New Leica Monochrom Typ 246, 1st Look Video & Samples


New Leica Monochrom Typ 246, 1st Look Video & Samples

NOTE: YOU MUST click on the images here to see them correctly. If you do not, you are seeing resized and resampled softer images. Click them for larger size, and to see the correct sharpness. 

It has only been 2-3 days with the new Leica Monochrom but man, I can say with 100% authority that yes, for ME, this is a huge improvement over the last Leica Monochrom (M9) in EVERY way from file quality, to body, to features, to battery, to LCD, to Rangefinder, to the modern features like video and live view (which I will most likely not use). Just as the M 240 did over the M9, the new Monochrom Typ 246 does the same over the old M9 Monochrom.

The new MM 246 with my $30 Jupiter 8 50mm f/2 lens. The MM works well with old, cheap, classic lenses. Click for much better version!


Now..before anyone gets in a HUFF over my words, as I know there are many die-hard fans of the original Monochrom and M9, what I say here is MY opinion, for my uses and needs. To me, and many others, this new MM is a full mature camera, a niche camera of course, but a full mature camera capable of astounding B&W imagery. It is like having an all B&W camera loaded with EVERY B&W film ever made, as your files can be made to resemble many B&W films. Of course digital will never replicate the look of film, but I feel what this camera can do…well, let’s just say I think it can output BETTER than film, without the hassle, costs and time involved. Personally, I would not choose a B&W film over a Monochrom 246 if given the choice. Of course, others will disagree, the film crowd.

A quick test shot after getting the new MM. 75 Summarit, f/2.4 – click it  to see it how it is supposed to be seen


I feel the new MM is fantastic. It has the amazing battery life of the 240, the MUCH improved LCD, the MUCH improved menu system, quieter shutter, faster operation and larger buffer, increased DR (yes, it has more DR than the previous MM) and much improved high ISO performance. It is now 24 MP vs 18 MP and while the old MM was a detail MONSTER, I am not so sure yet if this one offers any advatage in resolution. This is something I have not seen, but will have to test.


When it comes to IQ, the differences are that the new MM has files that are more creamy and rich, where the previous MM had files that were more RAW and hard. Just as those who moved to the M 240 from the M9, if moving from the old MM to the new MM, there will be a period of 1-2 weeks of solid use where you will need to get used to the differences.

Another with the little Jupiter lens at f/2.8 – click for better view


I can say that the files from the new MM are much easier to process. With the old version, there was a learning curve. The new version seems much easier to get where you want to go when “developing” those RAW files.

This is NOT MY REVIEW, I repeat, this is NOT my review. This is simply my very 1st thoughts after having the camera for 2-3 days. My review will be up after I get to use the hell out of it with carious lenses. I’d say 2-3 weeks.

For now, take a look at my 1st look video of the new MM. Enjoy. My MM came from Ken Hansen, you can email him here for your Leica needs. You can also order the new MM at PopFlash, The Pro Shop B&H Photo, or Leica Store Miami. The new MM is $7450, a bit cheaper than the previous which came in at $7995.


  1. Hi Steve,
    Just one quick question. Have you make digital output of any kind with the above images. If yes, are they good in terms of contrast and tone range.
    Many thanks.

  2. Dear Steve,
    I use my «old» Mono that I bought December 2014. It’s a silver body therefore I had to wait quite some time to get. I’m a fashion photographer (yes, some of us are still in business, but I agree we’ll probably become extinct quite soon). After sending him my latest B&W picture of a model in denim shorts the editor-in-chief of the magazine I work for send me his comment in just three letters: Wow! I’m not a rich man but my Monochrome has already provided me with some nice comments. So after all I think it was worth spending all that money.

  3. Lots of talk here about upgrading to the new MM. I’d keep the 1st version of the MM and invest in lenses like the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50 mm f/2 ASPH or the 35MM FLE. I never really understood why anyone would buy a Leica Camera and use any other lenses than a Leica lens? Peter Karbe would die of a heart attack if he knew someone would use a $150 on the MM.

    Peter Karbe:

    • There are other small improvements to the camera that don’t have anything to do with the sensor – things like the screen size and its resolution, the larger buffer, small improvements to the ergonomics, different metering options (I personally don’t care about Live View or video). I’d agree that these elements may not necessarily add up to worthwhile reasons for someone who already has the original Monochrom, but for someone who is looking to buy a Monochrom for the first time, I can see the advantages of the 246 over the ‘old’ one.

