The Q2m is a perfect additional camera to own and thats the tough part since its an expensive "additional" camera. I loved mine in the time I had it. I learned alot of how to see light and not just chimp on the colors being presented in front of me. I ended up selling mine along with my sony kit for an M11 and haven't looked back but one day I will pick up another monochrom camera as the low light capability is insane
I owned the Q2M for 1 year and sold it after having a beautiful experiment. Reason was exactly like you said - people I share my family photos with also want the pictures in colour (my wife does like black and white, but not exclusively). Having a monochrome camera is the true dedication to black and white. And in my opinion it means shooting for yourself - no noise, no comments from your loved once or haters - only you, the camera and the contrast of light. I tried to make it work as good as possible for me, but always had in mind, I would like to share the image to people to who I know prefer colour. Because of that reason I sold it and b/w convertion is also fine, specially on Leica + Nikon DNGs. But these moments, when I really purely shot only for myself and the pure joy of experience, these are the moments I miss my Leica Q2M, specially the night walks. But the price tag is too high to keep such a camera just for that purpose. That being said, I kinda felt relieved (confirmation bias :D) seeing Matt Day also giving up his M11M and getting back his normal M11 :D
I bought the Q2M before I sold my Fuji X100v to a friend. I love the Q2M, but I soon decided to buy a Leica M11 after buying the Q2M. Both cameras are my daily carry. I agree; when I take B&Ws with my Sony, there is not a lot of difference. However, it is worth it for me because I enjoy Q2M. I also like vintage lenses on the M11.
I used the Q2M basically everyday here in California. Loved everything about the camera except for one thing. In high contrast scenes I had to underexpose by up to three stops to protect the highlights. This led to way too much time in post fiddling with processing and making my workflow way too long. Shooting everyday and doing street photography it ended up not being worth my time. But I think if you're willing to put the time in post, it's hard to find a better image.
For me, the Leica Q2/Q2M/Q3 offers a much better shooting experience, from both a handling perspective (I prefer the slightly larger form factor, as I have large hands) and in UI. As for the image quality, there is definitely something special about the Leica files that is often difficult to describe. Whether it's color or monochrome, I prefer the Leica hands down. My "main" camera system in Nikon mirrorless (Z8 and some excellent "S" glass), but I like having a quality "simpler" body to grab when I want to shoot light and have no issues not having the ability to switch lenses. I owned every X100 version up through the V, but for me, I will never go back to Fuji. I shot Fuji for about 9 years and enjoyed it. I just prefer my Nikon and Q2M more. But at the end of the day, they are just tools: if you compose and expose properly, you can pretty much get quality results from whichever tool you choose to shoot with. Yes, even if you can also make and take calls with it 😁
@@dothewubwub I think that must be true, as I have both the Q2M and the Fuji and while I can tell the difference between them in images that I shoot, it was hard to do so in the examples here. I couldn't make out the details and tonal gradations that I know are actually visible in one camera or the other. That said, even if they were completely visible in the examples here, there might not be a compelling enough difference between one and the other to make the Leica seem worth it to everyone. Though I'm not sure that most of the sample images were the type in which the differences are really evident. Moreover, the straight-out-of-camera images from the Q2M are flat and gray and their dynamic range is typically only found in editing (while my Fuji creates great jpegs). And, finally, a colored filter on the Q2M (red, orange yellow, green) makes a world of difference in the right conditions. Of course, some people don't want to have to bother with such filters or with editing and the Fuji is a great way to avoid both!
Pentax's monochrome is a good middle ground if you're ok with the DSLR form factor (I personally am). It's only APS-C, though. But I wouldn't be surprised if Ricoh took its sensor and put it in a GRIII.
I would consider the K51 monochrome camera but for over $2,000 I can shoot a lot of film with my Mamiya RB67 like around $50 with processing. Or my Nikon Fe. I started carrying a Lumix point and shoot set for monochrome at car shows for B/W autos or engine with lots of chrome.
