douglasf13
Well-known
I'd love it if someone could point me to the threads that show clear comparisons (using the same scene) showing the difference in B&W performance and detail between the M8, M9 and MM.
Austerby
Well-known
I'm surprised at the surprise this thread has generated.
I seem to recall that Sean Reid when reviewing the then new M8 referred to a near medium format level of image quality from the camera. (I'm no longer a subscriber so can't access the actual quote). I agree with that from my experience of both my M8 and my MF film cameras.
I would hope that the newer cameras show the benefits of technological development but the M8 is a much better camera than it is often given credit for.
As for me, I looked at the Monochrom and M9 and I shall look also at the new M, but my M8 still meets my needs so I've not been tempted to change yet.
I seem to recall that Sean Reid when reviewing the then new M8 referred to a near medium format level of image quality from the camera. (I'm no longer a subscriber so can't access the actual quote). I agree with that from my experience of both my M8 and my MF film cameras.
I would hope that the newer cameras show the benefits of technological development but the M8 is a much better camera than it is often given credit for.
As for me, I looked at the Monochrom and M9 and I shall look also at the new M, but my M8 still meets my needs so I've not been tempted to change yet.
overtoom
Established
I'd love the MM for my b&w stuff since I believe it is overall the better camera. But I am far from spending that amount of money on a single camera. Therefore the M8, which I only bought recently, is my designated b&w camera. I am still trying to get the best results in pp though.
LCT
ex-newbie
Horses for courses. The R-D1 is still my favorite camera for B&W and i prefer keeping my IR-cut filters with the M8.2. What i dislike with the MM is its propensity to make white holes in the pics in case of (apparently frequent) blown highlights and the impossibility to use digital colored filters with it. I guess i could underexpose my MM shots if need be but the necessity to struggle with optical colored filters in the field and to loose from 1 to 3 EVs with them is pretty well a deal breaker for me.
ChrisN
Striving
What i dislike with the MM is its propensity to make white holes in the pics in case of (apparently frequent) blown highlights...
Surely that is the operator's fault, not the camera's.
I guess i could underexpose my MM shots if need be ...
Expose correctly, you mean, for the scene and characteristics of the recording medium. Anyone who ever used transparency film learned the need to avoid over-exposure.
LCT
ex-newbie
Delightfull to receive those good old lessons thanks that makes me feel younger. The MM does not seem to behave the same way as other cams in that there is nothing to recover in the white holes it produces in case of blown highlights.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Kinda like a... slide film?
Ah, already mentioned I see.
I still don't see how the MM is any different than using a different kind of film. There has always been a learning curve with materials, and digital sensors are the new materials of photography just like film. If the MM requires a learning curve that is beyond some then perhaps it is the wrong camera for them?
I remember when I started using E100VS in addition to Kodachrome and Agfachrome. The contrast was a killer those first few rolls. But some testing, some care in exposing and viola, I had a new tool to reach for. Digital sensors are as different as films it seems. To my taste the M9 records greens in a way I don't particularly love, very different than what the M8 delivered. But rather than decide I can't shoot anything green with the M9 because it sucks I've figured out a processing strategy that fixes this.
Patience seems to have no place in photography any longer.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Those "glaring holes" are quite disturbing on a computer screen, as they light up. On a print, however, they are simply white highlights and far more natural.
End conclusion, like many have said here - control your exposure. The photographer makes the choices.
End conclusion, like many have said here - control your exposure. The photographer makes the choices.
ChrisC
Established
Alternatively - It behaves exactly the same way as other cameras, especially digital; in that when highlight exposure is blown in the R, G, and B, channels ------ there's no information to recover. The solution is the same as it has always been -- basic exposure technique. Hardly a problem for photographer.
Alternatively - One might be able to live with them on-screen [not me, but sadly too many do] but they look like crap exposures made with lousy technique in prints. As did burned out highlights in darkroom prints.
.............. Chris
LCT
ex-newbie
Except that highlights are not always blown out in all channels so that there is something to recover with normal cameras whereas there remains nothing with the MM. The solution is to underexpose or to expose on the very highest lights i guess which is not what i would call behaving exactly the same way as other cameras.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Slightly ot.. This is for Bob.
When you mention not liking the way the m9 green output is not right. Have you tried with a lens covered by an IR filter?
My time using an M9 is limited to a weekend I borrowed one to compare with the m8 (seems long ago now '09).. I did experience more accurate color when I left the IR filters on. Just an observation.
When you mention not liking the way the m9 green output is not right. Have you tried with a lens covered by an IR filter?
My time using an M9 is limited to a weekend I borrowed one to compare with the m8 (seems long ago now '09).. I did experience more accurate color when I left the IR filters on. Just an observation.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually, they are simple to avoid, which i try to do anyway. (except specular in high-contrast, but that is another story and can be toned down in post, you don't need structure there)The raw based histogram and highlight warning are excellent on this camera.
cam
the need for speed
yes, i got nailed on those in my night shots... it's an issue on any M, though, especially if you're shooting fast lenses in the dark with lights anywhere.
as for the cam's histogram and highlight warning -- not all that useful if you're not into chimping, especially if you're shooting live.
raid
Dad Photographer
This photo is from my first time use of B&W on the M8:
This one is also from that session.
This one is also from that session.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
cam
the need for speed
touché! you are right -- those are a pita regardless.At least on the MM specular highlights do not have blue halos...
seriously, though, i do find the Monochrom meters a lot differently than the M8 or the M9 (which were slightly different themselves). much more care is needed to make sure you don't blow details you need to keep in the lighter areas. it's really a matter of learning the camera, i'm sure.
what's cool about the Monochrom, though, is the amount of detail and tonality that you can bring back from the shadows, even if you vastly underexpose. especially at high ISO, the difference is night and day to what you would get with either the M8 or the M9. it really is an extraordinary camera!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
No I haven't tried that. I have several Camera Raw Presets that work well, after that little bit of patient fiddling. I never thought about the UVIR as a fix, tho it makes sense that it might have contributed to the green rendition of the M8- leaves and UV...
cam
the need for speed
there's also those presets that Jamie Roberts made for the M8 before UV/IR solution was found (they only work in C1 though). i often use the low contrast one, even on my M9 files, because i prefer the way it renders colours in the RAW conversion (which is just as important in images destined to become b/w).