new to photography, big question...

[JackTheRipper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've found myself doing hours and hours of reading/research about the new leica digital cameras, and it seems that for the price of the m8/m9/x1, they all should be better than what they are.

 

I have a few questions (very noob questions, so I apologize in advance) about film...

 

about what equivalent Megapixel is film? or is film better than any megapixel, no matter how high the MP is?

 

if I take a lot of film pictures, and I scan them to put them online, is any of the image quality lost?

 

I just want nice beautiful pics from a nice beautiful well invested camera that will last me years and years to come...

 

thanks so much,

 

Jack

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[iShutterbug]

I've found myself doing hours and hours of reading/research about the new leica digital cameras, and it seems that for the price of the m8/m9/x1, they all should be better than what they are.

 

I have a few questions (very noob questions, so I apologize in advance) about film...

 

about what equivalent Megapixel is film? or is film better than any megapixel, no matter how high the MP is?

 

if I take a lot of film pictures, and I scan them to put them online, is any of the image quality lost?

 

I just want nice beautiful pics from a nice beautiful well invested camera that will last me years and years to come...

 

thanks so much,

 

Jack

 

Jack, good questions, let me tell you what I found out.

 

I just returned from a long once-in-a-lifetime European vacation and I took a new Canon digital body with ultra wide angle and medium telephoto lenses, and a fifty-year-old Leica IIIg film body with 35, 50, and 90mm lenses. I shot over 100 Mb of RAW+SJPG (over 4000 pics) and seven rolls of color negative film (252 pics).

 

I like the film pictures much better, and the percentage of film "keepers" was much, much higher than the digital. Although I am not familiar with the Leica digital camera quality, I can say I prefer Leica film and lenses to Canon digital and lenses.

 

My Leica equipment was 1/5 the size and weight of the digital ensemble and of course I didn't need the computer laptop and other electronic paraphernalia (although you would need it for Leica digital).

 

I think the partial answer to your overall question is decided by how long good 35mm film will be manufactured. This is a question I ask myself because for old times' sake I have invested in classic film Leicas and classic lenses. If good film (meaning the pro Fuji and Kodak 160ASA negative film I use) is going to be discontinued in a year or so then I should start selling on eBay; if (my) film is going to survive for five or ten years then I have some time to make some more memorable shots and maybe get published. Either way I'm going to start saving up for an M10.

 

I have a nice film scanner--Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400--which can give me huge files from my negatives and fill up a large hard drive in no time. I have gotten such good scan CDs from my CVS drugstore from my films I haven't unpacked that scanner so I can't recall exactly how many megapixels it does but I would roughly say more than 20mp, maybe more than that as each file size is almost 100mg depending on which format I save it in, or with PS layers.

 

Before our trip I made sure my Leica bodies and main lenses were CLA'd (clean-lube-adjust) and were like new. Most of them are over fifty years old--how's that for "investment quality equipment?

 

I also rolled over my Canon 40D and 5D to the latest models, 50D and 5Dmk2. It was a mistake, at least for the 5Dmk2, because the sensor in that body is much better than my older version "L" lenses, so much so that--after two weeks of testing--I didn't even take it and instead went with the smaller-sensor 50D because I had an ultra-wide angle lens for it (16-35mm equiv. which wouldn't fit on the 5D2) which I felt I needed for small piazzas and cathedrals (and indeed I did). But I didn't want the 5D back because last vacation I spent every night cleaning the sensor, and the new model has a sensor cleaning vibration that works. But so does the 50D so two big points for it and that's the one I took.

 

So it's hard to pinpoint firm answers when the subject is a moving target. And the answers also depend on your budget. You could get older "classic" film Leicas and lenses on eBay relatively reasonably. You could get the latest and greatest film Leica M7 body and slowly get 35mm, 50mm, 90mm "M" lenses which you could also use in the future with digital "M" Leicas.

 

Or you could just order an M9 and an aspherical 35mm lens and be done with all those pesky decisions.

[danmitch]

In answer to megapixel equivalence of film, Eiger studios provide 8,000dpi scans of 35mm film equivalent to 64MP - this is real data.

 

Lenny Eiger gives a great interview on Inside Analog Photo Radio which I think you may find interesting, it is available as a podcast.

