Original M Monochrom Still a Good Buy?

No complaints at all. I got an M9M that was heavily used but with a new sensor this year. I shoot it constantly and could not be happier with the files it produces. I often shoot it indoors at 1600, 3200 and with some experience opening the files I'm getting great results. As winter approaches and the dark times come to northern Vermont I'll be shooting this more and more I expect.

I too am a fan of low ISO films,and prefer shooting the M9 (color) at the base ISO or pull. I was afraid I'd dislike the relatively high base ISO of the MM, but it hasn't been a problem.
 
short answer, hell yes

longer answer, only limits to the MM v1 imho are buffer speed and shutter noise. if you don't shoot rapidly and don't have need for more silent operation, do it. wonderful files that process and print beautifully.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Sorry, I made a mistake (maybe I haven't had enough coffee today). I meant to say ISO 800, not 400. Above 800 I wasn't too crazy with the results. Here again, this is just personal preference, but I'm not doing low-light photojournalism/street photography. And when I mean 'results', I'm talking about prints.

BTW there is a 'pull 160' option with the Monochrom, so you can go below the 'base' ISO. There is no 'pull' option with the 246.

As far as which high ISO I prefer (M9MM vs 246), the 246 by a mile.

BTW this is probably the most 'film-like' shot I've taken with the Monochrom (the original one), ISO 320. The print is easily mistaken as a darkroom print:


Untitled by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Click to expand...
\

beautiful!
 
I have the M9M and I really love it. I think the CCD sensor really does produce a beautiful tonal range. I use it all the way up to ISO 6400 sometimes but I use it at ISO 1250 or 1600 nearly every day. I personally love the quality it produces at these ISOs and in fact have even been known to use a ND filter to use them in the daylight. The files are definitely noisy but I feel the noise mimics film grain beautifully. It should be noted however that my favorite film is Delta 3200 in 120.

The things I don't like are the loud shutter, slow buffer, no live view (I'd like to do some macro) and the poor screen quality. The screen is so bad that I pretty much only use it to look at the histogram, though this is a wonderful way to get great images.

It seems like if you could pick up an inexpensive M9M now it would be ideal as I would imagine they will make an M10 monochrom in about a year so you could wait for that to come out and either buy it or get a less expensive 246. All the while you can enjoy the M9M and may just end up keeping it!
 
I don't have any direct experience with any digital Leica, but just from hanging around here, I can't possibly reccomend one unless nothing else will do what you want.

I'd say put the money for an MM into film and processing.
 
I love my M9M and when it went to Leica NJ for sensor replacement I experienced Monochrom withdrawal. To satisfy it I got an M-246 to shoot while the M9M was away. My thinking was that after the M9M returned I would sell one of them. I still have both and can't decide between them. The M-246 is clearly better as a camera, but I love the look and feel of the M9M more. And its images seem to have a bit more "bite" than those from the M-246. As far as high ISO performance goes it beats that of the M-240, but the M-246 is in another league.

So I would recommend the M9M without reservation
 
Luke_Miller said:
I love my M9M and when it went to Leica NJ for sensor replacement I experienced Monochrom withdrawal. To satisfy it I got an M-246 to shoot while the M9M was away. My thinking was that after the M9M returned I would sell one of them. I still have both and can't decide between them. The M-246 is clearly better as a camera, but I love the look and feel of the M9M more. And its images seem to have a bit more "bite" than those from the M-246. As far as high ISO performance goes it beats that of the M-240, but the M-246 is in another league.

So I would recommend the M9M without reservation
Click to expand...

Luke,

My almost 4 year old MM is at Leica N.J. getting sensor replacement. I got on a list so I could use my camera for 4 extra months. I will likely get my camera back the beginning of February. My camera received heavy use and is silvering around the edges. The covering also is worn smooth in one concentrated area because of a grip. Anyways I miss my camera.

I bought a SL to tide me over, but I will keep both.

To me you have a hard choice. The M246 has deeper shadow detail and smoother highlights with a scooped midrange. Then there is the high ISO performance...

But the MM has that wonderful vast midrange that resembles medium and large format. Enough said, warts and all I love my MM.

Good luck.

