Did you find the Leica Monochrom worth it?

In a review on the Leica Monochrom (first version), a reputable reviewer has stated that some people, on first viewing

their files from the camera, have been surprised to find them to be flat and lacking contrast. He goes on to say that this is the look of a good medium format negative, and it's ideal for very nuanced prints with subtle tonalities. He states that digital post process is similar to making a print with graded papers in the darkroom. In order to be able to do this properly and take full advantage of the files, one first needs a high end monitor, like the NEC Spectra View or EIZO monitors. iMac screens, while good in his opinion, aren't good enough to get the most out of a Leica Monochrom file.

What people end up doing with an inadequate monitor is to pump up the contrast to the point where subtle mid tones are lost.

 

What have those of you who have the camera found? Are you working with an average monitor and finding the files not

worth the price you paid, or are you impressed? Have you gone the high end monitor route? Do you

print? I've found printing is a different ballgame than posting photos on the net. What's the result there? What is

your feeling on the matter?

<p>After some hours I've noticed no one responding. However, your original post inspired a search of imagesmade with the Monochrom, and I also came upon a number of blogs. It made for an inspiring afternoon. I saw nothing dull. Quite to the contrary. Leica is out of my price range, so I enjoyed from afar. I hope someone will respond to your question.</p>

<p>I've seen many outstanding street and documentary photos online by folks like Peter Turnley, Mark Brown and others using the Monochrom. Most of them are editing from raw files, not posting straight from camera JPEGs. The clarity is outstanding - comparable to T-Max 100 and Neopan in overall appearance, even at high ISOs.</p>

<p>The only criticism I'd have is that some Leica Monochrom and M9 shooters tend to overwork their b&w photos, leaning a bit too hard on the Lightroom sliders for clarity and shadow, approaching an almost tone mapped effect. This seems to happen more often with folks who got into photography only the past decade and didn't use film extensively. It's just a different aesthetic, not better or worse, just different from my personal preferences.</p>

<p>No idea what the SOOC JPEGs look like for people pix, so far nobody I follow posts 'em. Dpreview posts JPEGs but they don't really do people photography, which would be my main interest in such a camera (although the Leicas are far beyond my budget). I'd really like to try one just to see if I can adapt to the rangefinder focusing. I tried various Leica M film cameras years ago and couldn't adapt quickly to rangefinder focusing. So I just bought a few cheap compact rangefinders and stick with stopping down and zone focusing. If I still can't adapt to quickly focusing a rangefinder I'm probably better off with an AF digicam with optical viewfinder like the Fuji X100 or X-Pro 1. I do like the optical viewfinder for the uninterrupted view when taking candids.</p>

<p>Of my various other digicams - Nikon V1, Fuji X-A1, Ricoh GRD4, Ricoh GX100 - only the GRD4 consistently generates thoroughly satisfactory b&w JPEGs straight from the camera. I often use the Nikon V1 in b&w mode with the digital orange filter - the results often favor candid people pix in dim lighting by lightening darker skin tones. But in full lighting the orange filter is a bit much and tends to excessively lighten skin and loses subtle textures and shadow/light modeling. And much as I like the color photos from the Fuji, the b&w mode is usually a bit flat for my taste.</p>

In reverse order of importance:

 

1. Stunning capability. It is nothing to shoot on the shady side of the street with ISO 3200 and enjoy the luxury of f8 and

1/1000s. Doable with other cameras, but no other Leica when it was released.

 

2. The resolution allows very useable photographs from a fraction of the original frame.

 

3. The noiseless shadow detail can be pulled up from near black.

 

4. It only does black and white. You think like you've got Tri-X in the camera (or a mixture of Panatomic X and Tri-X).

 

5. The tonal gradation is so subtle. I took a photograph in Paris in late afternoon sun of two men talking at the entrance to

a bookshop. The recreation of the light of that moment is magical, never more evident than in an Epson 3880 print on

good Ilford paper.

 

Some shots hardly need any post processing at all. The flatness is evident in other shots, leaving you a flexible platform. I add no clarity or sharpening in Lightroom, ever. Mostly I am increasing contrast, moving the Black and Highlight sliders in opposite directions and raising the Shadow slider.

 

Did I find the original Monochrom worth it? Utterly.