      I’ve had mine for just over two weeks and I really love it. The only non-Leica lens that I do have and use regularly is the 35/1.7 Voigtlander Ultron. I bought it new several years ago as a lens that I could use both on my screw-mount and M-mount cameras at the time. Since I already had it, I figured I’d continue to use it on the new cameras. It’s an outstanding lens — wide open it’s tack-sharp, and the prints from images I’ve made with that lens look great. I understand what you’re saying about using ‘lesser’ lenses on a camera such as this, but if you already have these lenses in your collection why not give them a try and see what they do.

  4. Hey, hey…I’m jealous, but I ordered mine and (hopefully) it will arrive mid June…! (and 2 JB grips)

  5. Steve,

    I took a brief look at M246 this past weekend. The least I can say it is an amazing camera it does not beat my M7 but it is a different experience and ticks different boxes and it is worth having also. When are you going to publish your review?

  6. Hagbard, I did not say a used one was 3K, I said not much above 3k. OK, so you seem to be focusing on a rather legal reading of my point, maybe a high 3k would have been a more accurate statement. If you look on actual sold cameras on ebay you can see a number have gone recently for between 3.7K-3.8K. My point is still valid, even taking into account your quibbling over what a fraction of the price means in terms of what I was saying.

  7. HI Steve,

    how’s it going…

    I know the few sample images from Leica, and enthusiasts are not indicative of a cameras potential as like the M240 the learning curve is always greater than people think…. but two aspects of this camera have slightly perturbed me; firstly the files from a lot of posters seem strangely over exposed and nobody seems to have picked up on this… as if the dynamic range of the blacks and whites are not equal… i.e. more white tones than black tones., more highlights than shadows and I wonder why this is. (not convinced it can be always bad technique). Your shot of Brandon looks like there are too many highlights but perfect in the shadows as a good example. the overall effect is slight overexposure but I know it’s not as simple as that and it’s not a technique thing….

    Also I remember when I used to get colour emulsion black and white film like Ilford XP2 processed at the lab and it used to produce files that were so creamy that although they were literally black and white they lacked the grittiness and purity of pure black and white emulsions like T max or Ilford FP4. I know this can be altered in post but this is abut the files straight out of the camera. I look forward to seeing how this camera pans out amongst early adopters and critics alike….

    I’m looking forward to seeing your review to see happily if my early thoughts are proved incorrect.



  8. Steve – I have a question for you regarding the SD cards you use. Is there a recommendation for the M240/246? Currently I’m using a SanDisk Ultra 30MB/s, Class 10, 16GB. I’m having an issue with playback of the images. Could the type of card be the culprit? I’ve read that startup times could also be affected by the card — is that possible?

    • Not sure as I have never had one issue with SD cards in my 240 or the 246. I use a variety from Sandisk to Sony to PNY to others, never an issue. I use 32 and 64GB cards all class 10.

      • Thanks Steve — I just tried a SanDisk Ultra Plus 16GB 48MB/s Class 10 card, and I think that may have solved the playback problem. However, my startup time is still about 3 seconds. The red light flashes flashes flashes flashes, then I can take photos.

      • I spoke with Mark Brady at Leica NJ, and he told me that Leica recommends using cards that have a minimum 95MB/s write speed for both the 240 and the 246 cameras. I went out and bought a few SanDisk Extreme Pro cards with that write speed, and it’s definitely an improvement. Faster start time, and the image playback problem has been eliminated.

        I do wish that Leica would have made some kind of mention in the owner’s manual of recommended specs for SD cards. The only thing they do say is to use cards with high write speeds when shooting video. Nothing about slower write speeds potentially affecting the camera’s performance.

  9. I’ve only had a chance to take a few photos with my 246 (I did own an ‘original’ Monochrom), but here’s what I’ve noticed:

    The camera and files are definitely different than the ‘original’ Monochrom. You don’t seem to have to ‘expose for the highlights’ like you seem to have to do with the ‘old’ camera, so I think these files deliver a bit more flexibility.

    Things I personally like about the new camera:

    Its ergonomics: The camera is ever-so-slightly fatter than the original Monochrom, but it’s hardly noticeable. Additionally, I like the little thumb rest by the adjuster wheel on the back of the camera;

    Its sound: A MUCH better shutter speed sound. Does not have that shutter re-cock sound that the old one has;

    Its viewfinder: Those brightlines are beautiful. I’ve been using the ‘white’ brightlines (you can choose red if you prefer);

    Its screen: Bigger, clearer, just better all-round.