Cal
 
Luke_Miller said:
I love my M9M and when it went to Leica NJ for sensor replacement I experienced Monochrom withdrawal. To satisfy it I got an M-246 to shoot while the M9M was away. My thinking was that after the M9M returned I would sell one of them. I still have both and can't decide between them. The M-246 is clearly better as a camera, but I love the look and feel of the M9M more. And its images seem to have a bit more "bite" than those from the M-246. As far as high ISO performance goes it beats that of the M-240, but the M-246 is in another league.

So I would recommend the M9M without reservation
Click to expand...

Off topic, but so glad Leica seems to be going back to its old product naming. Every time I see something like "M-246" in a post I have to look it up and review its features.

I'm sticking with my original MM, but if I had both, I'm pretty sure I'd choose the 246. Quieter shutter, Live View, and better ISO performance would tip the scale for me. I certainly doubt I could come up with a reason to own both.

John
 
unixrevolution said:
I don't have any direct experience with any digital Leica, but just from hanging around here, I can't possibly reccomend one unless nothing else will do what you want.

I'd say put the money for an MM into film and processing.
Click to expand...

From hanging around here and getting digital Leica after putting money into film, processing, printing from many film formats I'm pleased to announce here what any digital M is worth it! From M8 to M10.
Well, any Leica is worth it. Film on FB prints, digital on pigment inks prints.

And it is not Leica thing exclusively. I liked how Canon lenses worked at DSLRS and SLR of all kinds. Same with Leica, if RF is what you want. Digital or film, shooting experience is the same.
 
While the old MM puts out a nice file, the rest of it is pretty crappy. Only in Leica la-la land do people put up with the truly awful screen and battery life in a camera this expensive. I would never want to go back in time to when Leica was just hobbling these things together from off the shelf parts. If the sensor didn't crack it corrodes and then off to Leica for months and months. Personally unless you have an art director breathing down your neck about turnover time I'd recommend a good scanner for the superior product you are already shooting...film.
 
Save I would disagree with it being crappy. Screen means little to nothing to me. I use them the way I would use polaroid. And I carry extra batteries just like I do with the 262. A camera that has files that compare sharpness wise to a 36MP camera and is better than my 262 in low light and is 4 years old is not crappy to me.

I love film but the ability to have 3200 ISO files that render med format film quality and to shoot one frame at 3200 and the next at 320 is amazing.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Save I would disagree with it being crappy. Screen means little to nothing to me. I use them the way I would use polaroid. And I carry extra batteries just like I do with the 262. A camera that has files that compare sharpness wise to a 36MP camera and is better than my 262 in low light and is 4 years old is not crappy to me.
Click to expand...

^^^

Here's that Leica La-La land. It's secretly not 18mp it's 36, and the screen isn't crappy because you're not supposed to like the screen! I never said it doesn't put out a nice file, it does, that's great. But that's the only thing it does well. If that's worth it to you then great, but that screen is a POS and they should have upgraded it when they made the M9-P. It's literally the Nikon D80 screen which was super old when the dang M8 came out.

Please show me a MM 3200 ISO images that look like images from my Pentax 6x7.
 
If you were at one of my exhibits you would have seen some prints that were as clean as many B&W images I got from my 500 C/Ms. And don't take my word the MPs thing.
https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/

I don't buy a camera for the LCD screen and it's a 4 1/2 year old screen.

I get it. You don't like Leica's and thats OK. There are plenty of other cameras out there for you to use. For B&W I prefer my MM by a lot.
 
So, it is OK to use film camera without screen, but it is not OK to use digital camera with small screen? Twisted logic, isn't it? All I need from digital M is to check exposure, because digital M is much more flexible on exposure tweaking and in camera processing comparing to film M and it needs to be checked sometimes. The only reason to have large screen on digital camera is for touch function. I have it on iPhone. On digital M I don't need it. Never needed on big DLSR either or on small P&S.

