Jump to content

help me decide; sell X100 for Leica yes/no?


Jaimiepeeters

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys

 

I've been having sleepless nights thinking of the following.

 

Currently I own a Fuji X100 next to a Konica Hexar AF. Recently I came to learn that I really don't like the way digital images look compared to a film image. But would selling my only digital camera be something I dare to do.. will I regret it?

 

I use the digital now for quick small gigs, shooting models for their portfolio, sometimes I shoot a bit of fashion for clothing brands for their webshops or lookbooks. But mostly I/m shooting for my own pleasure; creating a book/expo of people.

 

My own excuse would be. If I need a digital so badly, I can always rent it for 50€ per day and shoot commercial gigs with it. On the other hand, its scaring me to fully go towards film photography.

 

And when I do.. it seems I would be able to sell the X100 or trade it for a Leica M body. Some offered me an M2 and an M3 body for it. Would ik make more sense to go for an M6 or would de difference not validate me waiting to take this step?

 

I love shooting 35mm for almost everything, it's kinda my thing, so thats a pref I surely have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the M6 would have more youth on its side, compared with M2/M3 but all would satisfy your casual need very well. As to whether you should sever all links to digital, that is a very personal decision. You would be swimming very much against the tide of progress. On balance, only you can decide how important is the convenience of digital output in your declared area of work interest. If rental is an option, that would suggest that the tempo of your gig work is fairly low. There is no reason why you should not keep both systems. After all the Konica gives you an opportunity to indulge your film fancy. Whether you should own a Leica is an entirely different question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you seem to have a need for digital at times, so keep that X100 for that purpose. For your 'commercial' work it's quicker and more cost effective since you already own it, and would lose money by selling.

 

Trade up from the Konica, or just treat yourself to a film M anyway, you won't regret it, or if you do you shouldn't lose money if you sell it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you're right that selling the X100 would be too risky and I might regret it.

 

I know that some fashion clients want their pictures fast and I dont care about those pictures THAT much that I want them in film.

 

Honestly untill 30 minutes ago I thought a lens for a Leica would be another 500 euro!But I just discovered the Jupiter.

 

This puts this whole thing in another light. Because I can manage to gather 500 euro for a used M3 (I have been offered them before) and the Jupiter is not more than another 100. That would be a nice starting point into the Leica adventures.. correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take the M2 over the M3, the M2 viewfinder covers 35/50/90 lenses whereas the M3 is 50/90. Also the M3 viewfinder can fail very expensively. But it's all down to personal choice at the end of the day.

 

As for the Jupiter, yes if you find a good example, but you can also find screw mount 5cm Elmars for not a lot of money, as well as several other options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys

 

I've been having sleepless nights thinking of the following.

 

Currently I own a Fuji X100 next to a Konica Hexar AF. Recently I came to learn that I really don't like the way digital images look compared to a film image. But would selling my only digital camera be something I dare to do.. will I regret it?

 

I use the digital now for quick small gigs, shooting models for their portfolio, sometimes I shoot a bit of fashion for clothing brands for their webshops or lookbooks. But mostly I/m shooting for my own pleasure; creating a book/expo of people.

 

My own excuse would be. If I need a digital so badly, I can always rent it for 50€ per day and shoot commercial gigs with it. On the other hand, its scaring me to fully go towards film photography.

 

And when I do.. it seems I would be able to sell the X100 or trade it for a Leica M body. Some offered me an M2 and an M3 body for it. Would ik make more sense to go for an M6 or would de difference not validate me waiting to take this step?

 

I love shooting 35mm for almost everything, it's kinda my thing, so thats a pref I surely have.

 

I would certainly not be without a digital camera as a professional photographer. More and more clients want the images quickly and in digital format. My question would be: "Are you certain you have mastered a post processing workflow enough to be satisfied that you really don't like the digital images?".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly not be without a digital camera as a professional photographer. More and more clients want the images quickly and in digital format. My question would be: "Are you certain you have mastered a post processing workflow enough to be satisfied that you really don't like the digital images?".

 

Yes there are so many ways to make digital look like film with or without the grain, that I tend to think (in most cases) the post processing path hasn't been explored enough.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently I came to learn that I really don't like the way digital images look compared to a film image.

 

Congratulations, I'm with you 100%!

 

My own excuse would be. If I need a digital so badly, I can always rent it for 50€ per day and shoot commercial gigs with it.

(...)

Would ik make more sense to go for an M6 or would de difference not validate me waiting to take this step?

 

If it makes financial sense for your commercial work to rent, then i would do that if I were you and indulge 100% in film.

 

If it doesn't, then keep the x100 and sell the Konica.

 

As for which Leica to get maybe my experience, having recently joined the clan, could be interesting. I got an M3 as the first Leica and absolutely loved the build quality and the viewfinder. But I found the lack of meter challenging.

 

When it broke for the second time, I decided to return it to the dealer and get an M6TTL, which I got the other week. The meter is brilliant and it takes amazing pictures. And the build quality is not far off the M3. The fact that it is a much younger camera means the RF patch is much brighter. Plus it has all sorts of frame lines. Contra to what others feel, I'm not bothered by the frame lines.