 

Dan

[holmes]

This is a big : or a lot of small ones compressed into one. I'm not a technician so I can't give highly technical answers or techno babble. I started my "shooting" in Vietnam with an Olympus Pen EE. This was/is a half frame of film shot rather than a full frame. A 36 frame of film became a 72 frame. Where I was I had to depend on the local Vietnamese studio and darkroom. 40 odd years later I still have a box or two from that time frame. One roll I took home and had developed in my state of Illinois. This for security purposes of what some of the frames contained. Fast forward 2004-2005-2006. I made about ten trips to Munich Germany. By this time I had been shooting with Canon AF. I was still hesitant about digital. It seemed to me that with the non-camera firms jumping into photography from their basic business products was strange. Take essentially a computer, play with OCR, shrink most of the components, and provide for a lens, and storage card. A camera, which does all the thinking and if you don't like the results find Lightroom or Photo Shop CS4 and play away on your computer. I have and done it. I have a Canon 40 D and full five bags of lenses. One is just for the Canon 200 f 1.8 l and an EOS 3 dedicated to that lens. I believe you stated you had a large load with your auto focus, do everything. Most Canons fast glass is f 1.4 to f 2.8. A couple of their super long glass is f 4 and f 5.6. The weight is 12 pounds (US) and up. I took my AF film on one trip trying to keep it all in bag. I got some wonderful shots. But I had hampered myself with all my Canon equipment. On one trip I took the 40D and an EOS 3 as a backup. Again the same problem. Next and all subsequent trips, including Munich and Austria at winter holiday time. My Leica's. One M7, with 28 f 2 asph, 35 f 2 asph and my 75 f l.4. I had half a brick of Fuji Provia 100 and shot 9 rolls. Hey I was there to have a good time not acting like a travel or editorial photographer (which I've been). Pixels, who cares and don't think Fuji, Kodak, Ilford and the rest are going to quietly fall away from film manufacturer. Shoot a roll or your favorite chromes and then shoot the exact same shot with a digital whizbang. Compare the two sets, be honest and see for your self.

[giordano]

I've found myself doing hours and hours of reading/research about the new leica digital cameras, and it seems that for the price of the m8/m9/x1, they all should be better than what they are.

 

I have a few questions (very noob questions, so I apologize in advance) about film...

 

about what equivalent Megapixel is film? or is film better than any megapixel, no matter how high the MP is?

 

As you've seen from other responses, there's no easy answer to this, but there are a few useful things to remember:

• If you're determined to have the absolute highest resolution possible, you shouldn't be using a Leica M, whether film or digital, at all. With film, go to large-format (5x4 or 8x10); with digital, go to medium format and at least 35 megapixels. Anything less and it's not a question of better or best, but of what satisfies you.
  
• Speaking for myself, I find the results from the 10-megapixel M8 and 12-megapixel Nikon D700 entirely satisfactory, and at least as good as scans of negatives or slides from film Leicas or Nikons using the same lenses. Lots of other people seem to feel the same way; others disagree and it seems to be largely a matter of taste.
  

if I take a lot of film pictures, and I scan them to put them online, is any of the image quality lost?

 

I'll assume that that these are very high quality images on general-purpose 35mm film. it depends partly on the scanner. With a cheap film scanner (the kind sold for a couple of hundred dollars or less for people to digitise their snapshots), image quality is definitely lost. With skilled use of a good scanner (e.g. one of the Nikon Coolscan series) in practice little or nothing is lost. With a very expensive drum scanner and a very skilled operator it's possible to extract every nuance from the film image - but at a high price.

 

However if you're planning to display the images on the web you are already looking at a big loss of quality as you reduce the scanned image from (say) 6000 x 4000 pixels (24 Mpx) down to say 900 x 600 (0.54 Mpx) to display on screen. In other words there's no advantage using the best possible scanner unless you want to make the largest and best possible prints.

I just want nice beautiful pics from a nice beautiful well invested camera that will last me years and years to come...

 

Either film or digital will give you that, no problem. If your end-product is pictures on the web, digital is simpler because you don't have to process and scan the film. A mechanical Leica such as an MP is likely to have a longer service life than a digital one ... but good mid-range scanners are already harder to find than they used to be, so it may be a case of swings and roundabouts.

[thomasw_]

With skilled use of a good scanner (e.g. one of the Nikon Coolscan series) in practice little or nothing is lost. With a very expensive drum scanner and a very skilled operator it's possible to extract every nuance from the film image - but at a high price.

