S2, but as an owner of a Monochrom, the image quality is perfectly fine (and when I say 'image quality' I mean PRINT quality), at least to my eye. I've never had an issue with highlight rendition - as long as you're exposing much like you would for slide film, highlight rendition is not a problem. Usually it comes down to operator error.

 

[Calzone]

This month (February) means me owning a Monochrom for one year. I waited 5 months for delivery after putting down a $1K non refundable deposit. I was O.K. with the wait because I didn't have the money. Point here is that just because the Monochrom is expensive and costs $1K more than a Leica "M" do not assume that Monochrom owners are rich people with deep pockets.

I use to be a die hard film only guy, and I kinda surprised many people when I bought a Monochrom. I remember all the controversy where posters said that Leica was dumb/stupid questioning who would buy this camera when rumors were just flying around, but I kinda figured out back then if Leica builds a Monochrom that it would likely be my dream come true. One year later all I can say is I was correct a year and 5 months ago, that I'm still in a state of bliss, and that I still shoot film and have not sold any film cameras.

It really comes down to a decisive moment. More than a year later you either get it or you don't. The expense is surely high, and the money has to come from somewhere, but understand that I'm still eating nut butter sandwiches I bring from home for lunch, and that I walk around as much as I can to save as many $2.50 Metrocard fares, and understand that I don't own a car which alone is easily an $8K a year savings.

I for one am glad that Monochrom sales have exceeded Leicas' projection of sales; I understand the inverse of laws of economy of scale effected the pricing to make the Monochrom costly; and that the surprise demand perhaps likely led to a bit of a windfall for Leica; but I worry about how limited future production might be and if production will be sustainable because I don't see how the Monochrom can be improved very much unless limited editions, la carte versions, or a "P" version was available with some modest upgrade.

There really is no misunderstanding: the Monochrom is a limited production camera, and either you get it or you don't. Affording the expense and the economic self discipline is another story.

Cal

 

[airfrogusmc]

Never seen results from the S2, but as an owner of a Monochrom, the image quality is perfectly fine (and when I say 'image quality' I mean PRINT quality), at least to my eye. I've never had an issue with highlight rendition - as long as you're exposing much like you would for slide film, highlight rendition is not a problem. Usually it comes down to operator error.

Agree...I print also and I had a large show last April (a lot of 13 X 19) and some of my film friends were very impressed with the print quality(Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper). Exposing to the right with this camera can be highlight suicide but if you expose like you would transparency film you will be just fine. Better a bit under than a bit over.

I, like Cal, am far from rich. I am a working professional photographer. I need not say more but I do not shoot weddings or family portraits. Only commercial/advertising. This camera and lens(35 Lux FLE) was the perfect match for the way I see and work and I use it mostly for my personal work. If I had all the money I have spent over the years buying to just settle I could by this camera dozens of times over. I am to a point in my career and my life where I no longer want or have to settle. I just wont buy all the stuff. I'll just buy the stuff that fits and works with the way I see and work.

I am an old film and darkroom rat. I did custom color and B&W printing for years and always processed and printed all of my own work. The MM is the only digital B&W in 135 format that i have been really impressed wit. It's a process and when I shoot and B&W is my medium it changes everything from the beginning of the process. B&W is not an after thought but it is the vision from the start.

 

[Lss]

If the price were not problematic, I would likely acquire one.

It's certainly the only reason I don't have one.

 

[GaryMulcahey]

Never seen results from the S2, but as an owner of a Monochrom, the image quality is perfectly fine (and when I say 'image quality' I mean PRINT quality), at least to my eye. I've never had an issue with highlight rendition - as long as you're exposing much like you would for slide film, highlight rendition is not a problem. Usually it comes down to operator error.

This is correct, what Vince speaks of.

See my thoughts on the Mono here----->> http://garymulcahey.blog.com/?p=16

 

[airfrogusmc]

This is correct, what Vince speaks of.

See my thoughts on the Mono here----->> http://garymulcahey.blog.com/?p=16

Nice piece Gary.

 

[GaryMulcahey]

Thank you.

 

[MCTuomey]

Nice piece Gary.

+1 a good read

 

[airfrogusmc]

Gary I am an old film guy to. Large format zone system years ago (yes I did the tests) and had 500 C/Ms for decades. Had a Solar 5X7 enlarger with a Zone VI cold light head.

Went digital for several reasons. First divorce forced downsizing and I lost my darkroom and my clients forced digital in late 2005. Never loved the B&W from my 5Ds.

In fact never really loved the shooting experience with the 5Ds, 5DIIs or 5DIIIs or any other of the Canon or Nikon DSLRs i've shot with. I mean they are tools and they help me pay the mortgage but never bonded with them the way I did with my old Canon F-1s (still have by the way) older Leica M film cameras, Deardorff or my 500 C/Ms.

When I got my Leica MM back in Nov of 2012 it was a match made in heaven. The files are amazing to work with but you know that. I am a manual guy. I have shot manually for decades and can calculate exposure for the way I want my work to look faster and more accurately than any auto exposure mode. My mind sees the world in more tones than just 18% gray. My 5DIIs have the locking dial and it's locked in manual.

As soon as I picked up the MM it was like an old friend. There was a learning curve but after some time I had a similar feeling as when I had with my 500 C/Ms in the 1980s. I haven't had that feeling that i had with my blads until the MM.

For me the MM just gets out of the way when I'm on the streets or where ever I am and allows me to create. It has become second nature and feels like an extension of my eye and there is nothing from my Canons that compare to the B&W files from my MM.