Good question. Having the Q3 and just about any of the X-series bodies and lenses, I think it boils down to dynamic range these sensors are capable of reproducing. My X-T5 with the 1.4 lenses, but also my MF Voïgtlanders is absolutely capable of producing the same results. It might take an extra step in post, which comes down to convenience I guess. But I’m shooting excellent bnw images even with my older but beloved X-E4 with the Ultron attached. I can dail to some my of wonderful Ilford film simulations which got me wonderful bnw images. The Q3 with its high dynamic range and RAWs allow me to have more latitude when it comes to post. But out of the box I think the images are just as great as a dedicated Monochrome version with the filters removed. Great video, I love your content and vibe.
I shoot with Fuji and Oly and frequently bounce back & forth between the 2. However, the new Nikon ZF really has my interest particularly because of the B&W profiles. They look amazing!
I'd love a monochrome only camera. The only reason I don't have one is the cost! Monochrome GR please. The limitation is the appeal to me. The intention. Maybe like playing vinyl, the way you listen to the music is different. Not just the perceived better analogue sound? Thanks for video 😀
I really can’t understand all these comparisons being made between the Leica Q2 Monochrom and other cameras with a color sensor. Perhaps I could understand a comparison between the Q2 Monochrom and the Pentax K-3 Monochrom, although even that would be unfair (different sensor size, different type of camera). It’s like comparing a sports coupe with an equally fast station wagon and debating why you should buy a two-seater car when there are equally fast and possibly cheaper cars with plenty of space for the whole family! If we’re not sure what we want or what we’re buying, the problem isn’t with the product but with us. If someone isn’t sure they want a camera for black and white photography and only, then they definitely shouldn’t be considering the Q2 Monochrom and every monochrom camera. A camera isn’t just the sensor it has; it’s a combination of things such as the user experience, the results you achieve, and thank God there are plenty of options on the market for every taste, as long as we know what we want!
With the present prices of film and chemicals here in the UK, a Leica monochrome although quite ridiculously expensive, but in three years time would have already paid for itself. Trust me, I am a film devotee and have been for nealy fifty years of photography, so take my word, if film prices keep on going up in the same manner as of the last two years film photography will kill itself. There's a limit that I am willing to line the pockets of Allaris ( kodak ) and Harman ( Ilford ) shateholders at me expense. Thank you.
If you wouldn't be willing to have it as your only photo camera then I think that answers your question tbh. Brilliant camera, but it's pretty niche, especially at the price.
I saw a documentary that women can see color better then men. Back in the old days when the women would pick the fruits and vegetables what fruit or vegetable was more ripe. The men went hunting and would bring back a animal for dinner. Zacuto who makes filming stuff they made a EVF monitor for a cameraman's eye for the Canon 5D Mark 2 when the DSLR crazy took off doe filmmaking. They wanted to watch the EVF colors with the LCD on the camera. They hired this woman that is the best in the world for looking at color. She can can tell if one shade is off by one point. The theory is women developed get colors detection then men did for their eyes. Zacuto I think has a TH-cam channel and they also have a Vimeo channel. So check those channels if you want to see it.
"Worth it" is a hard thing to answer. With enough disposable $$, sure, why not. I'd suggest really exploring the B&W shooting experience though. Get a set of nice quality filters (yellow, red, green etc) and experiment with that, since that's not something you can do with a color sensor. Agreed on the point about using actual b&w film though. That would be my preference over the Q2.
I’d say that the Q2 is the best fit for a documentary/street photog who wants to be able to shoot from dawn till deep into the night in BW. The crank the iso and you can stop motion at any time no matter the light condition. That said, I’m more like the average shooter so I opted to go the film route for black and white.5k buys you a ton of bw rolls, way more bw than I normally shoot.