    Things I don’t like:

    Its startup time: When you turn the camera on, the red light on the back of the camera flashes for what seems like an inordinate amount of time. You can’t do anything until it stops flashing;

    Its baseplate: I’m not a fan of the smaller locking key, but that’s really a very minor quibble.

    Really that’s about it. I still need to familiarize myself more with the menu items, and in particular the various metering settings (‘Classic’ vs Advanced etc). But so far so good! I also need to get out there and make some meaningful photos with this beast.

  10. I love the film vs digital debates, they never get old. 🙂 I am a film shooter, almost exclusively. I am not against digital, the look just rarely ever appeals to me, and with film I get the look I want right out of camera. I am one of those that enjoys the process of processing film, so for me this is not a cost of my time. Its a hobby, I think most on here are hobbyists, serious ones at that no doubt, but most of us are not professional. Sure if you are getting paid to shoot, then yes you almost must have a digital work flow. But for something you enjoy doing how can you really claim that its not worth your time? When I do shoot digital I just feel like its just too easy sometimes. I never seem to have the same satisfaction. Post processing? well with the endless filters and adjustments, are you not paralyzed for choice? Sometimes less is more. Digital is cheaper… I dunno is it really? Take for instance the camera on this thread, serious money folks…but its digital…and with that comes serious depreciation. Have you seen the prices of the original M9 mono on the bay lately? Not much over 3K people and going to get worse real fast. How much have you lost over how many years? That’s not something a film shooter has to think about much.Computer hardware to keep up with your ever expanding mega pixels and ram hungry Photoshop processes…I could go on, the other costs of digital many over look. Unless you are truly keeping that digital camera until it breaks, I doubt most could really prove that mantra that digital is cheaper. I submit the difference is not as great as one might think. 7 years ago I bought a Leica M6 for $1000, I sold it 3 years later for an MP upgrade for $1100 ( I still have the lenses) I lost nothing, and gained money. If I wanted to buy another M6 today…same price it was 4 years ago. How much film would I need to shoot to match the deprecation of the M9 mono today? And that is not taking in account all the other digital needs…Basically, I think that cost should not be the reason you chose digital.

    • Hooray: I totally agree, its the depreciation thing : Modern Leicanomics go like this: If you wish to stay au courant in Liecadom that means buying a new digital camera every three years ( I know you don’t have to). In the UK a new Monochrome is £5575 (ok thats UK pounds but it doesn’t matter its only a number it could be zlotys) if you are very lucky you might get £2575 for an old Monochrome. That a drop of £3000 over 3 years, or a £1000 a year or 72 rolls of film, per annum processed and scanned ( in the US you can get better deals on the film ). These numbers are not precise, change the variables and you change the numbers, ( let alone tax breaks for pros on writing down equipment ) but they are directionally correct. Forget film v digital, the point is this, you owned a film Leica, but you lease a digital M Leica , and if you wish to stay up to date the lease cost is a minimum of £1000 p.a. (yes that is a loose use of the word lease but it makes the point ). Thus Leicas are now a subscription model like cable TV.

    • An M9-Mono on eBay selling for $3K? In yer dreams pal. The average sale price is closer to $5500. Find me a $3K Mono in good shape and I’ll GIVE you $500 as a finder’s fee.

          • If you click on that particular link, then go to ‘Used Leica M’, you’ll see that particular body has 4478 actuations. Plus, you’re buying it from a Leica dealer. I will admit, however, that for buying a camera that’s essentially less than half its original cost, you are yes taking a chance. But if you want a deal such as this, that’s the ‘price’ you might have to pay.

          • Steve, you could say that about any camera you buy. I would doubt it be cause of the type of camera this is and how long its been out..a monochrom with a 100k shots would be rare. But yes when buying at the lower scale for a used camera the buyer should be aware of that.

      • Hagbard, I did not say a used one was 3K, I said not much above 3k. OK, so you seem to be focusing on a rather legal reading of my point, maybe a high 3k would have been a more accurate statement. If you look on actual sold cameras on ebay you can see a number have gone recently for between 3.7K-3.8K. My point is still valid, even taking into account your quibbling over what a fraction of the price means in terms of what I was saying.

    • Ask anyone who spent decades of their life working in a darkroom their preference and few will sing the praises of film. It may be fun to get away from the TV for a few hours and get your hands wet but quite another thing to do it day in and day out.

  11. Hi Steve,

    It would be awesome if you would consider doing a blind taste test. Side by side of maybe Olympus OMD B&W vs Leica MM B&W and see if the community could tell the difference. I love the idea of owning a M-Mono just can’t seem to justify the expense to the boss “wife”

    If this has all ready been done, sorry. Maybe someone can share the link.

