What do M Monochrom reviews say about the reviewers?

[f16sunshine]

I have yet to see anyone online who uses the Monochrome with any B&W filters. It makes me wonder if most of them take the M as a toy or whatever.

Check out this thread.

Here is one from Urban Alchemist using a red filter.

Viewing Photos from this camera goes much further towards judging it's virtues than any review will be able to do. No disrespect to reviewers regardless of their intentions.

 

[leicashot]

I have yet to see anyone online who uses the Monochrome with any B&W filters. It makes me wonder if most of them take the M as a toy or whatever.

I don't use filters because I don't care for such messing around with my style of photography. I am perfectly happy with the results without filters.....so that negates me using it as a toy?

 

[icebear]

...

My personal editorial comment is that after seeing these pieces, I am less interested in what these people have to write - whether about the M or anything else. What's your take?

Dante,
on the web there is plenty of information, so much that is not an offering but a nuisence because it get's so difficult to distinguish the commercial crap from from an honest opinion. "Reading around" gives you generally a good idea about the consensus of e.g. the Monochrom. Style, experience and journalistic qualification are vastly different, we know our specialists...

Kristian Dowling on RFF and those who've also posted to the two threads he started are the only useful and convincing reviewers of the Monochrom. On others' writings I am curious but bored. On this RFF evidence I am reaching for my cheque book.

Therefore a big +1 here, for fellow members of RFF.

 

[semilog]

I don't use filters because I don't care for such messing around with my style of photography. I am perfectly happy with the results without filters.....so that negates me using it as a toy?

That's slightly short-sighted, I think. The MM has a rather non-film-like spectral response that is typical of monochrome CCD sensors. It's not really optimized for optimal aesthetic rendering in pictorial photography but rather for reasonable* quantum efficiency in the visual range, being adapted (as it is) from sensor designs that were rather clearly intended for scientific applications.

I can't imagine having one of those and not using color filters with it.

*The KAF sensors have not had leading-edge sensitivity or noise characteristics for at least a dozen years, and among CCDs were trumped by Sony's superior interline CCDs at least that long ago. I know this because 12-15 years ago is when serious microscopists -- who almost universally use monochrome sensors -- began our mass exodus from Kodak to the markedly superior Sony sensors. Not only can't I imagine shooting a KAF without a color filter, I can't imagine laying out that kind of coin for sensor tech that's that far out of date. Now most of us are using EM-CCDs cooled to -80, or large-array sCMOS, or we're still sticking with those superior Sony-based CCD cameras. If one looks at product design cycles and Leica's abandonment of the KAF sensors for the M10, it's obvious that Leica's engineers agree.

 

[steveniphoto]

Totally agree. I laugh when I look at his website and think that people are actually paying him to learn something. How far down on the food chain do you need to be to learn from him.... For the price of his workshops you could get a real street photographer to let you follow him around for the day. You would learn a hell of a lot more too. I have no doubt about that.



If you look at Eric's video in HK with Digital Rev you will see how much he manipulates situations and sets up his photos to look real and candid.

there have been quite a few well known street photographers who have admitted to posing shots/influencing a scene (erwitt, gilden, davidson, etc etc).. what's your point? if you're going to judge him over one video on digitalrev of all things then i dont know what to say.

after meeting the guy in person i can honestly say he doesn't deserve most of the **** people online give him. i find it funny how quick people are willing to judge others before even getting to know them. he's passionate about what he does and at the end of the day he's making money and seeing the world while the haters online are still stuck at home on their computers.

would i pay for his workshops? f*ck no. but there are some people who have and most of those people have learned about getting comfortable in the streets.. just let him do his thing.

 

[Richard G]

I think Leicashot (KD) is right about the reception of the MM by those who do care. I too felt the frustration of watching a game in which I cannot play as I didn't have the entry level euipment. I think this underpinned some of the silliness/nastiness on that thread of such marvellous pictures. The MM really is something. I only have the M9. Never mind. I can get over it. Some couldn't and it showed in their posts.

 

[leicashot]

Short-sighted? Maybe, but I care about 'picture' quality more than 'image/file' quality. I have yet to experience issues without using filters and can do all I need with the DNG files, while minimizing any fusing around with filters in the field, maximizing my efficiency as a photographer.

That's slightly short-sighted, I think. The MM has a rather non-film-like spectral response that is typical of monochrome CCD sensors. It's not really optimized for optimal aesthetic rendering in pictorial photography but rather for reasonable* quantum efficiency in the visual range, being adapted (as it is) from sensor designs that were rather clearly intended for scientific applications.

