M-Monochrom worth it? — A review and appreciation-

[malland]

Why the M-Monochrom?

On a camera this expensive the price is not worth discussing, the same way that it's pointless to regret that it cannot do color. Rather, it is the value of the M-Monochrom as a photographic tool that is interesting to consider. I got one in late September and was overwhelmed by its capability: a unique camera that produces files of stunning detail and clarity, fine gradation and broad dynamic range, it can produce astounding images. People have asked, "is it as good as film"? My take on this is that it is "better" than film in the same way that one can say that the Summilux-50 ASPH is a "better" lens than the last pre-ASPH version in various measurable ways. But I generally like the rendering of the pre-ASPH lens much better than that of the newer ASPH lens, the same way that many people like the look of film better than digital files. But these are very general sentiments, and I would add the proviso that the M-Monochrom files are so malleable and robust that one can process them to achieve the look that one wants — and therein lies the main value if this camera for me.

Leica was gutsy at the M-Monochrom launch in using Jacob Aue Sobol, whose previous work was shot with 35mm point and shoots and fast film, to promote the new camera. Many people felt that Sobol's photography did not show off this camera's capabilities; but, for me, it was precisely this new work that made me consider the M-Monochrom seriously, because I felt that if Sobol, shooting with a digital camera for the first time, could produce images that essentially matched his previous aesthetic then the M-Monochrom was worth looking into. More specifically, my interest was in having a camera with which, shooting in bright, high-contrast tropical light, I could produce the type of high-contrast images that I like while still maintaining rich gradation in the mid-tones. In this I was not disappointed, as the following photograph demonstrates.



M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 320

Chiang Mai



Exposure and Processing

Contrary to what several people have written, the M-Monochrom is easy to expose and process, even in very bright light. Indeed, unless shooting in difficult lighting conditions (as when shooting into the lights in a high-contrast situation) or going for an unusual look, M-Monochrom files generally require little processing. For example, the following image required only these adjustments in LightRoom 4.3:

Exposure –0.10
Highlights –0.25
Whites +0.15
Blacks –0.07
Clarity +0.68
Point Curve: Medium Contrast
Note: I generally use a large Clarity adjustment in order to get the gritty look that I feel is apprporpiate for Bangkok.



M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 3200 | f/11 | 1/250 sec

Bangkok

You will note that the above picture was shot at ISO 3200. For street photography, where a part of the street is in deep shade, as in this scene, while parts of the background in the sunlight are very bright, I like to shoot at high ISOs, usually in the ISO 1250–2500 range, in order to be able to get the deep depth of field from f/8 or f/11, while kepping to shutter speed at 1/250 sec or higher. The M-Monochrom excels at this because the image quality is so good at these ISOs.

As others have written, it's generally best to expose the M-Monochrom for the highlights and then "develop for the shadows". Indeed, so much detail can be recovered from the shadows that this camera has very extensive dynamic range.

Now, "exposing for highlights" with the M-Monochrom has substantially more flexibility and dynamic range than doing the same for transparency film. Generally, you can "expose to the right": just take one or more test shots and look at the histogram, which is very accurate because it takes its values from the actual pixels in the DNG file, not from a JPG. This gives great flexibility in exposure. Some people have written that it's generally better to shoot a lower ISO, say, no more than 3200 than to go to 5,000 or 10,000: by lifting the shadows by increasing Exposure in post-processing you generally get better image quality than amplifying the image in the camera by going to the highest ISOs — the only thing you lose is a full view in the LCD. The latter, however, is not important because you get all the information that you need in the histogram on the test shot.

I find the light meter in the M-Monochrom excellent, as far as I can remember exposure poses no more problem than it did with the Leica M6 — it's easier actually — and gives me less trouble than that of the M8 and the M9. I don't know in how different the metering pattern is in the M-Monochrom, but I find it much easier to work with than that of the M9 for wide-angle lenses.

Someone in thread on the Film vs Digital forum, someone pontificates:

Originally Posted by dtcls100

Curious to see how the Leica Monochrome performs in bright light situations versus B&W film. Blown out highlights like other digital cameras? Probably. Recall that the Zacuto tests showed that digital cameras could not record as many shades of grey as film before clipping to dead white. Modern digital is great in low light performance, not very good with highlights. Which situation do you shoot more of?

All I can say to this is, "bollocks!" As I've written above, the M-Monochrom excels in very bright, high-contrast light — and gives more flexibility in this respect than any film that I've used.

