DwF
Well-known
It becomes clear how subjective this discussion becomes choosing a camera that fulfills the OP's quest. When I first saw this thread yesterday and Charles posted his case in point using Fuji, I had already before scrolling to his post thought of Fuji (for me X Pro 2). Then I thought about some images that worked particularly well in B&W taken with Leica or my Sony RX1R.
All that aside, I agree with oldwino that MM is another genre altogether! For me it is the MM that comes close in satisfying the desire to shoot B&W film in a way that nothing else does, even though the output and look is different.
David
All that aside, I agree with oldwino that MM is another genre altogether! For me it is the MM that comes close in satisfying the desire to shoot B&W film in a way that nothing else does, even though the output and look is different.
David
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Allen,
Even better for me a SLM or SL2-M.
I think the MM one day will be a cult camera. The CCD sensor has an interesting rendering.
The M246 is a far more advanced camera with basically better everything. Perhaps the only thing the original MM has as an advantage is the vast midrange I can get to transcend formats.
The original MM remains a very crude camera, but that really is its charm that makes it most film like.
We are lucky dogs. LOL.
Cal
narsuitus
Well-known
My first choice for monochrome images is medium format or large format film images.
My second choice is small format digital images.
My third choice is small format film images.
I have never tried medium format digital cameras or Leica monochrome small format digital cameras.
My second choice is small format digital images.
My third choice is small format film images.
I have never tried medium format digital cameras or Leica monochrome small format digital cameras.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Ha ha I like crude simple cameras.
I love film to. Silver gelatin and platinum prints, if printed properly are still the gold standard. narsuitus I agree the large and medium format film and those old 500 C/Ms or 8X10 Deardorff's are just wonderful crude machines. As are film Leica Ms.
But for digital B&W I don't think you can beat a B&W sensor and if you are like me and don't like a lot of stuff on your camera then the original MM is a real gem.
I also like the M 10 for it's simple menu and very simple operation (no video) so it makes me really curious what the M 10 Mono will look like if it indeed comes. And if it were an MD(no LCD) M10 monochrom I just might have to open the wallet.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Allen,
A Leica Q2 Monochrom with the new high MP count sensor would be a step more towards medium format digital IQ.
My guess is that this daydream of a high MP count Monochrom might likely happen in the Q2 or SL2 that is rumored to have the big MP count of the "Q2."
Cal
A Leica Q2 Monochrom with the new high MP count sensor would be a step more towards medium format digital IQ.
My guess is that this daydream of a high MP count Monochrom might likely happen in the Q2 or SL2 that is rumored to have the big MP count of the "Q2."
Cal
james.liam
Well-known
A roll of B&W film: ~$5-7.00
Processing & scanning: ~$15-20
If you've shot >250 roles of film, you've more than broken even for a new MM.
By a camera used at ~$3.6k, you break even at 100 rolls.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Kind of a different note here, but who pays for the above?
I roll my own 35mm and at best it's $1-2 a roll.
I process and scan my own film, which again comes to maybe a $1-2 a roll.
And I own a Monochrome, because it's low light capacity can't be handled by film.
And it's low light capicity is better then vast majority of color sensor camera's too.
Peter_S
Peter_S
The OP asked about a digital camera.
And a lot of us live in places where B/W film development is either a) not available, b) expensive, or c) environmentally questionable. I love film, but the MM is another thing - it does some things film cannot do, and vice versa. To get close to the MM output you need 120 format, and than you have a completely different aspect ratio (that is a big deal for me), costs and limitations due to 10 - 12 shots/roll.
It takes some time to master the MM, also in post-processing. It took me over a year to understand the potential of this camera, and process the files properly. Now I have, I think - at least to the point I say good-bye to 135 format. 120...perhaps, but again, its square or 6:7, and that is very different from 3:2.
I tested the M246 for several months. Now saving up for a MM1. Alternatives may be the DP Merrills. No Bayer is key.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Agreed and since the Leica new is about six thousand pounds here, plus a few lenses, I think/thought my point was obvious.
Regards, David
Regards, David
Peter_S
Peter_S
Yes, sure. Its just that film (I still shoot it) is easy to develop in some places, no so much in others...I do it in Austria and Norway, but not in Georgia, where the chemicals go right into the sink.
In Austria and Norway used MM1s are down to 2900-3500 EUR now, which seems a tad higher than a year ago. Still expensive, I guess, but a good medium format camera with lenses and a scanner costs too. My Bessa III and Coolscan together costs me 2600 EUR, and I got the Coolscan for a bargain. Yes, you can have it cheaper...But a Mamiya 645 is a whole different beast and shooting experience (a nice one, at that, I miss mine).
In Austria and Norway used MM1s are down to 2900-3500 EUR now, which seems a tad higher than a year ago. Still expensive, I guess, but a good medium format camera with lenses and a scanner costs too. My Bessa III and Coolscan together costs me 2600 EUR, and I got the Coolscan for a bargain. Yes, you can have it cheaper...But a Mamiya 645 is a whole different beast and shooting experience (a nice one, at that, I miss mine).