    BTW I’ve considered submitting my photography but just don’t think i’m good enough. If anyone cares to check out my blog feel free to look at

    i am a non-pro just shoot for fun.

  12. I have never had a Leica, to me they are too restrictive and I prefer SLR or dSLR in the main, though I also have and love an Olympus E-P5. Tried a Fuji X-E2 and disliked the image quality so it’s just been sold. But never ever felt tempted to go down the Leica road so I am no fanboy of Leica, they just never made sense to me and so expensive to boot.

    However, the image quality of the pictures coming from this camera is soooo nice! Beautiful B&W and I love the images I’ve seen taken with this camera. It’s worth looking at Ragnar Axelsson’s photos of Iceland taken with this camera, absolutely challenging to get good exposure in that environment but the new Monochrom typ 246 excels.

    I love the images so much, I can say that this is the first Leica that I would actually love to own. I envy you Steve as I cannot afford it, but hold on, if I sell all my SLR/DSLR gear, my car, my new bandsaw in the workshop, the wife……..I just might!.

  13. I appreciate the new way to see the popped up pictures. It does not increases beyond the size of my monitor, and I do not have to move images to see the whole area of them. Very nice improvement. Thank you, Steve.

  14. I’m very impressed with the images I’ve seen from the new Monochrom, but I’m also still very impressed with the images I see from the old one, including (especially) the one that is currently in camera bag, paid off, and for which I now have two years experience handling and processing the files.

    New stuff is great, and if I didn’t own the original I would go straight for the new model. I do own the original, so I’ll be sitting out this generation.

  15. Hi Steve, could you please let us know what the longest exposure is in bulb mode? I love black and white, but also like multi-minute exposures, something I struggled with the m240.

  16. Can’t wait to read your full review, Steve, to dream…..and dream…… and dream…… Meanwhile I am more happy with my X Vario than I would have thought possible – also for B&W.

  17. its interesting how people get so passionate about this subject.

    film shooters are saying this thing is overpriced and a simple film camera with bw gets you the same thing or close to it at a fraction of a cost, and it does in the short term, but like steve says you do (and i do) have to deal with teh process of having the film developed and paying for it or you do it yourself which has a price to it ( your time)

    i for one do want this camera as i do like shooting bw film and would like a camera for it that is dedicated to it, and this sounds great, a bit much but then i have to see if for me i can afford it and its worth it, but that is what everyone has to do. i won’t stop shooting film for a while too much of it in the refrig to stop, but something like this camera is very intriguing and sounds like a bunch of fun.

    • “…but like steve says you do (and i do) have to deal with teh process of having the film developed and paying for it, or you do it yourself, which has a price to it ( your time).”

      You’re absolutely right. For many it will be a reason to always choose a digital camera over an analogue one. But for me… I often develop my own B&W and I “enjoy” the process. 🙂 It takes a little time, but I don’t mind as it’s part of the fun of creating the images. Sometimes I have film developed in a lab, and while it does cost money to have this done well, I really love the results (and I’m happy waiting a few days, or even a week, to get the results back).

      Each to their own. At the end of the day, I still think Leica and film is cheaper than Leica digital. (and the results are great for both… though better with film) 🙂 🙂

  18. Making sense Ibraar does not make sales.

    In defense of the MM246 (?), it does not have the sensor issues the Leica CCDs do. And you’re kidding yourself if you believe Leica’s mantra that it is working on a fix. The fix is to ‘upgrade’.

    Best regards

  19. I’ve no doubt the new Leica will produce stunning results, but I do not think it will make one iota of a difference to a photographer competent at B&W with good tonal knowledge whether he uses this new one or the original MM.
    And the new version wont save a photographer with poor practical knowledge of tones and values and a without a creative eye.
    Most stuff I’ve seen has been mediocre at best – some people think it will improve their photography or photos – fiddlesticks!

    So in my humble opinion, sure if you want it, buy it, but is it worth the extra outlay for what you get? (if you possess the original already) No – unless of course your entire career depends on it, or that fraction of a stop of saving a burnt out highlight really means so much – it’s easier to just adjust exposure!

    • I 100% agree. And I would even go a step further and ask why not just use an M240 and do B/W conversions. With some basic LR presets, the two will be almost indistinguishable.

      Something all Leica users need to admit to themselves is that shooting Leica is about the user experience, not the final image. You don’t shoot an M because the quality is better than Sony; you shoot it because you prefer using a manual rangefinder. It’s the same reason I shoot film sometimes. I simply love the unplugged feeling of using old, brass film cameras.

