Leica film or digital?

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm guessing that you forgot what I wrote, and what my comparison was going to be. No, I don't have all the equipment, only the M3 (or my M2) and the M8.

 

No problem - I also get wrapped up in discussions, and forget some of the information given when they first got started.

 

A generous reading of my incompetence for which I am grateful and allows me to extend good wishes for the coming year.

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

... Don't trust any film vs digital opinions that are coming from photographers that haven't demonstrated their ability to perform the most precise film workflow.

 

 

Can I suggest that this be re-worded to say "Don't trust any film vs. digital opinions that are coming from photographers who aren't working at the quality level you are interested in and capable of achieving."?

 

I have every intention of buying a scanner in the very near future, but there is no chance it is going to cost many thousands of dollars. It might not be good enough for someone trying to achieve the type of results you can get from 8x10 film, but that's not the reason I'm buying it.

 

Learning about the limitations of scanning film, and how to optimize it, is something I find very helpful, but I guess I feel like someone who's interested in buying a Mazda Miata, who starts seeing all the wonderful reviews of sports cars costing several hundred thousand dollars.

 

On a practical note, I've found that my local photography shop in South India will gladly develop film and give me back a CD with the images, or put them onto my memory card. After looking over the results, they're not as good as I'd like, but they are better than I can do with my P&S cameras. ...unless your name is something like Bill Gates, everything in life has to be a compromise....

[danwells]

On a pure resolution basis (as seen in carefully focused landscape prints - I've printed extensively from everything I list here), with all scanning done using Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 and 9000 scanners, here's a rough list of resolution equivalents (not scientific - just looking at prints). A drum scanner will certainly pull a little more out of film, but not all that much extra resolution, because the Coolscans are already clearly scanning grain. If you use extremely high resolution ultra-slow B+W films (especially if you develop them in high resolution developers), you'll get a LOT more than this out of film - I've never fooled with Pan-X or other incredibly slow films, although I have an old FM2 around, and am tempted to try!

 

6 MP digital is roughly equivalent to 35mm ISO 100 color film (I'll print either one 8x12, MAYBE a bit bigger)

 

10-12 MP digital is roughly equivalent to VERY good slow 35 mm color film (Velvia, Ektar 25) - prints to 12x18 easily, maybe 16x24 in a pinch.

 

16 MP digital (older Canon 1Ds II) is at the low end of medium format - a decent ISO 100 film in 645... 16x24 is easy, although I wouldn't try to go bigger than that.

 

25 MP digital (Nikon D3x) is pretty easily equivalent to 6x9 cm color film - I print 24x36 inches all the time, and will go as big as 30x45 - since my printer is only 2 feet wide, I haven't tried larger than that - the "30x45" is cropped to 24x45.

 

I don't own any Leicas yet (I'm on here because I'm looking to buy one as a very high quality "compact" camera for when 12 lbs of Nikon gear isn't practical), but my best estimate is that an M8 will be almost as good as the 1DsII (no AA filter makes up a lot of the difference in resolution - the 1DsII has a particularly strong AA filter), and the M9 will at least approach the D3x very closely.

[NZDavid]

If you are scanning film, Fuji Astia 100F has incredibly fine grain but is far more neutral than the saturated hues of Velvia. But the thing is it captures both highlights and shadow detail really well (not sure how this compares with M8 and RAW), and it scans well. Saturation can always be pumped up after scanning. Worth a try!

[brill64]

i think the same way. i'm looking for a leicavit for my m7:rolleyes:

[tobey bilek]

When I get old and go to the retirement home, I will be 100% digi. Film is useless without your own darkroom which I have had since 1960.

 

The only way to have control over the final product without one is digi to a computer and then to a processor who provides profiles and keeps his process under control.

 

Film has far more touch up to do as far a defects than digi, some of it processing induced, some just the nature of film. My digi file are 99.9% clean, but I take great care to prevent debris from entering the camera and I clean the inside often before dust has a chance to migrate to the sensor. I do this without opening the shutter unless I know there is dust there already.

[!Nomad64]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to Ken Rockwell, I was just reading this article about the best resolution from film and digital: M9, part 8B

 

It got me to thinking - if I went on a trip and wanted to take the best possible landscape type photo I could, would I get better results from:

a) a Leica M8.2, or

a Leica M2 or M3, scanning the images with a good (but affordable) scanner

 

The article talks about the M9, but it has the same sensor pretty much as the M8 (except for being bigger, of course). If I used the same lenses on each camera, used a tripod, and was as careful as possible, and sent the film out to a processing lab that had a good reputation, and for the negative scanning I used something "good" (but not $50,000 good), would I notice the difference?

 

I've still got my film cameras. I plan to buy a film scanner in the near future. I can develop a whole lot of film for the amount of money it would cost to exchange my M8.2 for a M9, so I'm considering shooting some film again, but I wasn't expecting the film images to be "better" than the digital ones.

 

 

(I should add that I'm referring to color images, either negative or slides, not b&w.)

 

Well, there's an article in the very same site which will clear your doubts:

 

M8_four

 

My 2c are that since you have them both, you'd better to use them both. The film cameras will do as your full format camera without the need to pay a huge amount of cash for a new M9. Furthermore, being them mechanic, they'll work as backup in case of power failure. Just imagine that you forgot at home your backup battery or that you're operating in an environment where electricity isn't readily available.

Once out of juice digital Ms just turn into expensive paperweight.

I learned at my own expenses that digital M are very vulnerable to cold. Older film M aren't affected and eventually work better than japanese counterparts.

 

Quality wise, I believe that nowadays film gives better result only in certain conditions, namely low speed and tripod.

