The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

B&W with A7(r) vs. M240 vs. MM

D&A

Well-known member
Hi All,

No doubt extremely good B&W imagery from a technical standpoint can be achieved from the Leica MM and also from color files from the M240 which although may not quite match the MM for DR or tonality, but apparently does a fine job. It's fairly well accepted that the color files from the M9 although good, are somewhat behind these two cameras. Personally I've worked with files from all three of these cameras and I would concur with this assessment.

I'm curious if anyone with a M240 or MM for that matte, closely compare B&W with their A7 or A7r against one or both of the Leica cameras? I'm extremely curious about this. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

donbga

Member
Hi All,

No doubt extremely good B&W imagery from a technical standpoint can be achieved from the Leica MM and also from color files from the M240 which although may not quite match the MM for DR or tonality, but apparently does a fine job. It's fairly well accepted that the color files from the M9 although good, are somewhat behind these two cameras. Personally I've worked with files from all three of these cameras and I would concur with this assessment.

I'm curious if anyone with a M240 or MM for that matte, closely compare B&W with their A7 or A7r against one or both of the Leica cameras? I'm extremely curious about this. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
Perhaps this will make you more curious:

Sony Supposedly Working on a Full-Frame Camera that Shoots Only Black & White

Don Bryant
 

D&A

Well-known member
Thanks Don, I saw that previously but at this time wanted to know how the current A7 and A7r perform for B&W imagery compared to the M240 and MM from those who have both the A7(R) and either/or a M240 and MM.

Dave (D&A)
 

m_driscoll

New member
Sony A7 with Sony 28-70 lens, Leica M(240), and Leica Monochrom.

1. Leica M(240), Leica 24mm f/3.8, 1/60s @ f/4, ISO 200


2. Sony A7, Sony 28-70mm @ 28mm, 1/360s @ f/3.5, ISO 400


3. Leica M(240), Leica 24mm f/3.8, 1/25s @ f/6.8, ISO 800


4. Sony A7, Sony 28-70mm @ 70mm, 1/80s @ f/5.6, ISO 640



5. Sony A7, Sony 28-70mm @ 52mm, 1/250s @ f/8, ISO 200


6. Leica M Monochrom, Leica 75mm f/2.5, 1/750s, ISO 320


7. Leica M Monochrom, Leica 50mm f/1.4, 1/750s, ISO 320


Cheers, Matt
 
Last edited:

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Matt,

I so thoroughly enjoy your looking at your posted images (including this last set), that I get lost in the images themselves and forget to even look at the nuisances regarding aspects of B&W depth and quality differences between the cameras used. My two browsers to indicate any exif data so not sure which of these images belongs to which camera? I could guess, but there are also the variables of lighting, tonality of the scene and personal post processing applied to each file.

In addition, could you briefly elaborate a bit on your overall general feelings of converting M240 images to B&W vs. those from the Sony? I have little doubt the MM reins supreme in this regard (B&W imagery) and known for some the M240 often is a good 2nd...but don't have a handle where the Sony fits in.

Many thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

m_driscoll

New member
Dave,

I added the metadata for each photo in the earlier post. I, also, swapped out the last photo. The one before was cropped to much.

I think the Sony A7 and the M(240) are almost "dead even" with regards to B & W conversion. The variables being camera settings and lens. Each seem to shine with their own lenses. I haven't shot a lot of non-Sony lenses on the A7.

The Monochrom simply has more resolution then the other two. It, just, looks smoother. My A7r was returned so fast that I can't make a B & W comparison (clunky shutter).

Here's one with the A7 and the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8, 1/320 s @ f/1.8, ISO 100. It's an improvement on the Sony 28-70mm.



Sorry, not a very technical analysis. I wouldn't take the A7 or the M(240) on a shoot based on better B & W conversions. My choice would be based on the camera's operation: i.e. AF or MF, focal length of lens, weather, etc.

Cheers, Matt
 

D&A

Well-known member
Matt very nice! Your comparative assessment is just what I was looking for. When it comes to B&W imagery, especially when converting color files form individual cameras, it often becomes quite subjective. Additionally there are many factors that can sway the output....namely post processing applied, filter use, lens used and it's settings and more. Still when a conversion is successful, it often has the tonality and depth one is generally seeking in a B&W image. Additionally as you say, the camera in use itself often can sway the decision. Shooting a MM along side a M9 is of course far more convenient than say mixing a Leica and Sony..not to mention how each handles under different types of shooting situations.

I see I'm still going to have a difficult time deciding and that's why I have appreciated yours and others input. Thank you again.

Dave (D&A)
 

Uaiomex

Member
Maybe its a placebo effect but these two look like b&W chromes, the others don't. In my eyes, of course.
Eduardo
Sony A7 with Sony 28-70 lens, Leica M(240), and Leica Monochrom.


