narsuitus
Well-known
If the same Leica lens is used on both, how would the image quality of the 24-megapixel Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) compare to the black&white image quality of the 24-megapixel Fuji X-Pro2?
cz23
-
Is this a hypothetical, or are you considering purchasing one or the other? In either case I'll be interested in hearing responses.
I can't answer because I have an MM1 and X-Pro1. Both produce wonderful B&W.
John
I can't answer because I have an MM1 and X-Pro1. Both produce wonderful B&W.
John
narsuitus
Well-known
I currently own a Leica M6 and a Fuji X-Pro1. I am considering a purchase.
Leica M6 & Fuji X-Pro1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Leica M6 & Fuji X-Pro1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
cz23
-
I see. I sometimes consider selling my MM and going with an X-Pro2, mainly for the flexibility. I occasionally shoot color and sometimes value AF and live view. And I definitely prefer the X-Pro's ergonomics.
From what I've read, X-Pro2 image quality is about the same as it's predecessor. Presumably, B&W conversions would be about the same. Looking forward to hearing any real experiences with both.
John
From what I've read, X-Pro2 image quality is about the same as it's predecessor. Presumably, B&W conversions would be about the same. Looking forward to hearing any real experiences with both.
John
airfrogusmc
Mentor
The original mono (18mps) has been compared sharpness wise to a 36 MP camera (because there is no color) so I would imagine the newer MM would be comparable to a 48 MP camera for the same reason.
Heres a comparison done some time ago with the old MM and a Nikon D800E
https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/
And here is a decent, simple explanation.
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/col...camera-sensors
I can tell you the my original 18MP produces sharper images than my 24mp M 262 and I have processed files from Nikon D800e's and I prefer the files from the original MM for B&W because there is just more in them and they are as sharp and you can see this especially in prints. I can only imagine the quality in the new MM.
With the new M 10 can there be a new MM in the works fro the future? Maybe 18-24 months down the road? I could only imagine the low light capabilities of that MM.
If you are seriously thinking bout an MM you need to be honest about how much you shoot B&W. If you are a B&W shooter then there is not a better digital tool for that. Plus the MM is full frame which can be important to some. I know it is to me.
Heres a comparison done some time ago with the old MM and a Nikon D800E
https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/
And here is a decent, simple explanation.
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/col...camera-sensors
I can tell you the my original 18MP produces sharper images than my 24mp M 262 and I have processed files from Nikon D800e's and I prefer the files from the original MM for B&W because there is just more in them and they are as sharp and you can see this especially in prints. I can only imagine the quality in the new MM.
With the new M 10 can there be a new MM in the works fro the future? Maybe 18-24 months down the road? I could only imagine the low light capabilities of that MM.
If you are seriously thinking bout an MM you need to be honest about how much you shoot B&W. If you are a B&W shooter then there is not a better digital tool for that. Plus the MM is full frame which can be important to some. I know it is to me.
cz23
-
Allen, your post raises a question that perhaps the OP should answer for us: what constitutes image quality in his mind. Personally, when it comes to B&W, sharpness would not be a top criterion for me.
I expect we all value somewhat different things in a B&W image. For me it's more a question of tonal richness, in particular in the middle and upper tonal ranges. I think my MM1 does that better than the X-Pro1, but the Fuji is among the most pleasing to my eye among the many cameras I've owned. And, like I said, in a more flexible package.
John
I expect we all value somewhat different things in a B&W image. For me it's more a question of tonal richness, in particular in the middle and upper tonal ranges. I think my MM1 does that better than the X-Pro1, but the Fuji is among the most pleasing to my eye among the many cameras I've owned. And, like I said, in a more flexible package.
John
shawn
Mentor
If you are using in camera JPEGs I prefer the XP2 to the XP1 due to the addition of the Fuji ACROS film simulation. The tones are a bit different and it protects highlights more. The way it handles higher ISO noise with grain substitution instead of NR works well and lets you change the look of the files.
Shawn
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Hi John,
Yes I agree that we need to know what his objectives are. For me it is always the print. I also have been seeing the past few years in B&W (for my personal work) and at a 35mm FoV so for me an MM and a 35 Lux FLE are the perfect combo. As you know there is just so much in those MM files.
I found that the shadows have so much in them. In fact it kind of reminds me of the toe portion of a pro tri-x 320 processed in what Adams called dilution C of HC 100. The toe looks more like a straight line than a traditional toe portion of a film curve which means a lot of tonal separation.
I find with the original MM just like with many transparency films like Kodachrome that the shoulder when the highlights are to far up that there is just nothing there. So like with some trans films like Kodachrome if its not there, there is nothing to pull back from the raw file. AHHH but those shadows and so rich in tone.
I shot some with the Xpro1 and an M-9 before I bought the MM 4 1/2 years ago and bought the MM for many reasons and one is its a true rangefinder fits the way I see and work. It's also the only digital B&W I have warmed up to.
Yes I agree that we need to know what his objectives are. For me it is always the print. I also have been seeing the past few years in B&W (for my personal work) and at a 35mm FoV so for me an MM and a 35 Lux FLE are the perfect combo. As you know there is just so much in those MM files.