      Nikon D810 shooters probably roll their eyes at this kind of pixel peeping.

  20. Hi Steve

    I had a brief test of the Type 246. I agree, it leaves the old monochrome behind in its wake. That is not to say the old monochrome isn’t great. The Type 246 is better. I haven’t tried this but with work, you could make the old monochrom files look more like the Type 246.

    From a build perspective the type 246 is a more solid package over the old Monochrom.

    Still deciding whether I want one.

    Look forward to reading the full review

  21. Mamiya 6 ‘monochrom’ with Fuji Acros roll film, and 3 gorgeous lenses, all at a snippet of the price. Camera appreciates in value the longer you hang onto it. Film & chems are pretty inexpensive when you buy from the right people. “Scan” the negs with a macro lens on a digital camera and continue with digital workflow. $10,000 left in the bank for travel and fun

    • A Mamiya 6 is large. Film is limited to what ISO you have in the camera, and to the # of frames. Film cost money, processing it costs money, and if you do it on your own, tons of time. I have no where near $10k in my Monochrome. Not even near that. But if I shot with a Mamiya 6, I would never want to shoot. Id leave it home as I would never want to mess with the size, weight, film costs, processing and scanning time. I prefer the look of what comes out of cameras like the MM, M 240, Sony A7II than film anyway so would not want to be so limited for what I shoot. If I had ISO 100 film in my camera and went out at night, it would be useless. With a camera like this, it is like having any film loaded – any ISO and beyond up to 12500 usable without issues. It is having unlimited exposures, all in a small Leica M sized RF package. For me, the files will never replicate the look of film, but its not supposed to, it is supposed to surpass that, and does in so many ways. If one purchased a MM and shot it for 3 years (I know those who have) they will have saved money where the longer you shoot film, the more you spend and it adds up quick if you are a daily shooter. I’d rather spend what I did on a MM than an M6 and years of film and processing costs, not to mention saving so much of my time. But we all have different thoughts on this 🙂

        • Dom’s just posted film flower shots shows exactly why the endless pursuit of super high detail is a distraction from making art.

          • Hi!

            I’d love a Monochrom, and you can be quite sure it’s sharper even than my 6×9 Linhof. My Linhof shoots 8 images per film and (with four lenses etc) has cost me about $5,000.

            At the moment i have a five foot color print hanging here, from 800 ASA 35mm, and the grain is 1/8 inch in diameter. It’s stunning. It opens up at an eight foot viewing distande unlike anything I’ve ever seen. I shot four films of it, and have three images like this. Investment is $35 for film and developing and $250 for the print and mounting. I scanned it on my flatbed at 2,400 PPI, more than enough, and very carefully sharpened it not to lose the character.

            I never researched editing software to put in grain, but I wouldn’t be surprised that you can get beautiful grain on digital, too.

            The whole deal about film being more expensive than digital just goes away the moment you get a little bit serious about printing. A four foot black and white print on Hahnemühle Baryta costs me $600, printed and mounted. A show with 22 color images from digital of 2 ft 8 inches cost me $5,000 in prints. A Hahnemühle black and white 12 by 18 inch portfolio print (the very smallest size for me) costs me $25.

            My worst nightmare would be if I suddenly made 150 absolutely masterly black and white shots, I’d have to sell my house to see them as I want them.

            How do I shoot film?

            I’m going to San Francisco for six weeks this summer, to shoot the city. I go on a five hour walkabout every day. I have film with me for 1,000 shots. That’s 25 shots a day. My experience is that that is way too much. I bring 800, 400, 100 ASA film and 400 Tmax for my serious black and white, 30 Tmax films for the Linhof, 240 images. With that camera I shoot 8 images a day tops.

            I don’t bring a digital camera. i’m tired of the limitations.

            I wouldn’t be the photographer I am if I hadn’t had the very steep learning curve of digital the last three years. i shot almost nothing but digital these three years. Now I rediscovered film.

            With insects my keeper rate is 3%, and I really need the EVF of my Olympus PEN. I shoot insects for about ten years now and I have about 25 good images. Making that one insect image with 800 ASA film makes it worth for me, to try to shoot film even there One great image a year makes it worth it to me.



      • I’m really surprised that people are still throwing around meaningless comparisons to film cameras in this day and age. This is an argument that you’d find on DPR in 1999. Seriously, this is kinda sad. Shoot what you like and get over the film vs. digital debate guys. It’s 2015 fer christ’s sake!