Tbh that's why i choose color. But altho i can see the differences & prefer the leica Q2 immediately, it is just a personal preference. Only thing is, i do like the Leica feel. And it's something i got after growing up with nikons, moving to sl-2S then just wanted something small enough for edc. IMHO Leica prices are something one can better appreciate at end of one's photography journey
Comparing images in normal light and on a TH-cam video isn’t really the way to judge a monochrome camera. I love my m11-m but admit it’s relatively boring when shooting in boring light or boring subjects. Color can help make a boring image more interesting. The monochrom’s sensor shines when you push it. I have photos of my infant daughter sleeping in her crib shot at 100,000 iso which I’d never be able to capture on a color camera. Or images severely underexposed to preserve highlights where I can recover the shadows from nearly pure black. A monochrome camera isn’t for everyone and it’s definitely not for the people always searching for that one “do-it-all” camera. But personally, I don’t see myself ever getting rid of this camera.
Keep in mind you are comparing against a crop sensor camera. If you compared against a full frame camera the differences would be even less noticeable, given that FF has better tonality and DR than crop sensor all things being equal.
Some photos I like the Fuji more and other I like the Leica more. I don't think a monochrome camera is worth it for me. I like having the raw file to have black and white and color. I like black and white but sometimes I want color. Also I have a Fuji X-E1 and I really like the black and white out of that camera. I like it better then Olympus and Panasonic, but I'm mostly a M43 shooter I invested a lot of money into M43 and I just don't have the urge to switch systems. For one its a headache selling stuff and I remember the issue you had with the Nikon 24-120mm f4 with Ebay. Also you don't get a lot for what you paid for your gear but there is kind a work around. One photographer said buy used lens and if you don't like it since its used you can sell it basically for what you bought it for.
I reckon there are photographers out there who strictly shoot monochrome and strictly shoot Leica (I get the impression there were more of them in days gone by, but I’m sure they’re still out there). The tri-x loaded in an M6 reportage-style shooter. To me, this camera is built for that exceedingly small sample of photographers. Those photographers don’t feel any loss if they can’t capture a sunset in color. It does nothing for them like it does for the rest of us. There aren’t many of those photographers out there anymore, at least by the impression I get. So my trouble with the monochrome cameras is that I have this feeling those photographers would have such a deep preference for the look of their images that even this special-built, extremely niche camera may or may not entice them still. Hell, they might have such a developed taste for their monochrome look that they totally bypass the concept that they haven’t TRULY been able to develop their digital images without a pure monochrome sensor. Of course, that’s conjecture, but my point is that there’s this inherent idea that there’s a model photographer out there for whom this camera exists, and that idea is just another one that only serves to make us think we will be that photographer if only for getting a particular camera. And for the rest of us, Leica has to make a strong case that our converted raw files aren’t what they could be. We’re missing tonal this and iso that. But if I’m not among the select few for whom a Leica monochrome camera just makes inherent sense, then I’m choosing to pass on other options in pursuit of what I’m told I’ll find with this choice. And don’t get me wrong: I’m very intrigued by this camera, but the one thing I know without a bit of doubt is that I still have some preference for color images, however big or small, and that just makes a camera this expensive difficult to digest. I get the Leica appeal, but selling a monochrome camera with as high a price tag as their non-monochrome variants then having to market the hell out of it so that people know why they would be losing out if they simply were to edit their raw photos in b&w tells me that until I’m flush with heaps of disposable income, I’ll be so much better off recognizing I’m neither a monochrome nor Leica shooter, and I’m certainly not a monochrome Leica shooter.
You pointed it out. If you are an all day photographer you will not be satisfied with this camera. On my side I' m a profi photograph with some artist ambitions and some ideas for certain projects in BW. For this it's the right camera because you have to think in BW. Best from Germany Johannes (STORYIMAGE)
I'm a man and I do like color better but my reasons are different then why women might like color. To me recording the color is documenting a moment in time. All the color travel at different speeds from what I remember in science class and that's why camera companies put special glass like Nikon I think calls their glass ED glass. This is to slow the different colors down so they all hit the film or sensor at the same time. Even when I was shooting film I liked shooting color better because you could still convert it to black and white if you really wanted to. But back in those days yeah shooting true black and white film was better. I feel the same way with the original Star Ware films. That George Lucas should have left them alone and released them the way people saw them in the theaters. Then George Lucas could have scanned his films in and added all the CGI stuff he wanted. From my understanding they started cutting and splicing the original films and I guess they don't want to mess with splicing the film again and they run the risk of damaging the films now since they are so old. But fans have remastered all the original films they got a hold of prints that was in the movie theaters and they used those to remaster and they used Blu-Ray footage and some DVD footage also. It took them years to remaster those films.