I found that the shadows have so much in them. In fact it kind of reminds me of the toe portion of a pro tri-x 320 processed in what Adams called dilution C of HC 100. The toe looks more like a straight line than a traditional toe portion of a film curve which means a lot of tonal separation.
I find with the original MM just like with many transparency films like Kodachrome that the shoulder when the highlights are to far up that there is just nothing there. So like with some trans films like Kodachrome if its not there, there is nothing to pull back from the raw file. AHHH but those shadows and so rich in tone.
I shot some with the Xpro1 and an M-9 before I bought the MM 4 1/2 years ago and bought the MM for many reasons and one is its a true rangefinder fits the way I see and work. It's also the only digital B&W I have warmed up to.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
JPGs that resemble film? Why not just shoot film and get the real thing?
cz23
-
Same here. However, I think the print is the great equalizer. I've got fifteen black and white prints hanging in my living room. Although they are from at least seven different cameras, none jumps out as superior.
If the OP had framed his question in terms of modest sized prints, then I'd say IQ is not a factor.
John
airfrogusmc
Mentor
John I see a difference in my prints from the MM. Like I said it is the only digital B&W I have warmed up to. One of my professors from college (like me and old darkroom rat) was very impressed at the quality of my prints in my last two exhibits here in Chicago. The files are easier to get really great results from (for me anyway) than any digital color files converted plus there are none of the artifacts you can get sometimes when converting from color to B&W like lines around objects that happen sometimes in conversions. But more than all of that is the way the MM works, when shooting, with the way I see.
shawn
Mentor
I do, occasionally. But only occasionally so that I enjoy the process. If I was shooting it all the time I'd be back to hating the process. I use the ACROS in my XP2 often while shooting sports. I have zero interest in going back and doing that again with film. It wouldn't be able to....
Besides, there is no one 'real thing' for film. Film, just like digital, has many different looks depending upon how it is processed. Even more true after film is scanned and made digital.
Shawn
airfrogusmc
Mentor
I don't shoot jpg at all. I like my work to look like my work and I can control all of that from the start (shooting) to getting the right info on the file so when I process it has the look I want to get in my prints. Nice to have so many choices.
narsuitus
Well-known
Image Quality Background Information:
· B&W image size: 16x20 inch or larger
· Black & white subject matter includes event photography, architecture, landscape, street, closeup/macro, and travel photography; often in dimly lit conditions with no flash.
· High contrast, high resolution, and wide dynamic range are image qualities I cherish.
· I am currently happy with the black & white image quality I am able to obtain from my 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, and 4x5 inch film cameras.
· I use Zeiss, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, and Leica lenses. All produce high quality images, however, I tend to prefer the film and digital b&w images I am able to obtain from Zeiss glass.
cz23
-
Let's hope some folks who have used both cameras will speak to those interests. I'll stay tuned.
John
John
I can't answer your questions, but maybe a good question is why do you want to upgrade to the X-Pro2? It's my favorite camera, but it could be nice to have the MM, the M6, and the X-Pro1 (if the X-Pro1 is good enough for your needs).
narsuitus
Well-known
I do not want to upgrade to the X-Pro2. I am merely exploring the possibility of using the X-Pro2 or the Typ 246 to create high quality black & white digital images with a camera that uses lenses that I already own.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
From what you are saying the MM would be a great choice. I have shot 8X10 and had 500 C/Ms more than a decade and studied the zone system in college (yeah I did all the tests).
Here are a few fairly large things I shot with the MM for one of my hospital clients and you can get right up to them and they look very good indeed. From the original MM
Here are a few fairly large things I shot with the MM for one of my hospital clients and you can get right up to them and they look very good indeed. From the original MM
Richard G
Mentor
I only have the MM1 and agree with everything in airfrogusmc's first post. I think that if you are happy putting non-native lenses including Leica on your Fuji then there is already less of an argument for getting any Monochrom. For instance, as well as that Nikon comparison referred to there is a thread here on M9 black and white. Some of the shots are stunning. Sometimes I come across a black and white of mine I'm sure must have been the Monochrom, but it's the M9. See John Wolf's point about his prints on the wall.
There are three reasons only really for getting the Monochrom. The first is it's only black and white: this makes an enormous difference to the experience of using the camera, the freedom of restriction. Second, as others have stated, it's a camera you bond with, a camera you really like to use. Somehow in use my MM1 feels much nicer than my M9-P, shutter smoother, including the shutter release. Third is the increased resolution. Is that necessary? Rarely, but cropping an image taken in haste by over 50% and still having a pretty rich file is probably an advantage for street and event photographers. The wonderful depth of shadow detail might be got by other means.
There are three reasons only really for getting the Monochrom. The first is it's only black and white: this makes an enormous difference to the experience of using the camera, the freedom of restriction. Second, as others have stated, it's a camera you bond with, a camera you really like to use. Somehow in use my MM1 feels much nicer than my M9-P, shutter smoother, including the shutter release. Third is the increased resolution. Is that necessary? Rarely, but cropping an image taken in haste by over 50% and still having a pretty rich file is probably an advantage for street and event photographers. The wonderful depth of shadow detail might be got by other means.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Do you cut steak sides before cooking or grill it all?
I was intrigued by X-Pro2 weather sealed body and new Fuji weather sealed lens which is 35mm on crop. Downloaded full manual and could find how framelines looks. Just gobble of menus I have no need for.