 

Edit: I just checked Collectcamera here in Holland and they have this CL with the 40 Summicron for 695 :)

Edited by philipus
Link to post
Share on other sites

The major difference between film and digital is curve. Digi is straight line that makes for a flat appearance. So add a midtone contrast increase curve. Add grain if you want and confine it to middle tones with "blend if" sliders. You can make the grain soft, sharp, mono or multicolored, clumpy or uniform.

 

But film will be around for a few years yet. Kodak is betting on it again as it has become a core product for them. Ilford is doing well.

 

Be aware if you scan film, you get the same flat appearance as digital. The fix is the same.

 

Guess I am suggesting you get with the program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The major difference between film and digital is curve. Digi is straight line that makes for a flat appearance. So add a midtone contrast increase curve. Add grain if you want and confine it to middle tones with "blend if" sliders. You can make the grain soft, sharp, mono or multicolored, clumpy or uniform.

 

But film will be around for a few years yet. Kodak is betting on it again as it has become a core product for them. Ilford is doing well.

 

Be aware if you scan film, you get the same flat appearance as digital. The fix is the same.

 

Guess I am suggesting you get with the program.

 

Tobey, I respectfully disagree a little bit with you regarding the fix being the same (and apologies in advance if I've misunderstood).

 

I have yet to see someone make a digital file look like an analog photograph of the same scene. For me, digital is too perfect and sharp. Even the best lenses will in some situations show purple/green fringing. This is what destroys the look of digital (for me).

 

Film is inherently much more forgiving in this respect.

 

When shooting the 5Dmk2 extensively I found that the solution of adding grain and other things to "filmify" the files didn't help my lack of satisfaction with the result. True, it could be my photoshop or photography skills but I don't think so.

 

Then there is the commercial application of photography and for that digital may be the only way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Be aware if you scan film, you get the same flat appearance as digital. The fix is the same.

 

Guess I am suggesting you get with the program.

 

Sorry, that's simply not true. Scan film and you scan the image you've captured on that film, including the 'look' and grain.

 

Saves playing around in photoshop trying to make an imitation film image from a digital file.

 

Different mediums, different results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? If you're a professional - or even an advanced amateur - and you

can't decide? Invest a few euros and dedicate a weekend for an intensive trial of a

M9 and a 35mm lens. If you like the results, your course is clear. If you don't, your

course is also clear. If you can't afford an M9 - and can't qualify to lease one - try a

new Fuji Xpro with the 35mm lens and try that until you can afford to move up. in the

meantime, there's nothing wrong with the X100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you buy a leica m-film and then use a non-leica lens you are not using a leica. it is the lens and the film, the film camera is a just light-proof box allowing film and lens to get together and create an image. better to buy a bessa or zeiss box for less and pay up for a leica lens if money is the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so let's say I'd go for the M2 or M3, depending on whats on the market.

 

What lens options do I have in the budget range to start with.

 

Jupiter 8

Jupiter 12

 

?

 

Take a hard look at the Cosina-produced Voigtlander lenses. There are several 35mm and 50mm lenses to choose from. The newer lenses are coming out in M-mount, though there are also some LTM lenses.

 

The CV 35mm f/2.5 Skopar came out originally in LTM and was repackaged in M-mount. I used that in both mounts on Voigtlander Bessa RFs, a pair of M6s, and on my M8 -- until I was offered a deal on a 35mm Summicron that I just couldn't refuse. I still have that lens. In the US it costs $409 new, and another $59 for the hood.

 

I'm not as familiar with the current CV 50mm lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, you prefer the look of film? As suggested, tweaking images in PP, simply adding more contrast, produces a more film-like effect. But not totally. I cannot agree that scanned film has the same "flat" look as digital. Good quality scans reproduce most of the nuances of film, although colors may need adjusting. Second, digital is not "flat". M9 images are distinctly 3D. There is a still a difference compared with film, though. What is it exactly? Perhaps somebody can define the difference more precisely.

 

If the X100 is not producing the images you are happy with, absolutely sell for M2 or M3 which will last forever! But factor in the cost and hassle of getting film developed, which may or may not still be available in a location near you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few things I'd like to comment about..

 

First, I shoot digital. I have the M9, which I like and intend to keep for sure. I also like film, but aside of casual 2-3 times a year - it's not for me. I'm too much of the "get it now" kind of guy for it. That being said, I'd seriously like a digital camera producing "film photos", if that makes any sense :) So that was the "caveat emptor" part.

 

Ok, somebody said film cameras are just light-tight-boxes. Well, that's true but there's also other things to it that play a role. Fex. Leica M's have their distinct focusing system (rangefinder) that's different to others and also there's Leica's metering system on the later models. Now, these do not play into actual quality of photo in them selves BUT they do affect the process. If the OP feels "Leica light processing unit" or Leica M gives him inspiration and helps get better photos - then by all means it's the way to go.

 

I've owned a Bessa R3A at one point and it was a great camera. No doubt about that and I can also recommend it highly. But these things are always personal choices.. it's a bit like placebo medicine - for some it works :)

 

Then for the differences between film and digital. I saw this brilliant video by Kodak that explains it quite nicely. Made me go "holy cr*p!" when I saw it... it's biased towards film somewhat but I found it very interesting. Here's the link for the youtube video:

 

I suggest you check it. Gives some food for thought!

 

That being said, I'm still sticking with digital and with M9.

 

//Juha

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...