I can't imagine having one of those and not using color filters with it.

*The KAF sensors have not had leading-edge sensitivity or noise characteristics for at least a dozen years, and among CCDs were trumped by Sony's superior interline CCDs at least that long ago. I know this because 12-15 years ago is when serious microscopists -- who almost universally use monochrome sensors -- began our mass exodus from Kodak to the markedly superior Sony sensors. Not only can't I imagine shooting a KAF without a color filter, I can't imagine laying out that kind of coin for sensor tech that's that far out of date. Now most of us are using EM-CCDs cooled to -80, or large-array sCMOS, or we're still sticking with those superior Sony-based CCD cameras.

 

[CaptZoom]

Also everyone's trying to get famous these days and it's all about popularity....take Eric Kim for example - known for being a professional street photographer, and began teaching it before ever achieving anything. He's also slammed by many serious professional street photographers, yet endorsed by Leica

I'm not picking on you, nor am I endorsing Eric Kim. I'm genuinely curious.
How do you consider to be a professional/credible street photographer? Any published works (printed not online)?

 

[leicashot]

I'm not picking on you, nor am I endorsing Eric Kim. I'm genuinely curious.
How do you consider to be a professional/credible street photographer? Any published works (printed not online)?

A professional/creditable street photographer is someone who has proven themselves over a number of years by contributing paid/unpaid quality work to publications online/offline....not someone who started blogging about a profession he has no experience about. I have nothing against Eric Kim, but I know many people that do, mainly due to the way he is teaching street photography - and he's copying Bruce Gilden's 'approach', and not achieving his 'execution'.

That approach creates a bad rap for street photographers who are very passionate about what they do. Digital photography and social networking has made people very conscious and aware of photos being taken in public, and that kind of direct, confronting approach only places stronger restrictions on photographers.

Another example is what happened in Melbourne, where Eric nearly got arrested. Instead of walking away from a woman unhappy with her picture being taken, he sticks around and awaits police so he can make a video about it. But it was he who instigated the whole thing. He could have just walked away, but it made better entertainment by sticking around. This kind of behavior is not good for street photographers' reputations.

I am only speaking on behalf of some serious street photographers who aren't happy with the way he goes about his business. Personally, I think what he is doing needs to be adjusted but I certainly won't hate on someone just cause they're doing well. I'm sure he's a nice guy with good intentions, but maybe needs to re-look at his approach and effects it's having.

I know that while he is deemed a Leica 'ambassador', Leica are quietly denying it. They obviously want the numbers he draws in through social media, but don't want the negative side of his reputation tarnishing the historial brand associated with mainly Magnum Photographers.....and now, Eric Kim....Sorry Leica, you can't have it both ways.

 

[flip]

I think there is a rule to internet reviews of high priced products that probably applies to this as well: nobody (well, one in a great many) walks their dogs on the 'net. That is, people want to justify their decisions publicly - not show off bad purchase decisions - and will bias accordingly. It my be that the drive to do so compels some to get in beyond their depth in a technical review. But hey, I look for bad reviews; it keeps me in the black. 😀

 

[sparrow6224]

Dante's thought was vastly more nuanced than the weary subjects almost all the critic-bashing responses have addressed. What he seems to be saying from what I can tell is that the Monochrom has created a photographic situation that reveals not only the technical knowledge that certain writers lack, but also has exposed a deep lack of intelligent understanding of what b&w (vs color) photography really is, and is about. To such a degree that he now sees certain writers as not even readable after reading them on the Monochrom -- by virtue NOT of all the common sins everyone likes to blunder on about, but by virtue of a deeper limitation they've been forced to expose in their photographic understanding. Whereas previously had had not believed this about them. In this sense the Monochrom represents another turning point in the history of the art of photography because it is forcing digital photography to face choices that film users faced for a long time. (If you accept, and you might well not, but I do, that a digital file converted to black and white and played with for effects is not the same as a black and white photograph...) For me, I find that I have to train my eye to see the world completely differently when I'm shooting in color; that what is interesting in an image in b/w is not interesting in color, that in the end the most interesting thing in color is color, and interesting colors are hard to find. Whereas interesting light and shadow is everywhere. And this is true of landscapes, streets, and the human face.

 

[sparrow6224]

For example, to continue on the above, how many great b/w photographs can you think of that are dominated by the sky? There is Adams, of course; and there are the mysterious and moving images of clouds and sky by steiglitz. These photographs are about light and shadow and the values ranging between them and they demand super meticulous control of exposure, development, and print. And they are rare. But there are hundreds of really terrific "sky" color photograhs to be found on the photo.net gallery pages where I've spent some time recently. And that's on one site. covering what, about a seven year period? Sky is just one way of starting to think about the differences.