And here are a few more shots illustrating the high-contrast cum mid-tone gradation that interests me:


M-Monochrom | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640

Chiang Mai





M-Monochrom | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640

Chiang Mai



M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 320

Mae Salong




Lightroom vs Other Raw Processors or Editors

Before getting the M-Monochrom I used Aperture, whose general user interface I still much prefer. However, after getting to know Lightroom 4 better, I find that most its processing tools are substantially better than those of Aperture, with the possible exception of Retouching, i.e. Spot Removal. I particularly like the LightRoom 4 Black and White sliders, and find that dodging and burning with the Adjustment Brush, once you get to know how to use it, provides much better control than in Aperture.

It is, however, possible to develop M-Monochrom files using the excellent Raw Photo Processor (RPP) and then do further processing of the resulting TIFF file in Aperture. However, there is no advantage in this. As Andrey Tverdkhleb, the RPP developer, wrote back in May:

Since there is no interpolation I wouldn't expect any difference in resolution in this case, unless LR does something with noise filtering and antialiasing. With tone corrections RPP should be able to pull better details out of shadows. I don't have enough samples yet to be really conclusive.

If you are interested you can download RPP and write Andrey Tverdokhleb (by clicking "Provide RPP feedback" and ask him whether there is anything new on this.

To digress, for Leica M8, M9 files and for Ricoh GXR M-Module — all of which, of course, require interpolation — I found that RPP produced much better resolution and colors than either Aperture or Lightroom. However, for GRD3 and GRDIV files I found that Lightroom, which has profiles for these two cameras, produces very good resolution and colors, much better than Aperture.

A word about Silver Efex: it's a great program that I've used extensively with all the digital cameras that I've used before the M-Monochrom. However, I've only tried Silver Efex on a few M-Monochrom files, and in each case, I found that I could do what I wanted with Lightroom 4.3, usually with results that I liked somewhat better. Therefore, at this stage, I am not likely to use Silver Efex on M-Monochrom files unless I cannot achieve the look that I want with Lightroom.


So What About the Other Cameras for B&W?

Of course, I've seen a lot odf good B&W from the M8 and the M9 — and I prefer the M8 to the M9 for that purpose, but that may be because I simply never took to the M9. However, for both color and B&W, I have preferred the Ricoh M-Mount, particularly using RPP for raw development, as in the following shot — clearly one can get good B&W without the M-Monochrom, but the latter often makes things a lot easier and generally allows an astounding detail and gradaiton, if that is what one is after.



Ricoh GXR M-Module | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 200

Chiang Mai



And here are two of my favorite Ricoch GRD3 shots.


Ricoh GRD3 | ISO 400 | f/1.9 | 1/55 sec

Manila



Ricoh GRD2 | ISO 200 | f/2.8 | 1/660 sec

Bangkok


Consider, the last one. This is taken very close to the subject — the type of shot for which the Ricoh GRD cameras are ideal — because you can roughly frame the shot with the LCD and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. Moriyama Daido in this short video speaks about his preference for using a compact camera for this type of close-up street photography. In the video he's using a Ricoh GR1 or a GR21, a compact film camera, which obviously doesn't have an LCD and he shoots using what he calls a "no finder shot". This has been called a "hip shot" and can be done with any Leica-M camera, but the Ricoh GRD with its LCD and huge depth of field will always be a great camera for this type of street photography. With an M-Monochrom, this is easier to do with a 21mm lens than with a 28mm one.

Now, here are a few of my favorite pictures shot with the M-Monochrom:



M-Monochrom | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 1250

Chiang Mai




M-Monochrom | Summciron-28 | ISO 3200

Bangkok




M-Monochrom | Summciron-28 | ISO 1250

Bangkok





M-Monochrom | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 1250

Bangkok



This last picture is the one that I like the best that I've shot with this new camera. The more I look at it the more it makes me think of the Japanese novelist, Kirino Natsuo, three of whose books have been published in English translation: Out, Grotesque and The Real World.

Comments on the pictures are welcomed.



—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[bonatto]

Thanks for the report Mitch, very interesting read and objective points raised.

Shots are nice, both the chicken vendor and the following shot being most interesting (from the MM shots). The last shot is one of my favorites and most expressive one, with an interesting composition. Would have like to be able to see the tips of her elbows though!

Some of the up-close street shots have focus slightly behind their faces and is distractive when viewing.

