adan Posted January 5, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Erwin Puts tested the M9 compared to ISO 20 B&W microfilm: M9, part 8B ...which was fine, but limited. I decided to see how it compares with the full range of film ISOs - and in color. Frankly, while I have done similar tests at low ISOs, I really was curious to see what happened at the higher ISOs up to 2000. We know the Leica CCDs lag a bit there. One difference in this test is that this is compared to scanned film - at the maximum resolution of my Nikon 5000ED (4000 ppi). Mr. Puts made prints from film and the M9 and then rescanned the prints. It should be noted that the 5000ED files are slightly larger than M9 files - about 19-20 Mpixels depending on how much the slide mount or film holder crops the edges of the film image. First - reference image showing the entire frame for each of the test situations: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108756-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos/?do=findComment&comment=1175847'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Hi adan, Take a look here M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share #2 Posted January 5, 2010 Now, ISO 100 films. This is the one scene where I used an actual resolution chart, rather than just overall detail. It's from an old Leica manual and only goes up to 56 lppm, so I shot it at twice the recommended distance (50x focal length instead of 25x), and the numbers should be doubled when figuring resolution - i.e. "28" = 56 lppm, "40" = 80 lppm. Lens = 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH @ f/4 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108756-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos/?do=findComment&comment=1175856'>More sharing options...
adan Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted January 5, 2010 Now - ISO 400. I guess I could have used Delta 400 or Tmax 400 for the B&W - but I wanted to mix it up a bit, and "Tri-X" is the old magical standard. BTW - all B&W films were processed in D-76 1:1 Lens 35 pre-ASPH @ f/5.6 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108756-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos/?do=findComment&comment=1175862'>More sharing options...
adan Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share #4 Posted January 5, 2010 ISO 800 - I guess I could have included Tri-X or 400 Provia "pushed" to 800. The only native 800 film I could find was the Fuji NPZ 800. The exact same exposures were used for both M9 and film, but the NPZ negs looked quite thin (I did bracket, and this was the densest neg.) So on the one hand, the NPZ would probably do better than this for shadow detail @ ISO 320-400 - but then it would not be an "ISO 800" comparison. Again, the film images are "bigger" because the scanner's best resolution is a bit higher than the M9's. Lens: 21 Elmarit @ f/5.6, tungsten light indoors. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108756-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos/?do=findComment&comment=1175872'>More sharing options...
adan Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share #5 Posted January 5, 2010 Last, ISO 2000. It should be understood that TMax 3200P is really an ISO 800 film, but optimized for push processing (according to Kodak). ISO 2000 seemed like a good median in the range available for the film. I'd have like to have tried an ISO 1600-2000 color film, but could find none. I guess Fuji Press 1600 neg. film would be the only one still out there. Lens: 21 Elmarit @ f/2.8 in the darkest corner of my basement. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108756-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos/?do=findComment&comment=1175877'>More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted January 5, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 5, 2010 Thank you, Andy. I've been saying that M9 files look as good as 6x6 film, but now I'll go ahead & claim 4x5! Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 5, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) This looks conclusive. All the film images are infinitely superior in every way. :rolleyes: Thank you, Andy:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidERuck Posted January 5, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 5, 2010 Ah, yes. Your point is taken. Thanks for the work, and for the smile it brings to the converted. As my long-loved M8 was also recently taken (a nasty snatching it was) I must now wait for an M9 to be delivered to me. And to shoot film and scan in the meantime. David Ruck Fotografsdavid.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 5, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 5, 2010 So, with respect, you've shown that, in these examples, film is different from digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el.nino Posted January 5, 2010 Share #10 Posted January 5, 2010 the Coolscan and even the Hasselblad/Imacon Flextights enhance grain way too much. the only valid way to compare is the way puts did: comparing prints. or at least get real drumscans. but thanks for your efforts anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