Buyers remorse and doubts developing even faster that expected. The advantages of the Leica monochrome sensor are not apparent in ideal lighting conditions, and average subjects. Push the boundaries of exposure, low light, and detailed subjects to see the advantages. They are real. But for me, like you, probably not worth giving up the option of color. I am still predicting a quick sell on out of your kit.
Q2 Monochrome answers a question no one was asking before Monochrome only cameras were launched by Leica. With our sensible heads on, this really is a marketing ploy for those rich enough not to know better. A pro shooting for a client wouldn’t limit themself like this, it would be ridiculous. So this is a very expensive play thing.
A _Monochrome_ Camera, without video features should be availible from all Companies
The Q2m is a perfect additional camera to own and thats the tough part since its an expensive "additional" camera. I loved mine in the time I had it. I learned alot of how to see light and not just chimp on the colors being presented in front of me. I ended up selling mine along with my sony kit for an M11 and haven't looked back but one day I will pick up another monochrom camera as the low light capability is insane
I suppose the next question would be how much difference does it make if you're wanting largs B&W prints?
I owned the Q2M for 1 year and sold it after having a beautiful experiment. Reason was exactly like you said - people I share my family photos with also want the pictures in colour (my wife does like black and white, but not exclusively). Having a monochrome camera is the true dedication to black and white. And in my opinion it means shooting for yourself - no noise, no comments from your loved once or haters - only you, the camera and the contrast of light. I tried to make it work as good as possible for me, but always had in mind, I would like to share the image to people to who I know prefer colour. Because of that reason I sold it and b/w convertion is also fine, specially on Leica + Nikon DNGs.
But these moments, when I really purely shot only for myself and the pure joy of experience, these are the moments I miss my Leica Q2M, specially the night walks. But the price tag is too high to keep such a camera just for that purpose.
That being said, I kinda felt relieved (confirmation bias :D) seeing Matt Day also giving up his M11M and getting back his normal M11 :D
I think this is a very accurate assessment
I bought the Q2M before I sold my Fuji X100v to a friend. I love the Q2M, but I soon decided to buy a Leica M11 after buying the Q2M. Both cameras are my daily carry. I agree; when I take B&Ws with my Sony, there is not a lot of difference. However, it is worth it for me because I enjoy Q2M. I also like vintage lenses on the M11.
I used the Q2M basically everyday here in California. Loved everything about the camera except for one thing. In high contrast scenes I had to underexpose by up to three stops to protect the highlights. This led to way too much time in post fiddling with processing and making my workflow way too long. Shooting everyday and doing street photography it ended up not being worth my time. But I think if you're willing to put the time in post, it's hard to find a better image.
For me, the Leica Q2/Q2M/Q3 offers a much better shooting experience, from both a handling perspective (I prefer the slightly larger form factor, as I have large hands) and in UI. As for the image quality, there is definitely something special about the Leica files that is often difficult to describe. Whether it's color or monochrome, I prefer the Leica hands down. My "main" camera system in Nikon mirrorless (Z8 and some excellent "S" glass), but I like having a quality "simpler" body to grab when I want to shoot light and have no issues not having the ability to switch lenses. I owned every X100 version up through the V, but for me, I will never go back to Fuji. I shot Fuji for about 9 years and enjoyed it. I just prefer my Nikon and Q2M more. But at the end of the day, they are just tools: if you compose and expose properly, you can pretty much get quality results from whichever tool you choose to shoot with. Yes, even if you can also make and take calls with it 😁
That's crazy. I preferred the sharpness and tonality on the fuji pretty consistently. I was convinced camera A was the leica
Its that youtube compression.