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
James,
At one point I was shooting 150 rolls a month (135 and 120) on average. I developed it myself just making negatives to create an archive of a changing NYC. Back then Acros in 120 was just about $3.49 a roll and rebranded Tri-X from Freestyle just $2.89 a roll. I even got rebranded Acros in 135 for $1.89 a roll in 135 that was short dated. Was not uncommon for me to shoot twenty rolls in a day.
Pretty much was shooting film as if I were shooting digital. Back then I knew the prices one day would be about double.
Truth be told is that I once was a film die-hard, and if Leica did not come out with the Monochrom I never would have evolved of made the jump to digital.
Photography is expensive at a certain level. Didn't matter if it was digital or analog.
To me what is the most costly is printing. Of course I do my own to lower cost, but right now I sit on just negatives that I will edit and print one day. In my case it seems that time is the best editor. This archive I created is now very valuable. The redevelopment over the past decade involved demolition and much of the old NYC is now gone.
BTW I still shoot film. I don't argue with myself which is better like some here at RFF. I just keep them as separate mediums. I'll be wet printing those negatives one day. Right now no darkroom, I live in Madhattan, and I'm busy shooting.
The buying of film when it was cheap was also money well spent. No regrets.
Cal
David Hughes
David Hughes
True but a balanced response would be best surely? There's both for and against...
Regards, David
Peter_S
Peter_S
Absolutely, David. I should have worded that differently, apologies. Those of us that use film KNOW that it can be an alternative, for many its just not an option and an alien concept.
The other day I guided a photo excursion here in Norway. The girl had, to my surprise, a film camera. I asked "did you ever use B/W film"? Answer: "No." I gave her a few rolls FP4 and HP5 and borrowed her a yellow filter for the rest of her trip. She will never buy a Monochrom. But she is among the exceptions.
CharlesDAMorgan
Mentor
I bought my XT30 for colour work as I hate developing colour and found the ratio of decent pics to cost of film unrewarding. That it gives a black and white capability that I enjoy was an added bonus. Half a years film and developing paid for it and lens. And I have more time to nap as I don't have to scan everything.
I'd love a Monochrom but realistically I can't justify the expense. The XT30 was a lot easier!
I'd love a Monochrom but realistically I can't justify the expense. The XT30 was a lot easier!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
"Maybe" is the key word. Maybe if you have expired cinefilm, it is 1$ per roll. Here is no 30 meters bulks of normal bw for this price. Maybe you roll 14 frames instead of 36.
The film argument was pushed not just against Monochrome, but "those" cameras mentioned in this thread.
Four bulks per year at current prices will cost more than some of digital cameras /used/ mentioned in this thread.
And, IMO, if you are not shooting at least two bulks per year, it is nothing but keyboard warrior wisdom.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
"Maybe" is the key word. Maybe if you have expired cinefilm, it is 1$ per roll. Here is no 30 meters bulks of normal bw for this price. Maybe you roll 14 frames instead of 36.
The film argument was pushed not just against Monochrome, but "those" cameras mentioned in this thread.
Four bulks per year at current prices will cost more than some of digital cameras /used/ mentioned in this thread.
And, IMO, if you are not shooting at least two bulks per year, it is nothing but keyboard warrior wisdom.
No doubt that film is a great medium loved by many.
Like I said, if Leica did not come out with a Monochrom I would of remained a film die hard.
As for bulk discounts our friend Phil got me a 400 foot roll of Kodac 5222 at the student discount price.
Rollie 400S in 70mm allows me to bulk load medium format and shoot baby Linhofs like as if shooting a Leica for about $3.00 a 120 equiv.
The money has to come from somewhere. I contain costs AMAP. My costs per roll I figure is about $3.00 using just these two films.
Cal
james.liam
Well-known
Kind of a different note here, but who pays for the above?
I roll my own 35mm and at best it's $1-2 a roll.
I process and scan my own film, which again comes to maybe a $1-2 a roll.
And I own a Monochrome, because it's low light capacity can't be handled by film.
And it's low light capicity is better then vast majority of color sensor camera's too.
If you roll your own and develop too, sure, it's a minimal cost. Not everyone can or wants to.
David Hughes
David Hughes
True but I mentioned the price of the camera a while ago, add in a few (say 3 or 4) modern Leica lenses to use the 24 megapixels and the costs start going wild. Then there's a printer, I don't know what a decent printer and the specialised software to get B&W done costs these days. And I guess it's not going to be a supermarket model as 24mp calls out for something much bigger and better dedicated to B&W. (A tripod would be a good idea too but that's not a popular opinion.)
I am using that well known and proved logic that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; so everything used has to be as good as the Leica.
For the cost of that lot you can buy a lot of B&W film.
Regards, David
PS An aside do they still do those black and several shades of grey inks to make dedicated printers for B&W or has the world moved on?
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thanks, very interestng.
Regards, David
Regards, David