As person who came to digital M from film M I'm finding battery capacity argument weird as well.
I have 12-40 frames with film, before reload. I must have spare cassettes to be able to continue. With digital M I don't need any cassettes, but same space in the bag might be taken by spare battery. But my digital M battery lasts one week with periodical image taking during week and two weekend days walkaround for few hours. And reloading cassettes with film takes longer time, comparing to charging procedure.
I only ordered second battery on previous week. Just if winter will returns. My digital M has no problem to take images under -10C for three hours on single battery. Long enough to get me to the point I have to come back. If it is -20, any battery won't last long. Including batteries in film M compatible with what digital M is giving me in terms of exposure handling.
 
airfrogusmc said:
If you were at one of my exhibits you would have seen some prints that were as clean as many B&W images I got from my 500 C/Ms. And don't take my word the MPs thing.
https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/

I don't buy a camera for the LCD screen and it's a 4 1/2 year old screen.

I get it. You don't like Leica's and thats OK. There are plenty of other cameras out there for you to use. For B&W I prefer my MM by a lot.
Click to expand...

Ok so that link has shown me that the D800E puts out a better file than the MM, no surprise there. Also none of those images look remotely like my 6x6 or 6x7 images.

Don't like Leica??? I shot weddings all last summer with my 240 and you can pry the M4 from my cold dead hands. I like cameras that live up to their value propositions.
 
Did ya read it? The conclusion and the files form the MM were as good as IQ wise as the files from the Nikon and Ming preferred the B&W files from the MM as I do.

And I have an M 262 and the low light capabilities of the ORIGINAL MM are better and B&W files from it are better than any conversions from the M 262.

So if you are a B&W photographer and are looking for a good choice in a rangefinder and don't want all the stuff the newer MM has (though the files from that are even more spectacular) then the original MM might be a great choice. And the piece is certainly good now.
 
Eh, I think it's a good buy if you get one for the right price. I wouldn't pay more than $3000 for one though even with a new sensor. They have their short comings compared to other products in their price range. The files look great from base up to 6400 but the battery life is terrible and the screen is terrible. If a screen is there, it needs to be usable. The 5Dc and D700 were out long before the Monochrom and their screens are infinitely better. I've shot events with the Monochrom and have gone through almost 3 batteries and I'm not a spray and pray kind of shooter. If you're buying it as a camera to have fun with and using it within its boundaries it's fine. Also, don't clip the highlights, they go quickly.
 
I usually go through 2 batteries at a corporate event. But if you are shooting B&W this is still a very good option and a much better option than a 5Dc or a D700. Expose to the left and like kodachrome if the shoulder/highlights are gone, they are gone. Could there be an M10 MM in the future?
 
airfrogusmc said:
Did ya read it? The conclusion and the files form the MM were as good as IQ wise as the files from the Nikon and Ming preferred the B&W files from the MM as I do.

And I have an M 262 and the low light capabilities of the ORIGINAL MM are better and B&W files from it are better than any conversions from the M 262.

So if you are a B&W photographer and are looking for a good choice in a rangefinder and don't want all the stuff the newer MM has (though the files from that are even more spectacular) then the original MM might be a great choice. And the piece is certainly good now.
Click to expand...

Ming's conclusion is that he convinced himself that the files were as good. But the visual evidence from actually studying the images he posted tell a different story. Ming has a detailed blog but his photography is not that compelling.

As for your last paragraph, yes if you MUST have an RF and it MUST be B&W there are precisely 2 choices and one is cheaper and usable. So if you eliminate all other options then the M9MM certainly is 'the best' among 0 other options. If however you practice some critical thinking and widen your scope it's pretty obvious that many choices in it's development were made from a cost cutting point of view and it led to a pretty crappy camera considering the price. As wonderful as it is to go from ISO 3200 to ISO 320, the budget required to get an M9MM would enable you to have 2 M6 bodies. Problem solved.
 
I've always proclaimed that the original MM was the best camera I've ever used. And today, I'd say that's true... to a point. I love the sensor but after owning eight, yes 8, cameras from the M9 series (M9/M9P/MM) the platform nickel and dimed me. I'm talking about horrible battery life, horrible use in the cold, crappy chargers, finicky SD card use, tiny horizontal banding in the shadows after shooting consecutive shots at 320 ISO, rangefinder going out of whack, etc., etc.

In the end I simply had to move on. I traded my A7s and MM for a M240 with a ton of accessories. I do miss the files of the MM, there is no doubt about that but with the M240 I feel the camera is a lot more refined in regards to all of the issues I've had over the years. Is it perfect? No. But that's okay, it's perfect enough.

I'm definitely keeping my eye open for the M10 monochrom version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top