 

 

Actually my experience is contrary to this. Although drum scans and high end flat bed scans have a definite following and a unique look, still there's an analogue wet print look that is not well translated when the negative is digitized and printed with an ink jet. So nuances are lost even with the best of scans.

 

However if you're planning to display the images on the web you are already looking at a big loss of quality as you reduce the scanned image from (say) 6000 x 4000 pixels (24 Mpx) down to say 900 x 600 (0.54 Mpx) to display on screen. In other words there's no advantage using the best possible scanner unless you want to make the largest and best possible prints.

 

This point is very important and should be stressed, especially if you will wet print or just post your images to the web.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Excellent advice has already been offered. I would add, you need to decide what you want to do with your photography - what are your subjects, what is the output going to be, do you prefer the look of film or digital images, are you intending to make money from your photography at all?

 

Film and digital are two very different mediums IMO, both have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

If you are only interested in posting images to the web then dare I say it, don't waste your money on a Leica M system at all, you simply don't need that level of quality.

[StS]

Maybe it would be helpful to come from the other side - by defining what kind of quality you need. My suggestion would be to do some test photos and have them printed in the largest size you plan to do.

 

Personally, I made the observation the quality delivered, even by an M3 with a 50 year old collapsible Summicron, on a modern film, makes a very decent A3 sized print for my demands. I have newer lenses, which improve the quality, but only in direct comparison. The older lenses are technically poorer but can create a special look, when required.

 

Hence, for my demands, the question about film or digital isn't a question about image quality, it is about how the image should look like. Digital is more practical and easier to handle at very high ISO, film is more fun to me, but this is subjective and might not be true for you as well.

 

Stefan

[dave_d]

I just want nice beautiful pics from a nice beautiful well invested camera that will last me years and years to come...

 

If you want a camera that will last years and years to come I am not sure this is realistic these days. A digital camera will become obsolete and unrepairable and who knows how long film will be around.

[tgray]

I think in terms of sharpness and detail, most 35mm negs will give you about 10 mp of detail. I often scan at higher resolution, but only in order to get a better scan of the grain. If you are talking big clean enlargements, then I think a large sensor (1.6 crop or larger) 6-10mp is more or less equivalent. The current batch of 20 mp big sensor cameras pretty much trounce 35mm film in terms of grain/noise and detail. That being said, 35mm film can look pretty dang good, and provides some advantages that digital doesn't have, like superb handling of highlights, and the look of Tri-X.

 

Obviously, medium and large format is a whole different story. A big 6x9 negative made on a $500 camera is hard to compete with this side of $20k.

 

This is of course my opinion only. I still shoot film and will hopefully be shooting Tri-X for a long, long time. I would someday like to get an M9 or equivalent, but so far, have not really been tempted by the M8 or the DSLR offerings. I find an 11x14 printed up in the darkroom from a frame of Tri-X is really tasty, and the prints I get from WHCC from my scans are pretty nice too.

 

One great comparison to read is the one comparing the big Sony DSLR to Velvia and Ektar, scanned on a drum scanner (or faux drum scanner). I found it on APUG.

[jmdco]

Hello Jack

I placed a link to the site of Erwin Putt who surely answer your questions and his last writing between the film and the sensor.

 

Regarding life, the analog system is a winner. The electronic circuits do not age, they wear out, harden over time and eventually stop working. Do not forget that digital is very expensive over time in hardware and software, not to mention the updates and repairs. A PC with a lifetime of + / - 5 years (Choose a Mac). After ... Direction the trash. A soft of + / - 2 to 3 years. But there are free software like The Gimp for example.

 

I do not want to enter into this debate analog vs. digital, but as said earleygallery

Film and digital are two very different mediums IMO, both have their strengths and weaknesses. .

 

In my case, the black and white and photo lab.This is (another) wonderful world.

To my family photos, a compact digital. And if a customer really wants color and quality of my Leica handles color film as well. So, needless to invest in a digital gear that is aging badly and for me is not necessarily profitable.

 

Leica has the best lenses that work best cameras (M3, M6, MP & M9)

 

We are fortunate to have two wonderful beautiful systems. To you know who meets your needs.

 

Erwin Putt (Analog-digital-print)

 

PS: I am sorry for my English very bad quality

[chris_livsey]

If you want a camera that will last years and years to come I am not sure this is realistic these days. A digital camera will become obsolete and unrepairable and who knows how long film will be around.