@@dothewubwub I think that must be true, as I have both the Q2M and the Fuji and while I can tell the difference between them in images that I shoot, it was hard to do so in the examples here. I couldn't make out the details and tonal gradations that I know are actually visible in one camera or the other. That said, even if they were completely visible in the examples here, there might not be a compelling enough difference between one and the other to make the Leica seem worth it to everyone. Though I'm not sure that most of the sample images were the type in which the differences are really evident. Moreover, the straight-out-of-camera images from the Q2M are flat and gray and their dynamic range is typically only found in editing (while my Fuji creates great jpegs). And, finally, a colored filter on the Q2M (red, orange yellow, green) makes a world of difference in the right conditions. Of course, some people don't want to have to bother with such filters or with editing and the Fuji is a great way to avoid both!
Pentax's monochrome is a good middle ground if you're ok with the DSLR form factor (I personally am). It's only APS-C, though. But I wouldn't be surprised if Ricoh took its sensor and put it in a GRIII.
I would consider the K51 monochrome camera but for over $2,000 I can shoot a lot of film with my Mamiya RB67 like around $50 with processing. Or my Nikon Fe. I started carrying a Lumix point and shoot set for monochrome at car shows for B/W autos or engine with lots of chrome.
Yes! My wife just gives a big sigh when I say I’m doing black and white.
Did you already send it back to B&H?
Good question. Having the Q3 and just about any of the X-series bodies and lenses, I think it boils down to dynamic range these sensors are capable of reproducing. My X-T5 with the 1.4 lenses, but also my MF Voïgtlanders is absolutely capable of producing the same results. It might take an extra step in post, which comes down to convenience I guess.
But I’m shooting excellent bnw images even with my older but beloved X-E4 with the Ultron attached. I can dail to some my of wonderful Ilford film simulations which got me wonderful bnw images.
The Q3 with its high dynamic range and RAWs allow me to have more latitude when it comes to post. But out of the box I think the images are just as great as a dedicated Monochrome version with the filters removed. Great video, I love your content and vibe.
I shoot with Fuji and Oly and frequently bounce back & forth between the 2. However, the new Nikon ZF really has my interest particularly because of the B&W profiles. They look amazing!
I agree. The B&W mode on the ZF is top notch
I'd love a monochrome only camera. The only reason I don't have one is the cost! Monochrome GR please.
The limitation is the appeal to me. The intention. Maybe like playing vinyl, the way you listen to the music is different. Not just the perceived better analogue sound?
Thanks for video 😀
I loved the music at the end, but can’t find any info on it. Just subscribed.
The Fujifilm X-T1 has a great monochrome mode.
First one on the gnome in the Q2 and the second is the Fuji. How did I do?
All of A is Fuji. All of B is Q2M
@@ericrjennings Crap! I'm bad at tests
I really can’t understand all these comparisons being made between the Leica Q2 Monochrom and other cameras with a color sensor. Perhaps I could understand a comparison between the Q2 Monochrom and the Pentax K-3 Monochrom, although even that would be unfair (different sensor size, different type of camera).
It’s like comparing a sports coupe with an equally fast station wagon and debating why you should buy a two-seater car when there are equally fast and possibly cheaper cars with plenty of space for the whole family!
If we’re not sure what we want or what we’re buying, the problem isn’t with the product but with us. If someone isn’t sure they want a camera for black and white photography and only, then they definitely shouldn’t be considering the Q2 Monochrom and every monochrom camera. A camera isn’t just the sensor it has; it’s a combination of things such as the user experience, the results you achieve, and thank God there are plenty of options on the market for every taste, as long as we know what we want!
This must be a next level photographer's camera b/c I don't get it AT ALL...and I'm ok with that
With the present prices of film and chemicals here in the UK, a Leica monochrome although quite ridiculously expensive, but in three years time would have already paid for itself. Trust me, I am a film devotee and have been for nealy fifty years of photography, so take my word, if film prices keep on going up in the same manner as of the last two years film photography will kill itself. There's a limit that I am willing to line the pockets of Allaris ( kodak ) and Harman ( Ilford ) shateholders at me expense. Thank you.