<p>You know you want one Ray, you can't fight it and win... you are pretty good at selling equipment you don't want, so its a big initial investment, but if you don't like it you can sell it off at not too big of a loss. Should I think of a few more justifiers to help nudge you over the edge?</p>

Haha. That's a pretty good justifier Barry. Got any more? It won't be a cliff I'd be trying to fly off of anyway........ It's just money.

 

Thanks everyone else who has answered so far, I appreciate the input.

<p>While it's nice to have a decent monitor, I edited my first two years' worth of Monochrom images on a Lenovo portable workstation (you can call it a laptop, if you have a very substantial lap), and the resulting prints look great (I don't post anything on the Web). I take the finished files to a rental facility I use for printing, and when they come up on the Macs they use there, the images didn't need any tweaking to make good prints.<br>

I now do most of my editing on a Lenovo ThinkStation desktop with a NEC Multisync monitor, and I still don't see a huge difference in the images that I originally edited on the portable rig. The MM is a great camera, my primary digicam, and the big prints look like medium-format TMax 400 or Delta 100. Even if I shoot at EI 800 or 1600, I don't need to do much in the way of noise reduction. The RAW files out of the camera are flat, so you have to do some post-processing to give them some zap. But after a while, you can develop some Lightroom pre-sets that do much of the initial work.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a new Monochrom due to the falling prices as a result of the 246 version being released. I'm finding the B&W medium refreshing. The shot below was a test shot to see how the camera processes clouds (no processing). Not bad, but this shot did prompt me to purchase yellow 16 and red 25 filters for all of my lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>First test shot out of the camera for detail. ...</p><div></div>

<p>Ray there are some that will insist you need a Nec, Eizo etc. to get the best out of any raw digital workflow, but I think you can do fine on your iMac for a while. Have you tried the Silver Efx that Ian recommended? I've been using that and I think the results are pretty good. Maybe that would be a good try (assuming you already haven't) before you spend the cash. If you do get the M, can I borrow it :)</p>

I have been using one and I really enjoy it.

 

Some notes. Initially, I kept the shutter speed on A and became very frustrated with the shortness of battery life while not knowing why. I have since learned how to shoot the thing and keep it off of the A setting and my battery lasts surprisingly longer.

 

I get a lot of remarks from the non-photographers who notice its old-style yet refined looks. "Wow, nice camera! That's an old film model, right?" Not so surprising, really. I am always tickled when I tell them, no, it's a newish digital camera, but it takes lenses dating back to 1954 without adapters, and even before that with adapters!

 

The files are beautiful. As Lex points out, though, it's easy to over do them with those sliders. I tend to make adjustments fairly modestly now, and after I think I'm done, I up the exposure a tad, and bring the other sliders like shadow and clarity down to earth from outer space.

 

Being a little thicker than the traditional film M camera, a "Thumbs Up" from Match Technical Services ( http://www.matchtechnical.com/Pages/default.aspx ) is an awesome accessory, and it makes the camera feel like a pair of Birkenstocks, i.e. like it is super-glued to my hand. (My Birks sometimes are hard to shake off, they fit so well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkenstock )

<p>Tony wears Birkies? I'll bet he wears 'em with white socks. While driving a Subaru.</p>

I use it like a film camera loaded with Panatomic-X outdoors, and pushed Tri-X indoors.<p>

 

95% of my shots are straight exports to Jpeg as I use filters before taking the shot, preferred to sliders afterwards. If these shots are considered "flat" in "modern times", so what. I'm an antique.<p>

 

ISO 5000

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/17358012392" title="Skate and Fun Zone by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7660/17358012392_dd759c0328_b.jpg" width="681" height="1024"

alt="Skate and Fun Zone"></a><p>

 

ISO 10,000, some NR- Sharpening turned off<p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/17172357350" title="Skate and Fun Zone by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8709/17172357350_d259bbb4ac_b.jpg" width="681" height="1024"

alt="Skate and Fun Zone"></a><p>

 

ISO 320.Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5, Y52 filter.<p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/16571518163" title="Mt Vernon by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr">

<img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7615/16571518163_6a9e54248c_b.jpg" width="681" height="1024" alt="Mt

Vernon"></a>

<p>I bought mine to escape the dilemma of having a "color savvy" reputation to lose and a not calibrated average screen.<br>

I don't know what would be hard about processing Monochrom files for print according to histogram guesswork after 3 attempts to get an idea of what you are seeing and getting. <br>