I do all of my personal work with my MM and I can shoot some commercial assignments with it when B&W is going to be used in the final piece.

Do I think this is better than film? Of course not. They are different and I love film. I also love digital. If I didn't have to downsize and still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity. I don't and I am very pleased with the handling and the digital output from my MM. It was a great investment in me and my vision.

Sorry for the thesis...LoL...

 

[noisycheese]

Maybe they should have hired you then for this project. Based on an interview with Kaufmann:

"The black and white project devoured tens of millions of euros and tied one and a half years, a large part of the development team - a daring undertaking for the small company."

and:

"Kaufmann had hoped to 3500 units per year to sell, in fact there are about three times as many."

source

So tens of millions in R&D, while expecting to sell only 10 pieces a day explains a lot about the final price of the MM.

Seems it would be hard to argue the above points - and harder still to disprove them.

I find the MM intriguing - it's the one digital camera that has turned my head. But at $7950 USD, my response is still 😱 rather than check writing.
I am waiting to see if there will be a MM-2; if so, I would expect it to run somewhere between $10,000 and $11,000 USD, given Leica's pricing philosophy.
Thank goodness for my M4-P and Tri-X, the poor man's MM...

 

[ferider]

Maybe they should have hired you then for this project. Based on an interview with Kaufmann:

"The black and white project devoured tens of millions of euros and tied one and a half years, a large part of the development team - a daring undertaking for the small company."

and:

"Kaufmann had hoped to 3500 units per year to sell, in fact there are about three times as many."

source

So tens of millions in R&D, while expecting to sell only 10 pieces a day explains a lot about the final price of the MM.

Not really. At about 10000 units per year, and $8k per unit, that is a revenue of 80 Mio$ per year, which, say at a margin of 50% and a run of 3 years, easily justifies 20 Mio EUR R&D costs, or even more. The price is low enough to create a backlog. That's all that really matters, independent of R&D or manufacturing costs. If it wouldn't sell, the price would be reduced. As is, the price will likely be increased soon.

Don't get me wrong, releasing the MM was a gutsy move and it's a cool camera.

Roland.

 

[Emile de Leon]

Pretty cool cam..the MM..
But really..
Way too much cash-ola...to me..for what you get..
Jeeze..you can buy a whole lotta film cam(s)..for that kinda dough..
A LOT...
My thoughts on such an expensive cam..
1. Someone grabs it when you arent lookin....you are toast..
2. You drop it one day..you are burnt toast..
3. It goes kerblitz spuff szclitz....who knows why..and has to go back to factory for a Leica.."Fix"..more..toast..
4. Short life expectency..and devaluation..
Way too expansive & risky for me to own..
But..
Isn't the general markup from computer manufacturer to retail about 10x's..?
But maybe not for Leica..
Who knows..maybe when they make a MM240 w/LV..that can use all brands of lenses..it would be worth it for me..when I don't want to sniff chemicals anymore..
But to be fair..for me..I've never seen print from this cam live..or handled the cam in person..
But to my eye..the webshots look way too clean and perfect..and flat in tonality too that I've seen..just dont see what the big deal is..
OK..I'm shooting the last of my LF film and contact printing on my last remaining AZO..
Leica ..or anything else for that matter..doesnt even come close to that..lets not pretend..
But for what it is..its pretty cool...for those..with deep pockets..and needing a unique rangefinder..

 

[Vince Lupo]

1. Someone grabs it when you arent lookin....you are toast..
2. You drop it one day..you are burnt toast..
3. It goes kerblitz spuff szclitz....who knows why..and has to go back to factory for a Leica.."Fix"..more..toast..

4. Short life expectency..and devaluation..

But to be fair..for me..I've never seen print from this cam live..or handled the cam in person..
But to my eye..the webshots look way too clean and perfect..and flat in tonality too that I've seen..just dont see what the big deal is..
OK..I'm shooting the last of my LF film and contact printing on my last remaining AZO..
Leica ..or anything else for that matter..doesnt even come close to that..lets not pretend..

1-3: There's this thing called insurance. Would address all those concerns - at least mine does. And you'd be wise to have insurance on any of your camera equipment that you have, not just a Monochrom.

4: Time will tell, but if that was something I worried about, I wouldn't necessarily be buying any digital camera (including my D4, D800, etc etc), or a computer, a car, etc.

Please don't judge image quality by what you see on screen. All screens are calibrated differently, and an image on one can really look different on another (though I'm sure you know that). Besides, is it really fair to compare the equivalent of a 35mm frame to a large format? And if you haven't seen a print, how can you fairly judge its inherent quality one way or another? See a print, then judge.

 

[airfrogusmc]

1-3: There's this thing called insurance. Would address all those concerns - at least mine does. And you'd be wise to have insurance on any of your camera equipment that you have, not just a Monochrom.

4: Time will tell, but if that was something I worried about, I wouldn't necessarily be buying any digital camera (including my D4, D800, etc etc), or a computer, a car, etc.

Please don't judge image quality by what you see on screen. All screens are calibrated differently, and an image on one can really look different on another (though I'm sure you know that). Besides, is it really fair to compare the equivalent of a 35mm frame to a large format? And if you haven't seen a print, how can you fairly judge its inherent quality one way or another? See a print, then judge.

++++++1 😉

 

[toyfel]

monochrome M240

monochrome M240

The MM is the only camera currently on the market that I would like to own. But I won't buy it (even if I had the money) because I'd rather have a M240 with a monochrome sensor. Not because of CMOS (I don't care about the CMOS versus CCD debate) but because of the much nicer shutter and range finder (compared to the MM).