Best regards,

[malland]

Fred, thanks for the comments. The missed elbows are the result of this being a "no finder shot": had I used the viewfinder the subject would have noticed me, which would have ruined the shot. I am surprised that the slightly missed focus is so visible at f/8 and f/11 with 21 and 28mm lenses.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Rayt]

Hi Mitch, I follow your posts and am a fan of your work. One questions: does the Monochrom respond to filtration (i.e. yellow filter) like film?

[malland]

Ray, it does; but I haven't tried any filters yet and haven't dealt with the spectral response in the review. It does well with skies without any filters, as in the picture below, but greenery can be fairly dark. In the picture below, which I don't particularly care for, I've lighened the bush at the right by dodging.



M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 320

Colombo


—Mich/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[airfrogusmc]

Great piece malland.

[doolittle]

Really interesting well written post and great pictures too.

[peter_n]

Mitch, taking the considerable time & effort to produce this and other very interesting reports on digital bodies is very much appreciated. I think if you like the type of shot well illustrated by the chicken vendor and the one after it, taken with a small aperture and showing incredible detail and gradation with absolutely everything in focus the M-Monochrom is clearly a great tool.

I agree with the comment above about close-up faces and focus. Because everything else is so sharp in the pictures it is noticeable, an example being the woman in the center of the picture in the third from bottom shot.

I do like these pictures though, and I've learned a lot about the part of the world you live in through your lens. Thanks.

[helenhill]

Wonderfully Resourceful Article Mitch...
Lots to Experiment with & Digest
I suppose the BEST part about the Monochrom is its High ISO values and it's vast post processing capabilities

Great series of Photos be it with The Monochrom, Grd's, GXR..Tres Mitch
Simply Adore shots 4, 7, 8 and the Last

The 21 Elmarit Asph works Supreme
Love it's Perspective and rendering with the MM

[toyfel]

Thank you Mitch for your effort in posting this excellent and very useful assessment of the MM. One of the best in my book. I've learned a lot just by reading it and looking at your images.

[xpanded]

Thanks for a well written article.

/Xpanded

[cam]

i agree -- thank you very much for the review, Mitch!

have you printed your images yet? if so, what have been your thoughts?

[Peter Wijninga]

Thanks for sharing your interesting observations and excellent photos. This said, if you don't compare the output of the Leica Monochrom with that of other digital cameras, the "M Monchrom, is it worth it" question remains unanswered.

[f16sunshine]

Great piece you have written here. I appeciate your objective comparison to these other very capable much less prestigious cameras. The MM is truly a wonderous beast yet, others exist. Kudos.

[icebear]

[quote=malland;2043459]....
A word about Silver Efex: it's a great program that I've used extensively with all the digital cameras that I've used before the M-Monochrom. However, I've only tried Silver Efex on a few M-Monochrom files, and in each case, I found that I could do what I wanted with Lightroom 4.3, usually with results that I liked somewhat better. Therefore, at this stage, I am not likely to use Silver Efex on M-Monochrom files unless I cannot achieve the look that I want with Lightroom....


—Mitch/Bangkok /quote]

Hello Mitch,

you put a great effort into this review and it matches my experiences with the MM pretty much. Great shots to illustrate your findings.
I especially agree about SilverEfx. I do not want to emulate any "film look" and for my taste SFX does not help to increase image quality when you try to work files from the MM.
I also use LR only for adjustments of highlights and shadows, fine tune contrast etc. That's basically it, usually 3-4 min. max. I posted quite a few shots in the "Monochrom: Best pic" thread , so I don't include any shots here.

[Calzone]

Mitch,

Thanks for the post and the inspiration. I've been waiting for a delivery for a while. For me getting on a long list was good because it allowed me time to gather the funds. I expect a delivery soon before the month is over.

What kills me the most out of all your work posted above is the detail and tone of the landscape.

Cal

[jcrutcher]

Mitch, excellent work and explainations. I enjoy mine but I'm no where near your talent level. Still learning as they say. Thank you for putting this together, it is well done. Jim

[malland]

Originally Posted by Calzone

...What kills me the most out of all your work posted above is the detail and tone of the landscape...l

Cal, the Ricoh GXR M-Module is a wonderful camera and is great with the Elmarit-21 ASPH, particulalry when using RPP for raw development. What you write raises an interesting issue, which is, in film terms, the difference between 35mm and medium format: that not every image benefits from higher resolution and finer gradation. Some years ago, a friend shot the same river landscape using the same film in a Leica-M and with the 35mm Summilux ASPH lens and in a Mamiya 7-II. While the level of detail and the smooth gradation of the medium format shot was very obviously superior to 35mm shot, it just didn't have the "bite" of the latter, and we both concluded that for this scene the "35mm aesthetic" worked better than the medium format look. I've only shot a handful of landscapes with the M-Monochrom, and none of them are interesting, but there is so much scope for post-processing that one can achieve a wide range of looks and can, of course, resort to Silver Efex if one wants to "rough up" the file.

