Leica M Monochrom: best pics

Ashwin ... the MM really makes that C Sonnar sing!

This terrific.
ashwinrao1 said:
8210340520_eb9e7b9563_b.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Dirk and f6andBthere! The Sonnar does exceptionally well on the MM's sensor, much like many older lens designs...I'm suspect it's the optics, coatings, rendering/fall off, lower contrast, and pleasing OOF, but I have pretty much gone to using modern glass on the M9 and older lenses on the MM....

Now if I could just nab a v1 35 'cron to try on this body...
 
Ashwin,

thanks for your latest pictures. Really stunning, especially the Sonar. Also the v2 90. I think as long as the plane of focus matches the sensor spot on every lens will truely shine. The Monochrom shows the full potential of the lens. A lower contrast might be pleasing for certain occasions, especially for portraits. Again great work.
 
icebear said:
Ashwin,

thanks for your latest pictures. Really stunning, especially the Sonar. Also the v2 90. I think as long as the plane of focus matches the sensor spot on every lens will truely shine. The Monochrom shows the full potential of the lens. A lower contrast might be pleasing for certain occasions, especially for portraits. Again great work.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Klaus....The Sonnar does very very well on the MM. I have just started using it on the MM, and I am very pleased. I agree that the MM's sensor, when properly matched, should "expose" each lens' potential for resolving detail and detail. I have found that modern glass tends to be more contrasty, though, and at this time I prefer how asph glass renders on the M9 over the MM (though this is entirely a personal preference and subject to change :p)....

Speaking of modern glass, here's one that I enjoyed from the current Noctilux:

8140788303_2a7186ea92_b.jpg
 
denizg7 said:
…also you probably have a m9 too… so why dont you do an absolute comparison of m9 vs mm on full resolution raw side by side
Click to expand...

Because such a comparison is absolutely meaningless.

The difference between the M9 and MM for B&W photographs can be brought down very exclusively and simple to only technical terms, which have been named in many places all over the web already.

The MM output is exactly that, what a photographer makes out of the files from the MM.
It is not, that the MM has a characteristic look all by it's own magic.

It technically only allows here and there more latitude to the photographer, who chooses to use it over an M9.

A few bullet points from me:

- MM - higher ISO sensitivity (obviously) with truly deeper usability into the night, offering the use of more compact, lighter, slower glass than ever before with a Leica M.

- slightly higher acuity on pixel level over the M9 (I would say from my perception, we are finally back to the fantastic acuity, the M8 sensor gave us - the M9 by comparison is mushy)

- different weighting in tonality over the range than the M8 + M9 sensors (which are by them selves very different), giving the perception of "flat files" without processing them, but allows much heavier midrange tones

Other peoples files really didn't teach me anything, I had to learn about the MM - actually trying one and shooting it with the experience of M8 and M9 files before really opens your eyes.
You can tool the MM much different than a M9, you can stop down, you must expose for highlights, while shadow detail is seemingly infinity ;) .

The MM provides a lot more freedom in shooting but also demands a lot more work in post processing (the equivalent of printing from your negs - not as many wrongfully state "the additional photoshopping of digital photographs").

The MM is really not a camera for finished pictures out of a camera - it is the film body of digital bodies with negatives, that are difficult to print and demand maximum attention to the printer.

I didn't find my "standard receipt" for the Mono files yet but am still in play mode.

… oh and since when do people have to be rich to afford this or that camera - it's all about priorities. I would wager, that many MM shooters prefer to wear worn boots and eat cheap food to get that extra bit of freedom in their photography over showing off some bling to friends …

L1053426-M%20Monochrom-girl%20playing%20with%20ball.jpg


L1053410-M%20Monochrom-portrait%20-%20young%20man.jpg
 
menos said:
… oh and since when do people have to be rich to afford this or that camera - it's all about priorities. I would wager, that many MM shooters prefer to wear worn boots and eat cheap food to get that extra bit of freedom in their photography over showing off some bling to friends …
Click to expand...


Amen......
 
first outing using a b&w 092 IR filter. focus bracketing is somewhere between good idea and necessity, but the IR effect with the remaining leaves is interesting. sfx graduated ND effect nr. 014.

attachment.php


greetings from hamburg

rick
 

Attachments

  • L1080061RFF.jpg
    L1080061RFF.jpg
    171.4 KB · Views: 0
rickp said:
first outing using a b&w 092 IR filter. focus bracketing is somewhere between good idea and necessity, but the IR effect with the remaining leaves is interesting. sfx graduated ND effect nr. 014.

greetings from hamburg

rick
Click to expand...

Hi Rick,

thanks for joining the MM thread with pictures.
Can you please try to post your shot a little bigger, like min. 600 short side. The post here is too small to judge it.
 
hi klaus
since i'm the only one left in the world without a flickr or other image hosting account, i have to post 600 pixel photos directly. they show up as thumbnails, and those interested have to click on the thumbnail to get the FULL 600 px.
i don't post photos here very often because of this. :-(( rick
 
Rick, I've applied a trick to get a larger copy of your pic inserted in your post. Clicking on your thumbnail displayed the larger copy... I Copied the URL of the window, went back to your post, chose Edit, then Advanced, opened a new browser window and pasted in the URL to view your pic full size, positioned the window beside your post edit window and just dragged the pic over into the post. Save. You could do this too, try it. :)
 
rickp said:
hi klaus
since i'm the only one left in the world without a flickr or other image hosting account, i have to post 600 pixel photos directly. they show up as thumbnails, and those interested have to click on the thumbnail to get the FULL 600 px.
i don't post photos here very often because of this. :-(( rick
Click to expand...


Hi Rick,
if you first post your picture in your personal gallery, you can upload max 200kB. After the upload is completed you can copy it from there and insert it into your post in a specific thread, that's how I do it - no flickr account either ;).


menos said:
Nice to have you back with photos on this thread Kristian.
Click to expand...

+1 , were have you been Kristian ? Great shot, thanks for posting.
 
Woo-Hoo!!!! My MM was delivered today! I've followed this thread in anticipation and have learned a considerable amount. Now I'll try to put it to use, please give me your feedback so I can continue to improve.

Thanks, Jim
 
Doug said:
Rick, I've applied a trick to get a larger copy of your pic inserted in your post. Clicking on your thumbnail displayed the larger copy... I Copied the URL of the window, went back to your post, chose Edit, then Advanced, opened a new browser window and pasted in the URL to view your pic full size, positioned the window beside your post edit window and just dragged the pic over into the post. Save. You could do this too, try it. :)
Click to expand...

thank you, doug. tricky but effective. i'll do it your way next time.

regards

rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top