6. Leica M Monochrom, Leica 75mm f/2.5, 1/750s, ISO 320


7. Leica M Monochrom, Leica 50mm f/1.4, 1/750s, ISO 320


Cheers, Matt
 

m_driscoll

New member
Maybe its a placebo effect but these two look like b&W chromes, the others don't. In my eyes, of course.
Eduardo
Eduardo,

No placebo effect. They are cleaner and smoother. I wonder how the A7r might compare?

BTW: all were converted in Silver Efex Pro I, or, II.

Cheers, Matt
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Some very nice looking results out of both cameras, Matt!

I have a brace of nice Leica R lenses that work splendidly on the E-M1 (with FoVs that are a bit on the long side), likely will work well on the A7, not sure about the A7r.

Hmm hmm. Is the Sony A7 the Leicaflex SL Digital? ]'-)

G
 

Gbealnz

Member
I reckon it is actually Godfrey. I am partway through a B&W film in my SL, and have also been using very occasionally the few R series lenses I have on the A7R. Wonderful results. The 100/4 macro is very handy, and I am looking forward to trying the older (2 cam) 50/2.
I reckon you've nailed it, a digital back.
Gary
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Some very nice looking results out of both cameras, Matt!

I have a brace of nice Leica R lenses that work splendidly on the E-M1 (with FoVs that are a bit on the long side), likely will work well on the A7, not sure about the A7r.

Hmm hmm. Is the Sony A7 the Leicaflex SL Digital? ]'-)
G
I wish it was Godfrey....just as I wish the Nikon Df was the digital equivalent of a FM2/F3HP.

I don't own a Leicaflex SL, but I do own several Leicas (R3, R6.2, R8...and seven Leica R lenses), Nikons (F2, F3HP, F100, F5, F6) and Canons (F1, 1V HS).

The A7, as good as it is, IMHO it's just too small, fiddly and "digital" to be the digital equivalent of a Leicaflex SL...or of any traditional 35mm film camera designed for manual focus lenses.

Think about what a digital R10 might have been like...as simple to use as a M8/M9 and optimized for manual focus Leica R lenses. I haven't found a DSLR or mirrorless camera yet which approaches that level of "pure photography"....not the Nikon Df and not the Sony A7.

The results from the A7 are excellent, but the experience of actually using the camera with my manual focus Leica R lenses has left me disappointed. I want to be able to use my Leica R lenses on a digital camera as intuitively as I do on my Leica film cameras, without having to push a bunch of little buttons etc just to focus the damn camera.

I'm beginning to think that a DSLR/mirrorless camera which matches that experience will never be built.

Gary
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I reckon it is actually Godfrey. I am partway through a B&W film in my SL, and have also been using very occasionally the few R series lenses I have on the A7R. Wonderful results. The 100/4 macro is very handy, and I am looking forward to trying the older (2 cam) 50/2.
I reckon you've nailed it, a digital back.
Gary
That's encouraging, if likely expensive, news ...

I have a '65 Summicron-R 50mm f/2 single cam. It is such a good performer it amazes me. It needs at least a good CLA as the lubricant on the focusing helicoid is well petrified at this point, and I've been debating the sanity of sending it to Leica and having it updated to a two cam mount (they can still do it!). Fun fun fun ...

G
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
I wish it was Godfrey....just as I wish the Nikon Df was the digital equivalent of a FM2/F3HP.
...
I'm beginning to think that a DSLR/mirrorless camera which matches that experience will never be built.
Gary
I'm sure you're correct, and I also doubt seriously that any true FM or F3 digital cameras will be built. They're different beasts, the expectations of the buying audience are not the same. A few like us who prefer the simplicity and directness of these lovely old cameras do not constistute enough marketplace to make them profitable. I don't believe there are enough like us.

I haven't actually touched a Nikon Df yet, but honestly all the buttons and dials put me off. Seems way more complicated than I wanted out of a retro-simplified Nikon. I wanted something more akin to an F3. But those that bought it seem happy so far.

Using the Leica R (and manual Nikkor) lenses on the Olympus E-M1, when I've configured it appropriately, turns out to be quite fluid and transparent for me, not fiddly at all. The only problem is that using them on FourThirds format nets a set of longish telephotos (my lenses are 50 to 180 mm focal lengths, a normal lens is 25mm on FourThirds). Turns out that's just not the experience I really wanted out of the E-M1, which has stunning responsiveness and features with FT and mFT lenses.

So I'm considering an A7 to use exclusively with the Leica R lenses. I know it won't be quite the same as using the 'flex SL ... few things could be, that camera is a glorious, brute-simple tank ... or an R10 digital (wanted an R8, simply couldn't buy the lenses then). But if the A7 can be set up to be suitably transparent for me, that would be good enough.