As indicated above, I like the files produced by the Ricoh GXR M-Module better than M8 or M9 files, especially the color accuracy and better high ISO performance. The M-Module is well balanced and has a good user interface, but the problem for me was that I didn't like the (somewhat rough) EVF and never liked the focus peaking because, while easy to use for focal lengths of 50mm and above, I found it difficult for wide angle lenses. In contrast to this, the M-Monochrom focuses like any other Leica-M camera. Of course the focus peaking issue is not relevant for the landscape image that you refer to because I set the focus to the hyper focal distance, setting infinity at the f/8 mark while using f/11 for the shot.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[C_R]

Very good review, excellent photos.
You discuss detail rendering and mention RPP, so let me bring up Photo Ninja. I tried RPP, waiting for my MM, and agree that it renders detail very good. I found RPP working too slow, and tried Photo Ninja then. It renders detail as good or better than RPP, is faster, no bells and whistles like LR4, and when you make use of its "smart lighting" mode you nail exposure often in the first run. Its handling of highlights is better than LR4, I dare say. The guys at Picture Code say that correction brush and gradient masks are under construciton already... This is the only weak point of Photo Ninja. After I got my MM I learnt some features of LR4, and finally got the hang of this pompous piece of software... Now, I prefer LR4 just because of its unparalleled feature of being able to do multiple dodge and burn actions with grad masks and brushes on a single DNG. In LR4, my detail settings are amount 40- 50, radius 0.5, detail 50.

Carsten
Flickr

[Rangefinderfreak]

very nice images, just perfect for that "street reality" feeling that is best in leica shooting. Your focus on most of the images was near infinity... The focus issue can be dealt with practice. You guess by the position of the focus tab, are you in the ballpark or not.. Then, you will follow your subject and without looking in the finder, you focus the distance to be perfect IN ADVANCE... With wideangles the DOF will take care of sharpness.

[malland]

Originally Posted by Rangefinderfreak

very nice images, just perfect for that "street reality" feeling that is best in leica shooting. Your focus on most of the images was near infinity... The focus issue can be dealt with practice. You guess by the position of the focus tab, are you in the ballpark or not.. Then, you will follow your subject and without looking in the finder, you focus the distance to be perfect IN ADVANCE... With wideangles the DOF will take care of sharpness.

Thanks for the kind words. However, the statement that my focus "was near infinity" is simply not correct — I am referring to the street shots. I prefocused at the distance where I expected the main subject to be, which was mostly in the range of 1.5-2.5m. Shooting this close to the subject you simply cannot focus near infinity, even with wide-angle lenses at f/8 and f/11.

As someone noted in a post above, the focus is most disturbing in the picture of the young woman, i.e. the third picture from the end of the original post. I negected to mention that this photo is crop of about 60% of the frame, which magnifies the missed focus; in the full frame the focus is not at all disturbing. When I shot this frame I turned quickly to the right and saw the shot and had no time to change focus.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by malland

Cal, the Ricoh GXR M-Module is a wonderful camera and is great with the Elmarit-21 ASPH, particulalry when using RPP for raw development. What you write raises an interesting issue, which is, in film terms, the difference between 35mm and medium format: that not every image benefits from higher resolution and finer gradation. Some years ago, a friend shot the same river landscape using the same film in a Leica-M and with the 35mm Summilux ASPH lens and in a Mamiya 7-II. While the level of detail and the smooth gradation of the medium format shot was very obviously superior to 35mm shot, it just didn't have the "bite" of the latter, and we both concluded that for this scene the "35mm aesthetic" worked better than the medium format look. I've only shot a handful of landscapes with the M-Monochrom, and none of them are interesting, but there is so much scope for post-processing that one can achieve a wide range of looks and can, of course, resort to Silver Efex if one wants to "rough up" the file.

