Leica Monochrom

Anybody shooting with a Leica Monochrom lately? Do the photos still have the antiseptic feel of digital, or could I safely

replace my film M with one? Are blacks in a good quality inkjet print as deep? I sort of doubt it..

 

I had an M8 a few years ago. Has anyone compared the results (not the interface etc) with that camera and the Monochrom? A few weeks ago I got my Epson 3800 prints out and the ones that originated from Tri-X or other b&w film had deeper blacks than from the M8, which by itself with no comparison, makes a good effort toward trying to look like film. Does the Monochrom get any closer?

<p>I think the MM is an extraordinary camera. MF resolution and an awesome tonal response.<br>

Take a look at my images www.flickr.com/photos/michael_toye<br>

This one is 100% https://secure.flickr.com/photos/michael_toye/9004291954/sizes/o<br>

Michael</p>

<p>There's an active forum dedicated to the Leica Monochrome on the L-Camera forum http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/</p>

<p>Take a look for yourself at this excellent thread started by Tony. Great photos, too:<br /><br /><a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00bJ3j">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00bJ3j</a></p>

<p>While I like the results of the Monochrom, I think it retains that antiseptic look of digital. The statement above that the Monochrom has "MF resolution" is optimistic to say the least.</p>

 

<p>What Jim said. There are a lot of cheerleaders for this thing, but look at the photos you see from it! Yeah, they look good for digital, but that doesn't mean much, do it?</p>

<p>I like Leicas, have owned a lot of them, the lenses are superb, but digital is digital, and always will be. This will surely get people's hackles up, but I guarantee I could take a $50 film camera, load it w/ Tri-X, print it on fiber paper, and blow away any B&W digital photo ever made. Any of us could. I wouldn't make this bet w/ color, as digital does a remarkable job w/ that, as long as you're willing to live w/ the loss of shadow detail that occurs. It's really silly to run around w/ blinders on. Film excels at some things, digital excels at other things, but it's foolish to mix the strengths up w/ the weaknesses. But hey, people invest a ton of money in something, it biases their reality. </p>

If you liked Panatomic-X in Microdol, you'll love it.

 

They're not bringing Panatomic-X back. I guess there are those that thought it was sterile.

"It's really silly to run around w/ blinders on. Film excels at some things, digital excels at other things, but it's foolish to mix the strengths up w/ the weaknesses. But hey, people invest a ton of money in something, it biases their reality. "

 

I'm trying to figure out what this says. Who has those blinders, Steve?

<img src="http://www.leicaplace.com/members/brian/albums/1943-carl-zeiss-jena-5cm-f1-5-leica-mount-original/733-korea1-zeiss.jpg" > <p>

 

ISO 5000, 1943 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Sonnar "T" wide-open on the M Monochrom.

<p>The photos are nice, but I did notice that they are very digitally "clean" looking. Both the new Asph lens and the the monochrome. I'm not sure they don't look antiseptic to me. If you want, you could try to add some digital "grain" and see what that does. But there's almost a kind of HDR look to some of them. Though I like the photos a lot, good work Michael. Why don't you post on the pic of the week thread? We need ya.</p>

<p>If I wasn't clear enough, I like the results I've seen from the Monochrom. If I had the intention to buy a digital Leica it would probably be a Monochrom. Barry may have selected the more accurate word: clean. It certainly retains that digital look but not in an obnoxious way. I wonder if digital cameras use sharpening (or an unsharpening mask) in-camera to create that uniquely digital look.</p>

<p>Regardless, I like the tonal range of the Monochrom and it is about the only digital that could woo me away from 35mm B&W film. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's really silly to run around w/ blinders on. Film excels at some things, digital excels at other things, but it's foolish to mix the strengths up w/ the weaknesses. But hey, people invest a ton of money in something, it biases their reality." - Steve Mareno</p>

</blockquote>

<p>FWIW, I interpreted this to cut both ways. A film workflow and kit can be a costly investment, perhaps no less so than for digital. Digital vs. film is now as false a dichotomy as watercolors vs. oils. </p>

<p>Foolhardy claims that digital is just as good as film misses the point, as I see it, entirely. I think a better approach to this is to appreciate the differences, if not celebrate them. Still we precede with making foolish comparisons as though our eldest child is quantifiably better than our youngest child. Pffft! </p>

<p>Enough with being meta.</p>

<p>Thanks Barry. I have just joined and am keen to participate :)<br>

Further on the Monochrom conversation, my images are a specific look. I shoot and process for strong clarity and a deep DoF. I think what encourages me about the Monochrom is how little work I have to do in PS to achieve these results. I used to shoot Canon and the Monochrom is a clear step up.<br>

No disrespect to others here - I'm new so have no idea of anyones' camera history - but I tend to take reviews on cameras with a pinch of salt unless they've lived with said camera for at least 1000 shots. <br>

Michael</p>

So much depends on how someone likes to print... Brian, I'd love to see a few more examples of yours,

although, looking at screen shots, it's still hard to judge what a print would look like.

As far as resolution goes, even the M8 was excellent, and I don't think comparison to medium

format in that respect is unreasonable. I'm just not convinced that anything digital is up to the full tonal

range of a good black and white film optimally processed. I guess I'd have to see some prints in person- or better, give the camera a

run myself to know for sure.