If you wouldn't be willing to have it as your only photo camera then I think that answers your question tbh. Brilliant camera, but it's pretty niche, especially at the price.
yes
I saw a documentary that women can see color better then men. Back in the old days when the women would pick the fruits and vegetables what fruit or vegetable was more ripe. The men went hunting and would bring back a animal for dinner.
Zacuto who makes filming stuff they made a EVF monitor for a cameraman's eye for the Canon 5D Mark 2 when the DSLR crazy took off doe filmmaking. They wanted to watch the EVF colors with the LCD on the camera. They hired this woman that is the best in the world for looking at color. She can can tell if one shade is off by one point.
The theory is women developed get colors detection then men did for their eyes.
Zacuto I think has a TH-cam channel and they also have a Vimeo channel. So check those channels if you want to see it.
"Worth it" is a hard thing to answer. With enough disposable $$, sure, why not. I'd suggest really exploring the B&W shooting experience though. Get a set of nice quality filters (yellow, red, green etc) and experiment with that, since that's not something you can do with a color sensor. Agreed on the point about using actual b&w film though. That would be my preference over the Q2.
M monochrom bodies are definitely more worth it with all the lens choices available.
I’d say that the Q2 is the best fit for a documentary/street photog who wants to be able to shoot from dawn till deep into the night in BW. The crank the iso and you can stop motion at any time no matter the light condition. That said, I’m more like the average shooter so I opted to go the film route for black and white.5k buys you a ton of bw rolls, way more bw than I normally shoot.
Tbh that's why i choose color. But altho i can see the differences & prefer the leica Q2 immediately, it is just a personal preference. Only thing is, i do like the Leica feel. And it's something i got after growing up with nikons, moving to sl-2S then just wanted something small enough for edc. IMHO Leica prices are something one can better appreciate at end of one's photography journey
Comparing images in normal light and on a TH-cam video isn’t really the way to judge a monochrome camera. I love my m11-m but admit it’s relatively boring when shooting in boring light or boring subjects. Color can help make a boring image more interesting.
The monochrom’s sensor shines when you push it. I have photos of my infant daughter sleeping in her crib shot at 100,000 iso which I’d never be able to capture on a color camera. Or images severely underexposed to preserve highlights where I can recover the shadows from nearly pure black.
A monochrome camera isn’t for everyone and it’s definitely not for the people always searching for that one “do-it-all” camera. But personally, I don’t see myself ever getting rid of this camera.
Keep in mind you are comparing against a crop sensor camera. If you compared against a full frame camera the differences would be even less noticeable, given that FF has better tonality and DR than crop sensor all things being equal.
I knew you’d be here for this comment. Sensors snob lol 😂
Some photos I like the Fuji more and other I like the Leica more.
I don't think a monochrome camera is worth it for me. I like having the raw file to have black and white and color. I like black and white but sometimes I want color.
Also I have a Fuji X-E1 and I really like the black and white out of that camera. I like it better then Olympus and Panasonic, but I'm mostly a M43 shooter I invested a lot of money into M43 and I just don't have the urge to switch systems. For one its a headache selling stuff and I remember the issue you had with the Nikon 24-120mm f4 with Ebay. Also you don't get a lot for what you paid for your gear but there is kind a work around. One photographer said buy used lens and if you don't like it since its used you can sell it basically for what you bought it for.
If it gives you passion to shoot it’s worth it. I even preferred this video being in bnw.
I reckon there are photographers out there who strictly shoot monochrome and strictly shoot Leica (I get the impression there were more of them in days gone by, but I’m sure they’re still out there). The tri-x loaded in an M6 reportage-style shooter. To me, this camera is built for that exceedingly small sample of photographers. Those photographers don’t feel any loss if they can’t capture a sunset in color. It does nothing for them like it does for the rest of us. There aren’t many of those photographers out there anymore, at least by the impression I get.