    • “$10,000 left in the bank for travel and fun”

      I hear this reasoning all the time from film shooters (don’t get me wrong…I love film).

      So far, I have ~25k shots on my digital M without a hiccup. I also consider myself a careful shooter. In other words, I don’t carelessly take pictures just because I have the convenience of a digital camera. I do, however, work a scene if it has potential, just like the old film masters would shoot an entire roll of 36 exposures if they knew the scene had potential (Cartier-Bresson comes to mind).

      If you shot and processed 2083 rolls of Fuji Acros roll film(25,000/12 exp), and bought the “inexpensive” developing chemicals, and put in the man-hours of developing and scanning all that film, would you still have $10,000 left in the bank for travel and fun? Not according to my calculations.

      • Not careless?
        You’ve over 3 times more shots on your MM than I’ve shot in over 12 years in total with ANY and all cameras combined .

          • Not any more careless than a film shooter. 25k photos isn’t much by Winogrand standards.

          • Errr yes far more careless . 25k ! That’s twenty five THOUSAND – on an MM at that! Jesus what’re you using a notor drive with it ? Or stop motion cinematography 😉 I wonder how many keepers you have ? A Film shooter won’t ever take this pebble dash approach and a careful MM shooter or DSlr shooter won’t either .

          • That’s about 35 frames a day, which is doable – but you must have some stamina to carefully crack that lot out EVERY single day!

            I don’t get the money saving argument with Leica users – you spend ££££££s on a digital camera, then talk about saving money not using film. If you can afford a Leica, you should be able to afford the film costs and not worry about it – especially if you are paying out here and there (like with film) rather than £5000 – £6000 in one ago. Yes, film is more expensive, but it’s more expensive over time.

            Also, whilst I like the digital files and their look – film is NOT about perfection, it’s limitations is its charm and challenge. Shoot both, that way you can enjoy photography more, rather than stupid arguments about whether one is better than the other…

            You should shoot what you like, and like what you shoot!

          • Or you could say he’s had 250 days where he did a 100 shots. The average would still be the same, but seems a lot more feasible..

          • Dave, I think Winogrand is an exception to the rule. Most film shooters don’t shoot that quantity. Not even close to it. Or are you saying Winogrand was careless? 😀

            If you’ve taken 25,000 photos in just over 2.5 years (assuming your bought the M when it was first released)… your careful and my careful are a bit different. 🙂

          • Mark, that’s 35 frames from an MM ! Taht’s every single day on average for 2 1/2 years maximum.
            If you add inn the colour shots, that total will be a huge amount.
            Sure folks do shoot tens of thousands of images in a short space of time, but they’re either sports photographers, or similar or journalists usually shooting AF and a DSLR.
            Other’s also shoot tens of thousands but they don’t claim to be careful. This is what I’m debating, you cannot be careful if you shoot a specialised niche manual Focus camera like the MM for the subject matter it suits and shoot 25,000 or so images like this.

          • Ibraar, I’m absolutely certain you’re a much better photographer than I am. I’m certain your skills far exceed mine in the artistic realm. I’ve seen your photos, and they’re very impressive. Because of my mediocre talent and skill, I can’t tell you how many times I have been thrilled, by the law of probability, with having the freedom to take as many shots of a scene with artistic potential as I desire (call it careless if you’d like) instead of being constrained with x-number of remaining exposures on a roll of film, because it’s oft times the second-to-last shot of the scene that’s the keeper. I’m not a talented photographer, but I try to take photographs that I’m pleased with. Because of this, digital works for me. Continue taking great photos with whatever system you use, and I will try to do the same.

  22. Nice 1st look Steve. Just a heads up on your video… At the end it says “Title Text Here.” There are some dust spots or water drops on the 15mm lens driving me a little crazy in the video as well haha.

  23. The images I have seen look great with this camera (your’s and RAX’s). I shoot both black and white film and digital, I like both as they are very different experiences. I don’t know why, but digital always seems to have an inferiority complex against film. Both are equally good, just different to me…

  24. Reviewing Sean Read’s images in his comparison, there’s clearly an improvement in DR. Resolution? None that I could appreciate. Does it merit selling my MM at a $2000 loss to “upgrade”.


  25. Thanks for the first look, Steve…I love the original MM and am considering upgrading (despite the woeful state of Leica pre-owned prices; well, woeful for sellers)…look forward to your full review… Any theories on the IQ differences vs the CCD MM? I await your full review and the B&H link therein 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.