finkaudio Posted January 5, 2010 Share #11 Posted January 5, 2010 Hi Andy, thanks for your hard work. Funny enough, I just got my new film scanner today and compared a film I shot over Christmas (Iso200, M6) with the files I did with the M9 at Iso 320 on the same location. I was kind of shocked to see all the grain that I got from the film and I was already wondering if I did something wrong in the process..... Now I know I did nothing wrong - it's just what you get from a film with a decent scanner (same as yours). I noticed that the prints look nicer compared with what I can see on the screen - noise and digital monitors really don't go together very well. I bought the scanner, because I got a M6TTL for little money and thought I might shoot parallel analog and digital. I do the same in the Audio world and enjoy the good old turntable a lot. But as I forgot a lot already about conventional film, I needs some more practice. Best regards Karl-Heinz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jklotz Posted January 5, 2010 Share #12 Posted January 5, 2010 The funny part to me is wondering how many folks actually went out and bought a big bag of trimax after reading Put's article. I suppose while they were there, they might as well have picked up a few type writer ribbons, a bee gee's 8 track and a carton of smokes.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted January 5, 2010 Share #13 Posted January 5, 2010 both kinds of comparisons are interesting...one using the best possible workflow for each, and one where you try to level the playing field. Thanks for the tests... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 5, 2010 Share #14 Posted January 5, 2010 I suppose you are preaching to the converted, Andy, but thank you for your trouble. The results closely match my experience, and that of many others, I suspect. Yes, drumscans etc. might have made a difference, I suppose, but who is going to pay the money for that? Or even just the hassle of sending the film in and waiting for the scan. I fully agree, though, with the position that the only valid comparison is digital vs a fully chemical workflow. The hybrid way is not really viable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magd0328 Posted January 5, 2010 Share #15 Posted January 5, 2010 Very interesting, thanks for posting. I must say I am surprised - the M9 is even better than I thought it would be! But that is not to say that film is without its merits, as others have pointed out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 5, 2010 Share #16 Posted January 5, 2010 I suppose you are preaching to the converted, Andy, but thank you for your trouble. The results closely match my experience, and that of many others, I suspect. Yes, drumscans etc. might have made a difference, I suppose, but who is going to pay the money for that? Or even just the hassle of sending the film in and waiting for the scan. I fully agree, though, with the position that the only valid comparison is digital vs a fully chemical workflow. The hybrid way is not really viable. Andy did a good preaching to the converted.... and you are right saying the analog way is not a cheap one... ...my leaning out of the test is...how low the Quality of the Nikon 5000ED is.. 40 lppm is not the real limit of the film.....my Imacon do a better job.... Thank Andy for the hard job you did!... regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted January 5, 2010 Share #17 Posted January 5, 2010 As I said over on the S2 comparison thread- any chance of testing the M9 at higher ISO against a slightly older full frame digital- the Nikon D700? Oh, and the SLR body costs much less than a third of the M9 body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 5, 2010 Share #18 Posted January 5, 2010 This is kind of like...tell us something we already know? Some of us love grain, I am shooting Delta 3,200 in my 500 C/M tomorrow for a magazine assignment for the look, not for tests. Michael Kenna shoots Tri-X in his fine art work for the look, not the fine grain. The M9 looks great, I look forward to getting one next year when I am done shooting Kodachrome. But it will never fully replace film for me, that is why I built a darkroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 5, 2010 Share #19 Posted January 5, 2010 Well, thanks for taking the time to do this, but I think it somehow misses the point. People who are still shooting film today (I am and I just swapped my M8.2 for an M7) do it, I think, mainly for two reasons. They like the process or they like the results of wet printing (or, of course, both). None of this can be substituted or "bettered" with digital means, it's simply a subjective thing. And while it is perfectly OK to use a "hybrid" process (shoot film and then scan and print digitally), I doubt that people who work this way on purpose are very much interested in pixel peeping. Here, again, what counts is the print and that's very different from a 100% view on screen. I'd be surprised if anybody here seriously doubted that for almost all practical purposes digital full format cameras like the M9 have surpassed 35mm film cameras in terms of resolution and color fidelity. That doesn't necessarily mean that the prints from the M9 will look better... Having said all this, I recently came across the catalogue of Foto Impex who sell the ADOX CMS 20 film. They claim that with the right developer and good lenses (they specifically mention the 35mm Summicron ASPH on a Leica M) you can shoot at ISO 25 or 40 (which obviously means handheld in good daylight) and generate practically grain-free negatives which would have enough resolution to rival a 500 megapixel camera. I haven't tried, but as one roll is only 4 Euros I sure will once the dark winter is over. (Only out of curiosity, though. I generally want grain and like Tri-X.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 5, 2010 Share #20 Posted January 5, 2010 The funny part to me is wondering how many folks actually went out and bought a big bag of trimax after reading Put's article. I suppose while they were there, they might as well have picked up a few type writer ribbons, a bee gee's 8 track and a carton of smokes.... It's called "TMax" and nice try on the digital snobbery, real artists know better.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.