 

[Jaans]

It seems that everyone and his brother is attempting to get an M Monochrom review up (and to reap any attendant click-throughs, subscriptions, etc.). The technical discussions (or attempts thereat) do not seem particularly interesting. We can take it at face value (and if not that, then Erwin Put's tests) that the M resolves 20% more than an M9 and we can take it on faith that the camera is most sensitive to yellow-green light.

But what I find more interesting is what is sometimes between the lines of these reviews and sometimes out in the open: the philosophical development of reviewers; their relative competence with understanding the effects of color on tonality, and their overall skill levels in photography.

My personal editorial comment is that after seeing these pieces, I am less interested in what these people have to write - whether about the M or anything else. What's your take?

Actually, I was all so rather bored after reading the second review for this camera. There was the usual internet chatter here and on leica forums - however digital peeping, megapixels and all that jazz kind of do my head in. I'm a film guy so digital just doesn't do it for me. Having said that, I do hope that Leica is onto a winner with this camera as it would be good for the long term prospects of the company. In some strange way, I guess your original post/comment is just adding more noise to this cluster of reviews.

 

[Roger Hicks]

To me it rather suggests that the reviewers are not 'real' B+W photographers, who by definition wet-print real film, but then, I'm an ultra-purist/fundamentalist over this.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Could I afford one? Yes. Will I ever buy one? Absolutely not. In my eyes it's an inefficient one trick pony that in no way deserves the amount of fawning over that it receives.

Congratulations though to Leica, and the Leica herd for having done so well PR wise that this is the only forum I visit where bodies are put ahead of glass just for the sake of Leica ownership. 😛

Dear Christian,

Ah: "I don't want it, therefore only fools buy it."

I don't want it either, but that's because I prefer film for B+W. But for those who want an all-digital route, I'd hesitate too be quite so dismissive as you are.

The word 'hatred' seems to be tossed about with abandon on the internet. Why are so many people determined to be so extreme and so given to exaggeration? 99%, eh?

Think it possible that there are others, possibly smarter than you, possibly more experienced than you, who do not share your views. When I am tempted to extremism, I always attempt to think about those who may be cleverer and more experienced than I; except when I am striving for comic effect, of course. In which case, I have to say that I didn't get your joke.

Cheers,

R.

 

[willie_901]

Some people who could afford Leica and can find one to buy ( or wouldn't mind being on a waiting list) actually don't want to own Leica for a variety of reasons. Many people like this actually feel quite good about themselves too.

 

[skibeerr]

Leica M Monochrom has the dynamic range of a digi P&S. B&W film is all about DR. All MM reviews keep harping about detail, who gives a fig about detail in B&W when due to crappy DR there is no tonality and no dynamic range. I look at MM samples and they're all too high contrast to have the classic B&W look. All these reviewers have no clue how film B&W should look so its not their fault.

Maybe have a look on another screen :angel:

 

[leicashot]

Wow, don't hold back guys, let the negativity flow. The only reason people react they way they do to the M Monochrom is because of it's price and film nostalgia. If it was $4k or under these apparent 'haters' would all have one and be praising it. I love hearing it has poor dynamic range, when I see plenty of poorly scanned film shots with blown out highlights being posted.

It's a tool remember. Leica never said it was better than film. They never said it was for everyone. If it's not for you, no need to belittle it and its users because you either don't want it or can't afford/justify owning it.... Sad

 

[leicashot]

Roger are you talking to me, or Guaranteed? I did not make reference to those percentages. Guaranteed made those up all by his self.

Dear Christian,

Ah: "I don't want it, therefore only fools buy it."

I don't want it either, but that's because I prefer film for B+W. But for those who want an all-digital route, I'd hesitate too be quite so dismissive as you are.

The word 'hatred' seems to be tossed about with abandon on the internet. Why are so many people determined to be so extreme and so given to exaggeration? 99%, eh?

Think it possible that there are others, possibly smarter than you, possibly more experienced than you, who do not share your views. When I am tempted to extremism, I always attempt to think about those who may be cleverer and more experienced than I; except when I am striving for comic effect, of course. In which case, I have to say that I didn't get your joke.

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

All these reviewers have no clue how film B&W should look so its not their fault.

So should B&W look like D. Moriyama, E. Richards, E. Weston, S. Salgado, or R. Avedon? It can't look like all of them so we're looking forward to you telling us which four of these five have/had it wrong.