So my trouble with the monochrome cameras is that I have this feeling those photographers would have such a deep preference for the look of their images that even this special-built, extremely niche camera may or may not entice them still. Hell, they might have such a developed taste for their monochrome look that they totally bypass the concept that they haven’t TRULY been able to develop their digital images without a pure monochrome sensor. Of course, that’s conjecture, but my point is that there’s this inherent idea that there’s a model photographer out there for whom this camera exists, and that idea is just another one that only serves to make us think we will be that photographer if only for getting a particular camera. And for the rest of us, Leica has to make a strong case that our converted raw files aren’t what they could be. We’re missing tonal this and iso that. But if I’m not among the select few for whom a Leica monochrome camera just makes inherent sense, then I’m choosing to pass on other options in pursuit of what I’m told I’ll find with this choice. And don’t get me wrong: I’m very intrigued by this camera, but the one thing I know without a bit of doubt is that I still have some preference for color images, however big or small, and that just makes a camera this expensive difficult to digest. I get the Leica appeal, but selling a monochrome camera with as high a price tag as their non-monochrome variants then having to market the hell out of it so that people know why they would be losing out if they simply were to edit their raw photos in b&w tells me that until I’m flush with heaps of disposable income, I’ll be so much better off recognizing I’m neither a monochrome nor Leica shooter, and I’m certainly not a monochrome Leica shooter.
Try using color filters for monochrome photography somehow
My wife will never forgive that time on fathers day I took a film camera with BW film and missed the exposure and focus of a shot with her father... 😬
You pointed it out. If you are an all day photographer you will not be satisfied with this camera. On my side I' m a profi photograph with some artist ambitions and some ideas for certain projects in BW. For this it's the right camera because you have to think in BW.
Best from Germany
Johannes (STORYIMAGE)
I'm a man and I do like color better but my reasons are different then why women might like color. To me recording the color is documenting a moment in time. All the color travel at different speeds from what I remember in science class and that's why camera companies put special glass like Nikon I think calls their glass ED glass. This is to slow the different colors down so they all hit the film or sensor at the same time.
Even when I was shooting film I liked shooting color better because you could still convert it to black and white if you really wanted to. But back in those days yeah shooting true black and white film was better.
I feel the same way with the original Star Ware films. That George Lucas should have left them alone and released them the way people saw them in the theaters. Then George Lucas could have scanned his films in and added all the CGI stuff he wanted.
From my understanding they started cutting and splicing the original films and I guess they don't want to mess with splicing the film again and they run the risk of damaging the films now since they are so old. But fans have remastered all the original films they got a hold of prints that was in the movie theaters and they used those to remaster and they used Blu-Ray footage and some DVD footage also. It took them years to remaster those films.
No, just editing Lightroom. It's a lot simpler and cheaper.
This guys GAS needs to be studied lol
what's your analysis
@@ericrjennings It’s a figure of speech when someone’s journey is fascinating.
@xiiiconcepts oh it’s a problem lol. I know
It's gone. Not worth it. Beautiful images but money better spent on other things.
That's true of everything that isn't food, shelter & retirement 🤷
@@CianMcsweeney true
Buyers remorse and doubts developing even faster that expected. The advantages of the Leica monochrome sensor are not apparent in ideal lighting conditions, and average subjects. Push the boundaries of exposure, low light, and detailed subjects to see the advantages. They are real. But for me, like you, probably not worth giving up the option of color.
I am still predicting a quick sell on out of your kit.
I think that is a solid bet
@@ericrjennings gotta try it in low light before you sell it. you can easily shoot hand held by the light of a single candle at ISO 25k or 50k.
Yes. Also no.
Q2 Monochrome answers a question no one was asking before Monochrome only cameras were launched by Leica. With our sensible heads on, this really is a marketing ploy for those rich enough not to know better. A pro shooting for a client wouldn’t limit themself like this, it would be ridiculous. So this is a very expensive play thing.