As indicated above, I like the files produced by the Ricoh GXR M-Module better than M8 or M9 files, especially the color accuracy and better high ISO performance. The M-Module is well balanced and has a good user interface, but the problem for me was that I didn't like the (somewhat rough) EVF and never liked the focus peaking because, while easy to use for focal lengths of 50mm and above, I found it difficult for wide angle lenses. In contrast to this, the M-Monochrom focuses like any other Leica-M camera. Of course the focus peaking issue is not relevant for the landscape image that you refer to because I set the focus to the hyper focal distance, setting infinity at the f/8 mark while using f/11 for the shot.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

Mitch,

I shoot a lot of medium format, and what intrigues me about the smaller format is how immediate it comes across over medium format. Elsewhere on the Monochrome landscape thread are further examples.

Not sure if it is a trick of mind, but to me there seems to be a bridge that is somewhat medium format-ish because of added detail, but at the same time its different than medium format. Perhaps the familiarity of seeing/imaging with Leica film cameras spills over because a culture has been imbedded that carries over.

Might also be that digital as a separate medium enhances the optics, especially due to sensor size of the GRX.

Cal

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by icebear

I do not want to emulate any "film look" and for my taste SFX does not help to increase image quality when you try to work files from the MM.

Exactly. Most of the pictures I've seen from the Monochrom do not have a "film look", they are extremely vivid with an incredible level of detail. To me they are refreshingly different from film.

[malland]

Originally Posted by icebear

...I do not want to emulate any "film look" and for my taste SFX does not help to increase image quality when you try to work files from the MM...

Originally Posted by peter_n

Exactly. Most of the pictures I've seen from the Monochrom do not have a "film look", they are extremely vivid with an incredible level of detail. To me they are refreshingly different from film.

Both interesting thoughts that, to me, are somewhat reflected in the often hum-drum photography (although with some exceptions) that one currently sees in the long threads of M-Monochrom photos both on RFF and LUF. What I mean is that the quality of the images in these threads is nowhere near that of the first 3-4 pages of the Ricoh GRD thread here on RFF, so that the camera that is capable of producing astounding image quality is not being used to produce the astounding aesthetic quality that we can see from the (humble) GRD. It's as if people were intimidated by what the M-Monochrom can achieve in terms of image quality to the point that they (myself included) forget that the aesthetic quality of a photograph does not necessarily correlate to the maximum image quality that a camera can produce. While I value the astounding image quality available from the M-Monochrom, what I value even more — at this point more in theory than in practice — is the range of looks that can be achieved (of varying "image quality) with the M-Monochrom. The other possibiity is that the M-Monochrom has not fallen into as talented a group of photographers as has the GRD, which in my mind is a "photographer's camera", as the M-Monochrom should be. Any thoughts?

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[airfrogusmc]

Originally Posted by malland

Both interesting thoughts that, to me, are somewhat reflected in the often hum-drum photography (although with some exceptions) that one currently sees in the long threads of M-Monochrom photos both on RFF and LUF. What I mean is that the quality of the images in these threads is nowhere near that of the first 3-4 pages of the Ricoh GRD thread here on RFF, so that the camera that is capable of producing astounding image quality is not being used to produce the astounding aesthetic quality that we can see from the (humble) GRD. It's as if people were intimidated by what the M-Monochrom can achieve in terms of image quality to the point that they (myself included) forget that the aesthetic quality of a photograph does not necessarily correlate to the maximum image quality that a camera can produce. While I value the astounding image quality available from the M-Monochrom, what I value even more — at this point more in theory than in practice — is the range of looks that can be achieved (of varying "image quality) with the M-Monochrom. The other possibiity is that the M-Monochrom has not fallen into as talented a group of photographers as has the GRD, which in my mind is a "photographer's camera", as the M-Monochrom should be. Any thoughts?

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

Hi Mitch,

Some very interesting observations. I love the MM. I find it extremely easy to use and very intuitive for me anyway and becasue of the high ISO I can shoot using fast shutter speeds to freeze motion and also shoot even at f/16 where I can have DoF with a 35mm lens from about 4 ft - infinity if thats what I desire. The great high ISO performance and the small rangefinder body makes it easy to use for me anyway though I am still learning how to get the best out of it. Not much in the shoulder but lots of room in the toe so exposing to the right like many have gotten used to is something i am relearning. It really is a lot like exposing for transparency film. If you blow the highlights there really is no pulling them back. They are gone. It is very important for me to have useful DoF scales and the 35 Lux has decent useable scales.

There are some great shots in the GRD thread but there is also some nice work being done and posted in the MM thread too. I find the MM is a good fit for me. Might not be for someone else. Give me a few more months with it and it will become even more intuitive.