Accomplished tests are unfair, because digital Ms can't go below 80/160 ISO and cannot compete against 25 ISO films.

But would you really use any film below 125 ISO for street photography, theater, concerts and whatever low light situations where M cameras do actually shine?

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[nzav]

Can I suggest that this be re-worded to say "Don't trust any film vs. digital opinions that are coming from photographers who aren't working at the quality level you are interested in and capable of achieving."?

 

I have every intention of buying a scanner in the very near future, but there is no chance it is going to cost many thousands of dollars. It might not be good enough for someone trying to achieve the type of results you can get from 8x10 film, but that's not the reason I'm buying it.

 

Based on your previous posts in this thread, may I suggest you look at a Nikon 8000/9000 if you can find one for the price you are comfortable with? The Nikon 8000 has been discontinued and the 9000 may also be at this point by now, but for all intents and purposes, they both produce the same quality results with the 9000 having a slight operational speed gain.

 

Having shot film commercially in formats from 35mm to 8x10, which was later processed and scanned in-house, I can completely agree with those who say only a film scanner will give you the best results. Sure, you can try scanning with a flatbed scanner that also scans film, but none of them can match a dedicated film scanner (whether drum or the mentioned Nikons) for DR or resolution. In addition, many of the flatbed scanners make ridiculous claims to DR that is impossible to capture with a flatbed scanner, but that is a whole other subject as is the silly interpolated resolutions some claim.

 

The myth that a drum scanner will exceed the quality of the Nikons on 35mm film stock should be taken with a large grain of salt. The mentioned Nikon scanners will produce 4000 ppi/dpi 120MB 16-bit files that have extracted all of the image information a tiny piece of 35mm film can hold. You can generate larger files with a Tango drum scanner (I have), but not more image detail than the film can deliver. In rare cases where extreme resolution 35mm films like the 6-15 ASA/ISO B&W specialty films are used with the correct processing and super-critical exposure (not to mention highest-quality optics), you may squeak out a little more detail, but now you are dealing in lab results more than photography. If you are talking about larger than 35mm formats, then things can change. These comments are simply based on my experience and not intended as a point of argument.

 

The one major advantage that is often overlooked in the comparisons of image detail from dSLR bodies (Nikon, Canon, etc.) and the Leica M8/8.2/9 is that digital Leica M bodies have no AA filter over the sensor like most dSLR cameras. These AA filters degrade the image (purposely) much like a very weak soft-focus filter on a lens, and even with equivalent quality optics (which they’re not) and higher pixel count, they are not producing better image files than the Leica M bodies. You can never regain the image detail that is blurred before it reaches the sensor – no matter what sharpening tricks you use!

 

Finally, it has not been my experience that film produces better skies (or any other part of a scene) than a good digital capture, and I have made large prints from both over many years to compare. Even a clean, fine-grained film will show grain in skies when enlarged. On the other hand, a dirty sensor can make a correctly exposed sky look horrendous in a digital capture.

 

I switched to shooting digital capture exclusively over a decade ago, but still scan and make large prints from decades of transparencies in all formats including 35mm. What I’ve learned is it all boils down to the photographer’s skill to use the best tools available to make the shot as good as possible.

 

Good luck in your photography regardless of the path you take...

[MikeMyers]

Thanks to both of you for those last two replies - I think that's exactly what I am going to do. One of my old film cameras would make a perfect backup for the M8, and serve for when I want to use the 12mm lens to its full capability.

 

I'll look around and see if one of those Nikon scanners is still available. I suspect that either will be more than "good enough" for what I am trying to do.

[nzav]

Thanks to both of you for those last two replies - I think that's exactly what I am going to do. One of my old film cameras would make a perfect backup for the M8, and serve for when I want to use the 12mm lens to its full capability.

 

I'll look around and see if one of those Nikon scanners is still available. I suspect that either will be more than "good enough" for what I am trying to do.

 

You are very welcome, and since I conviced you to explore the excellent Nikon film scanners, I will add a word of caution to apply when buying any pre-owned scanner. The precise calibration and alignment required by high resolution scans makes it is very important the scanner is prepared and packed properly for shipping. Discuss this with the seller and try to get some sort of return policy if you find a good deal on one of these scanners.

 

If you do find a Nikon 8000/9000, also bear in mind that these models will scan not only scan 35mm, but also 120 film formats up to 6x9 and should come with the film holders for all of these formats. The film holders come in two types – filmstrips and mounted transparencies, but I only use the filmstrip holders because of the loose film tolerances within slide mounts. This makes it impossible to match the full field sharpness achieved by the filmstrip holders. I always remove my films from slide mounts for scanning as a standard procedure.

 

There are also aftermarket film holders for these scanners that use a liquid suspension for film which gives a small incremental benefit, but not enough in my opinion to make them worthwhile in cost or extra work. If you go to that much trouble, you may as well go with the drum scan.

[!Nomad64]

Thanks to both of you for those last two replies - I think that's exactly what I am going to do. One of my old film cameras would make a perfect backup for the M8, and serve for when I want to use the 12mm lens to its full capability.

 

I'll look around and see if one of those Nikon scanners is still available. I suspect that either will be more than "good enough" for what I am trying to do.

 

Mike, you're welcome and I'm happy to help when I can.

My point is that there's no reason to give up an older technology just because it's older. Sure, good digital has huge points over analogic, but older camera can go well hand in hand with digitals. If I had some spare monies I'd happily buy myself an M6, especially now that 2nd hand ones can be found in pristine conditions for dirty cheap (in Leica terms, obviously).

I smile as I remember how much did I drool over them when I was younger and couldn't afford one...

 

Good light and Happy shooting!

Bruno