Tom M Posted March 23, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 23, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've just run a comparison of images from my D700 and my M7. I scanned the M7 negatives with a Nikon V ED scanner. The digital images win hands down. I do not own a M9 (yet?), but somebody surely must have compared the output with that of the M7. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Hi Tom M, Take a look here M9 vs M7. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
erl Posted March 23, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 23, 2010 Tom, 1st up, you must allow for your scanning skills. If they are not up to scratch, your test is crap. Apologies for being so direct. I have recently returned from Antarctica where I shot the M9 and M7 sort of alongside each other. Both behaved brilliantly. I had a few falters with frozen hands, changing film in "Neptune's Window" (a very cold and exposed gap between two mountains). I was advised (by another photographer) to try for The Guinness Book of Records. He reckoned no other photographer had changed film in a Leica in that location! But I digress. The look, as you would expect, from digital and film is quite different, but both are superb. Tomorrow, the Australian Leica people are visiting me to select some images for promotional possibilities. It will be interesting to see which they prefer. My opinion. The digital images are stunning, allowing for my personal foibles, and I am blown away by their overall quality. The film images are exceptionally atmospheric and have a very distinctive character that the digital would never attain. I have nearly finished editing the 6000 images I shot and I am keen to see which images make it to the 'big blow-up' level. I am certain both the film and digital will be represented. M y opinion so far is based primarily on prints made to A2 size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 23, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 23, 2010 I use both a M7 & M9. I don't do my own scanning, because as erl pointed out, it looked like ... well less than what I wanted. I found a professional photo lab, who specializes in this. I cant afford his equipment. Someday maybe. In the end I get the quality I want, and both digital and film look good, different but good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realphotos Posted March 23, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 23, 2010 Thats a coincidence thats an Australian just returned from Antarctica and I am a New Zealander just having returned from Antarctica Falkland Islands South Georgia etc. M9 and M8 as a back up which was never needed! The M9 was just excellent. Small convenient. Only once in three weeks need the second battery...I digress as people do when they have been to Antarctica. Freezing cold etc but not of those problems that the Luminous Landscape team had. Tom may I be direct and suggest you get a few D700 shots printed and match them to your M7 film prints. We all want to digitize but film was made to print so make the D700 jump the same hurdle, if you see my point. As said the test you have done to be remotely fair assumes your scanner and scanning skills are as good as everything else in the process line. I do not mean to be blunt or rude here just raising the point. You are comparing the D700+your computer & screen versus LeicaM7 + another makers film + your scanner +its colour profiles? + your skills + your computer & screen. This is a bigger chain with lots of potential pitfalls. I hope some great commentary and advice may follow as I am about to do a test of M7 to M9 and I face the same dilemma as you in testing and fair comparisons. With the demise of film as reported on the parts of the forum I need to test the films that may be available for a little while and see how it all pans out. Also worth noting the price of a second hand M7 versus an M9 new is quite different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
esquire53 Posted March 23, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 23, 2010 Hi there, Having worked (and taken pictures) in the arctic, I would always take film gear as a backup. I got the new 21mm mid last year and at that time, I didn't had (wasn't out) an M9, but the M8, so I used my M7, to have the full frame. My verdict at that time, I liked the M7 for the angle and under low light conditions, I also preferred the M7. As off early March, I am now a happy owner of a M9, but I never thought of going back to use the M7 to compare analog vs digital. (I do have decent scanning gear and skills) Here is my observation.... I shoot differently with M analog and M digital. With only 36 picture in film and xxxx in JPEG, I think less and shoot more (off course, I always used DNG +) It's a bit like John Wayne and Rambo Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted March 23, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 23, 2010 I've just run a comparison of images from my D700 and my M7. I scanned the M7 negatives with a Nikon V ED scanner. The digital images win hands down. I do not own a M9 (yet?), but somebody surely must have compared the output with that of the M7. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom That 'the digital images win hands down' seems like an oversimplification. How do they win? In terms of sharpness, detail, lack of noise, color, tonality? What are your priorities? I suppose your scanning skills are relevant since you'd be the one scanning your work if you stick with film. But you didn't mention your desired end result (digital scans for flickr, large exhibition prints, digitally-delivered high-res files for a client). If your final product will be prints, I suggest you do as others have suggested and make prints from both cameras. I like the M9 (other than when used with certain wideangles, but that's the topic of numerous other threads), but I wouldn't say it's better than film. It's just different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 23, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 23, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I resisted digital for a long time as i wanted the best quality. There is no "best", however. Much of what is in my portfolio (see link below) was done with film, and while many speak of a "look" for film that is different, I find it very hard to separate the film images from the digital, though for many I do remember what I used. (hint:most of those that have no exif data are scanned film, some from M7, some from Contax, some from Nikons, etc etc. and the digitals are not all Leica either. Having said that I do regret having sold my M7 and if I still had it I think I'd use it at least occasionally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted March 23, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 23, 2010 I'm only just starting out on my film journey shooting MP alongside my M9 but already the artist in me prefers the film photographs in nearly every respect. I think that there is no right answer here - it's a highly emotive subject and only each individual knows what he or she is aiming for in terms of image making, which will dictate the final choice. For me, if I could only keep one camera it would be my MP. I know that now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted March 24, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 24, 2010 testing and fair comparisons. With the demise of film as reported... long live film! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 24, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 24, 2010 Demise of film?.........KODAK: Film Facts - Cost Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted March 24, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 24, 2010 If this means anything, and I am not judging, the "Australian Leica people" have just left my place after viewing the images I made in the Antarctic and environs where I shot M7, M8 & M9. Without being obvious, "their" preference seemed to fall with the B&W film images from the M7. Of course they liked the digital stuff too, but I can't say more about that at present. Like them, I favour 'both', each for different reasons and I think that is as far as it can be taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjarke Posted March 24, 2010 Share #12 Posted March 24, 2010 M9 picts is best on the computer screen. If you want to make a A3 im not that sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 24, 2010 Share #13 Posted March 24, 2010 Oh dear - is it really a film vs digital thread again? FWIW I'm buying a film camera again tomorrow. Reasons why - none of them rational - after all, my M8's color is more 'accurate' than color film, the images are sharper, I probably have a higher percentage of keepers from digital, and it doesn't cost me anything to experiment. But film images have something indefinable. I'm going to call it emotion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 24, 2010 Share #14 Posted March 24, 2010 The film vs. digital debate was pretty well settled around 2002-2003; for example -- Shootout: Canon 1Ds vs. Pentax 67II ... but film retains the character it always had. For someone who wants a genuine film look (not me), film has the advantage of being film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom M Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share #15 Posted March 25, 2010 Many thanks to my correspondents, for their considerate replies. It is reassuring to know that the M9 handles as well under adverse conditions as the M7. I am grateful for Neville’s comments, as I will be soon flying in similar latitudes but in the opposite direction. Kudos also, to erl for his enrichment of the photographic vocabulary with a new term for technically poor images. No, plasticman, this is not film vs digital, but M7 vs M9, and it appears, that given unlimited resources for scanning, the results from the M7 and M9 are comparable. However - and allowing for a modicum of ability - the overall grain and artifacts in areas of uniform color in M7 scans with a Nikon V ED does not live up to this standard. My requirements are large numbers of high-resolution digital images taken in the field, and their ready accessibility for later study on large screens. I agree with Bjarke. I rarely make prints. This may sound esoteric, but review on screen is a requirement in many professions and may also be a trend for people who take digital snapshots. t.m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted March 25, 2010 Share #16 Posted March 25, 2010 ......... Kudos also, to erl for his enrichment of the photographic vocabulary with a new term for technically poor images.t.m. Sorry Tom, I don't understand to what you refer hhere. Can you explain? Thanks. .............However - and allowing for a modicum of ability - the overall grain and artifacts in areas of uniform color in M7 scans with a Nikon V ED does not live up to this standard.t.m. Not sure what 'standard' you are referring to here but I have good success with my Nikon V ED scanner. Of course, I have put a lot of effort into using it and selecting software that optimizes the result I want. ..........My requirements are large numbers of high-resolution digital images taken in the field, and their ready accessibility for later study on large screens. t.m. Well this automatically disqualifies any film camera straight up I would have thought, so your D700 is the obvious choice. t.m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audiocide Posted March 25, 2010 Share #17 Posted March 25, 2010 I would only recommend the M9 if you are absolutely sure you have to shoot digital. I find shooting with the M7 to be a more rewarding experience. After all the work you put in developing the negatives and scanning them, the end results seems just that much sweeter. The sharpness from the M9 is at least equal to my 5D Mark II. Unfortunately, I find the other aspects its image output to be poor in comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audiocide Posted March 25, 2010 Share #18 Posted March 25, 2010 Demise of film?.........KODAK: Film Facts - Cost I'll buy film even if the cost goes way up, but I primarily shoot for pleasure. For professional applications -- actually why would anyone shoot a Leica professionally, where speed and convenience make a difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidereye Posted March 25, 2010 Share #19 Posted March 25, 2010 Oh dear - is it really a film vs digital thread again? I also hope not, enough of that rubbish on other photo forums as it is. If quality is the *prime issue* here then in no way whatsoever can or should one really compare say M9 digital output with home made scans. There is no comparison with the scans say one can make on a 35 mm film scanner or say an EpsonV700 as opposed to a Pro Lab using a drum scanner. Surely that should be the measuring stick for such a situation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted March 25, 2010 Share #20 Posted March 25, 2010 I'll buy film even if the cost goes way up, but I primarily shoot for pleasure. For professional applications -- actually why would anyone shoot a Leica professionally, where speed and convenience make a difference? Act8ally, quite a number of us on this forum alone shoot Leica professionally and very succesfully. For years I shot M6 & 7. Now I shoot M8 & 9 professionally. No other camera combo can match my Leica outfit for the work I do. When I say match, I mean the 'full bottle' of image quality, convenience, ease of use, versatility, speed, ad nauseum. Some qualities you just can't measure, but Leica, for me, delivers them all. For me, that answers the question. For anyone else, I would not presume. The test is twofold. Does it pay the bills and do I enjoy it? Answer: YES x2! Footnote: When it comes to 'pleasure shooting', I am with you. Film has a major role. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.