From my understanding a inferior monitor renders 0 - 9 = "pitchblack" + 245 & above = "pure white" (hopefully slightly exagurated) - How is that bugger supposed to eat grey shades in between, by misleading the user? - From my limited dabbling so far I'd rather blame the popular zone system substitute of "Auto everything & fix it in post". Bright skies and other light sourrces can cause dark skin tones and any attempt to lighten those eats lots of half tones indeed and a lack of shadow detail shouts for a lot of black area in the image... - Thats just a rough guess. The really interesting experiment would be to let classes of wannabe media technicians tweak a few well exposed files on ideal and average monitors and to compare their results.<br>

Worth it? - I think the ISO range is it. - I can't compare the MM to desaturating color files. - I never liked doing the latter without a publishing related need, so it had to be a BW camera for me. </p>

<p>A monochrome Leica is a niche item. It does what it does with extreme precision and quality, it just doesn't do very much. Pride of ownership comes at a steep price, so you must ask yourself a few questions, including those related to using any rangefinder camera.</p>

<ul>

<li>Does B&W suit my style of photography?</li>

<li>Does the increased ISO range and resolution offset the loss of color?</li>

<li>Do I have a market for the results (assuming you aren't a wealthy dilettante)?</li>

<li>Will I invest in a monochrome photo printer?</li>

<li>Am I comfortable with rangefinder focusing?</li>

<li>Can I live with a limited range of very expensive lenses (28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135, costing $2200 to $12K)?</li>

<li>Do I regularly use lenses longer than 50mm? (focusing a 90mm lens at f/2 with a 0.58x finder is ... challenging)?</li>

<li>Can I live without automatic focusing, shutter priority, and zoom lenses?</li>

<li>Can I live with limited battery life (300 images or 3 hours, whichever is less)?</li>

</ul>

<p>Perhaps the key is how well a rangefinder camera fits your style and needs, and whether your budget will encompass both an expensive body and equally expensive lenses good enough to take advantage of it. Once you have used a digital M with a Leica or Zeiss lens, you will not be satisfied with anything less. It is a road to perdition.</p>

<p>"ask yourself a few questions": </p>

<ul>

<li>Does B&W suit my style of photography? Yes;</li>

<li>Does the increased ISO range and resolution offset the loss of color? Don't know;</li>

<li>Do I have a market for the results (assuming you aren't a wealthy dilettante)? I am a wealthy dilettante;</li>

<li>Will I invest in a monochrome photo printer? Not necessary, an Epson P600 with 3 B&W inks is enough;</li>

<li>Am I comfortable with rangefinder focusing? So so;</li>

<li>Can I live with a limited range of very expensive lenses (28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135, costing $2200 to $12K)? Zeiss, yes;</li>

<li>Do I regularly use lenses l onger than 50mm? (focusing a 90mm lens at f/2 with a 0.58x finder is ... challenging)? No, rarely;</li>

<li>Can I live without automatic focusing, shutter priority, and zoom lenses? Yes;</li>

<li>Can I live with limited battery life (300 images or 3 hours, whichever is less)? Yes;</li>

</ul>

<p>Edward, please, your diagnostic?</p>

Hmm, wasn't aware there was such a thing as a monochrome printer. Who makes them?

Ray, I'm not sure, but maybe Edward meant a monochrome printing process that would suit the quality of the Leica images. Colorbyte's "Imageprint" software is extremely good, but its user interface is a bit quirky in my opinion. (I have not seen version 10, though.) http://colorbytesoftware.com/

I should know this but can you add a layer of sepia or whatever tint to the monochrome image in

photoshop? Or for sure at least at the printer stage I would assume. ??

Yes- you can convert the image to 16-bit RGB with "Mode" and then apply the color toning. You can also do this with Silver

Efex2.

<p>The Advanced Black and White with the Epson 3880 is very good, and the 'Warm Tone' output is subtle and pleasing if you like that. The original Monochrom does a Sepia jpeg output that is less subtle.</p>

Right, I've got a 3800 and the 'advanced b&w' setting warm tone is nice.

With a big part of the advantage of a Monochrom over the M9 being gaining a stop and a half in ISO

performance-- If you put a yellow filter on the lens you give back a stop anyway, right?

I prefer a Deep yellow or Orange filter outdoors. For low-light and High-ISO: do not use them.

Thanks Brian. I'm starting to get some nice results now converting to monochrome with the M9, so I think I

may stick to that, at least for awhile. The ability to use color sliders in post is part of that decision.