 

Realistically a new MP or M7 will be around for years and years and Leica have promised spares. If not because the series is so alike it would be easy to cannibalise cameras to keep one going. Digital - I agree. The M8 is now discontinued and Leica has made, AFAIK, no statements on how long they will support them.

Now to film. You are correct "who knows how long film will be around" I know you mean new but archivally maybe longer than digital ? Who knows ? As to new the largest volume user is cinematography which uses massive amounts and has financial clout. If they stop there will be niche makers to step in IMHO. Look at this QUOTE Hans O. Mahn purchased over 1 million metres of 35mm AGFA APX100 from the final 2005 batch of the film. Since then it has been stored at -18 degrees. It is now offered under the Rollei brand. UNQUOTE

Rollei Retro 100 35mm 36 20 Rolls

People will preserve film even if it just for a profit.

[kenneth]

I received, from Ag Photographic a sample roll of Rollei nee Agfa Retro 100 asa film today and providing that I am pleased with the results then £1.25 a roll is excellent value and I shall stock up on it. As far as faster film is concerned I think I will continue to use Kodak Tri-X 400. It has been around a long time and I like the punchy negs it produces. To enjoy the full benefits to be had with film photography it is essential to develop your own negs and ideally enlarge your own prints. In this, the digital process has done us film users a favour as darkroom equipment is going for a song at present but I am told this will change with many disillusioned digital users converting to film

[andybarton]

Who tells you that, Kenneth?

[chris_livsey]

Strangely I have been watching Minolta 5400 Scanners on e-bay and they are tracking up all the time. Now selling for nearly what they were when last available new. Can only be demand going up as they are appearing for sale regularly. Does it mean a film revival ? I wouldn't claim that but it is interesting. Anyway how would you assess the turn ?

[kenneth]

Who tells you that, Kenneth?

This forum for one

[andybarton]

Kenneth,

 

Don't bet your pension on it. There aren't very many... not enough to keep Nikon in the game. With Minolta leaving last year, it's getting a bit quiet in the scanning playground now.

 

Not many people have the space, time or money to invest in a darkroom. Nor do they have the time to devote to learning darkroom skills.

 

Especially when for five hundred quid, you can buy an A3 printer that will give you both black and white and colour prints that will last until your children are dead.

 

They may not give you a good excuse for being away from the wife in a smelly darkroom for 5 hours every evening, but they do produce extremely good prints.

[John Maio]

For (a very meager) income, I shoot Canon Digital (EOS 1D MKIII and 5D MKII). For my own pleasure I use the M7 and film. My scanner, bought several years ago, is a Nikon 5000 ED and it does a nice job.

 

A couple of points:

 

1. I sill have family slides from the late 50's. Who knows how long digital image storage systems will last and how they can be archived for a long time (many decades)

 

2. Digital seems to be still evolving. I don't know how the camera body manufacturers were able to convince us that if we weren't using the latest body, with the latest sensor and the latest wizardry, somehow we are not capable photographers - but they have - - in spades.

 

3. There isn't enough wall space in the world to display all the trillions of digital images that have been taken. So most of them reside on the web. Who here can justify using a whatever megabyte camera sensor to make web photos? Why do we do it?

 

4. The vast majority of people in the current generation really don't appreciate quality in media - be it photography, sound, or video. Whatever crap people can get for free is what they will use. They've never heard a high-end sound system, or watched HD movies or enjoyed really well taken and printed large photographic images, nor do they care. YouTube and FaceBook and iTunes are the new standards in media dissemination. Snap it on your cellphone and upload it - good enough!

 

Anyway, if you have a passion for photography and don't mind the absence of instant feedback, shoot film. I still enjoy the anticipation of seeing the developed film and sometimes being pleasantly surprised that my visualization is transformed into reality.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[kenneth]

I am not sure that the digital process of making pictures can be called photography or the end product a photograph- see The Concise Oxford Dictionary. I always felt that digital picture takers were cheating and the results pretty bland. There you go pick the bones out of that

[giordano]

I am not sure that the digital process of making pictures can be called photography or the end product a photograph- see The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

 

Oxford dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive - so this only means that your dictionary is out of date.

 

I always felt that digital picture takers were cheating and the results pretty bland. There you go pick the bones out of that

 

Look at the pictures on my website and you'll find that one ones made with film are every bit as "bland" as the ones made with digital. Than pick the bones out of that.