I've been posting most of my shots here:

 

http://www.leicaplace.com/members/brian/albums/

 

People know I am a classic lens fanatic. So, many are sorted by Lens.

 

Digital does not have the "Toe" and "Heel" of film, easy to blow highlights and miss shadows. Choice of a lens is even more important on a Digital camera. Older glass with less contrast, and "not too much resolution" suits digital well.

 

I've been using "Digital Imagers" since 1981. You don't need liquid nitrogen anymore, not even with IR cameras. Some things have improved.

<p>(yawn) When are people stop comparing digital and film?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Digital does not have the "Toe" and "Heel" of film, easy to blow highlights and miss shadows</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While that is true, IMO, if you scan film, much will depend on scanning and post-processing. You can "blow" highlight and "block" shadows at each step. And then of course it will be paramount how, with what and on what you print it. While the choices for a completely analogue process seem to become more and more limited, there are so many option (and hence variations) for digital output.</p>

<p>I, for one, don't think that digital looks "antiseptic" per se. That being said, unfortunately I have not had the chance to play with the Monochrom, but I doubt it is an "replacement" for film, just a different option. If you really need to choose between film and digital, a better comparison would be a good darkroom print vs a good inkjet print from the Monochrom. I am pretty sure they will look different, but each pleasing in their own way.</p>

Yes, Benjamin, thanks.

 

Also, when are we going to stop criticizing technology as it improves? It's like complaining about the impurity of a Porsche's ability to go 150 miles per hour when in the old days a Model T would go 25 and that's if you could keep it on the road with its lousy steering. The Model T, see, has much more character than the Porsche.

 

Film grain was essentially bad, wasn't it? Wasn't there a whole industry surrounding the notion that if you exposed correctly, developed it using the correct developer, temperature, time, and agitation methods, then you could _reduce_ apparent grain? Didn't film grain adversely affect the extent an image could be cropped and enlarged? I get that film grain adds character to photographs, and I even like that.

 

Now, if you mix a Leica Monochrom with Lightroom (and possibly DFine), you can end up with virtually grainless pictures. I think that's actually really cool.

<blockquote>

<p>"I am pretty sure they will look different, but each pleasing in their own way." - Benjamin</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Film grain was essentially bad, wasn't it?" - Tony</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm just an egg. My understanding is that grain is an essential component of acutance. At some level whether pixels or crystals, something is needed to allow photos to have apparent sharpness to our eyes. Not bad but different.</p>

 

<p>"I'm just an egg" - is that a Robert Heinlein reference?</p>

Film is not about nostalgia to me, as Tony implies in using the word "character." It's about a superior tonal scale. It's subtle, but it's there, and it's significant enough to cause a lot of very good photographers, still to this day, to opt for using film. Digital has a different look. You may like the clean look or not. Digital tends to be superior to 35mm film with respect to resolution. But the main reason it's the prevalent technology now is that it's less labor intensive and more convenient. For commercial photographers too, it's used because in that realm, "time is money."

<blockquote>

<p>Also, when are we going to stop criticizing technology as it improves?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tony, film grain was not inherently "good" or "bad". There was a lot of chemistry done to control the grain structure. Some poeple liked grained films for others did not and it also related to the use for the photos. So its really not grain or no grain. Also, I'm not really concerned about film vs digital either. I don't know if people are reacting to my original comment that they took it to be some luddite comment against digital photography. I was just reacting to the photos I was looking at. They have an HDR appearance to me and are very "clean". This can be simply post-processing or the camera. People have sometimes used that type of description in relation to the new ASPH lenses that they are so sharp edge to edge that some find them not pleasing. Could be that. But if you think I'm making an anti-technology statement, you are incorrect. </p>

(yawn) When are people stop comparing digital and film?

 

 

Digital does not have the "Toe" and "Heel" of film, easy to blow highlights and miss shadows

 

While that is true, IMO, if you scan film, much will depend on scanning and post-processing. You can "blow" highlight and "block" shadows at each step. And then of course it will be paramount how, with what and on what you print it. While the choices for a completely analogue process seem to become more and more limited, there are so many option (and hence variations) for digital output.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

They are two mediums that I have used for a very long time, and I will continue to compare differences as I continue to use both. That way, I get better results with each.

 

Film does have a toe and heel, digital does not- it is a linear response.

 

You can be bored, or you can learn something.

<blockquote>

<p>"...is that a Robert Heinlein reference?" - Michael</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the only book I've read by Heinlein but it influenced my young life like none other. It was the right story at the right time.</p>

Have look for the Monochrom as a landscape camera thread on rangefinderforum.com, just the first two images alone.

There is no doubt the Monochrom is a remarkable camera. And that is even before you consider its high ISO

performance allowing faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures in situations where 1/30s at f2 would be a luxury. Must

be the ultimate street camera, and jazz bar camera.

I did a quick test for a thread on DPREVIEW- bright outdoor scene at ISO 320, the building had an open door. 6-stop push to pull out the detail from the view through the door. <p>

 

 

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51327365">6-Stop Push</a>

 

<p>

 

This is my second Monochrome digital camera, the first was bought 20 years ago.

The RFF thread I mentioned:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127029