The A7's light weight doesn't daunt me ... the Leicaflex SL is way too heavy, really ... but its size is a bit of an issue. It needs to be taller to be ergonomic, like the E-M1 with the grip fitted, and the battery grip seems to make it a bit too much. Perhaps the RRS tripod mount/bottom plate will do the number.

Eh. I'll see if and when I acquire an A7/A7r to try this out. We all have different levels of tolerance and satisfaction with respect to camera haptics... No one can tell you what you like best, and what's tolerable or satisfactory. :)

G
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I completely agree with you Godfrey re what might not work for one person could suit another person perfectly well, so I hope the A7 works for you. I have the vertical battery grip on my A7, which certainly helps. It's just the small buttons etc which I can't get used to...and I should have realized this would be an issue from my past experiences. I've used my Leica R lenses on my Canon 5D and been pretty happy with the results and ergonomics (just wish it was more than 12mp and was a more robust camera), so I'm hoping that Canon will come out with something that I can use in the next year or so. I really enjoy my Nikon DSLRs and only wish I could mount the Leica R lenses on them with an adapter, without having to actually convert the lens mounts to Nikon F.

The Leica rangefinder users are so fortunate to have a camera like the M9 etc. It is relatively simple and as close to a Leica M film camera as a digital camera could be....I just don't enjoy using a rangefinder.

Gary
 

anGy

Member
Matt very nice! Your comparative assessment is just what I was looking for. When it comes to B&W imagery, especially when converting color files form individual cameras, it often becomes quite subjective. Additionally there are many factors that can sway the output....namely post processing applied, filter use, lens used and it's settings and more. Still when a conversion is successful, it often has the tonality and depth one is generally seeking in a B&W image. Additionally as you say, the camera in use itself often can sway the decision. Shooting a MM along side a M9 is of course far more convenient than say mixing a Leica and Sony..not to mention how each handles under different types of shooting situations.

I see I'm still going to have a difficult time deciding and that's why I have appreciated yours and others input. Thank you again.

Dave (D&A)
It should be quite difficult to compare those different B&W files and then make a statement. Lots of variables.
I've made a M240 vs MM comparison once using the same lens/ light/ set for both cameras. Then side by side development of the raw files, giving the closest possible MM look to the M240 files. Then printing them 40" wide (which is a bit too wide for them I think by the way).
I just did the same process for comparing the Leica S2 files to the Sony A7r ones.
I think for both MM vs M240 & S2 vs A7r comparisons it is possible to come really close technically.
Then begins the intellectualization. Let's be rational, there is not enough difference between those files to justify keeping/ buying the expensive camera. The cheaper one is almost as good, this or that part of the files looks even better, and so on.
But in the end, in all honesty, even having the willingness to save a lot of money, I've never been able to bury deep enough my little inside voice telling me that the MM files are just beautiful and do look like a B&W picture should be. Same for the S2 files, they are just more elegant & natural than the A7r ones.
In my case I now know that all those comparisons questions can be reduced to this simple equation: How important is it for me to make those pictures (in B&W, at high Resolution, etc) & what my bank account can afford ?
Period.
 

anGy

Member
So to me the conclusion is that if you put high importance in file quality and have trained eyes it is worthless trying to find technical justification for buying a less specific/less expensive gear.
The feel (should I say the soul?) of the MM files can't be replicable with an M240 or an A7r. The look of a medium format file can't be replicated by the A7r neither.
How close they are technically is not really relevant once you realized the feel (or the soul) of the files is not the same.
 

D&A

Well-known member
anGy, I wholeheartedly agree with much of what you expressed and your reasoning. Imagery is part technical and part emotional and each of us can often describe what we observe in terms of these attributes and more when compoaring two similar images taken with two different cameras or systems. Like yourself, I often print very large and when making these comparisons, might find two cameras can often provide similarly sharp images or even similar looking files (when viewed on a monitor) or prints when one or both are converted to B&W.

I often was even able to do this with highly matched images from the Leica MM and Leica M9. Yet when I spent time with each image, one often had a visceral impact far greater than the other so that even though on the surface I could get these two cameras to produce a very similar B&W image (save for the superior resolution and acuity of the MM), the final B&W print at times from the M9 as good as it was, seemed flat in comparison. Not in a literal sense but in the impact it made upon repeated viewings.

That's why hearing personal feedback from those who made some B&W comparisons with these cameras "in addition" to seeing the posted images, gives me some sort of idea how they view B&W imagery form each camera. The same of course can be applied to color work and trying to get output from say a 36MP 35mm DSLR vs. a 40MP Medium format digital. Many variables but often I get that same visceral impact from the medium format image that seems just a bit flat with the 35mm one. Of course lenses and other factors come into play not to mention possible CMOS vs. CCD differences that may exist.

Dave (D&A)
 
Top