M9 vs M7

[noah_addis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...actually why would anyone shoot a Leica professionally, where speed and convenience make a difference?

 

Perhaps because, for some of us, rangefinders are faster and more convenient. I use Leicas for all of my professional work. Having said that, I'm really a rangefinder fan, not a Leica fan. I'm not totally happy with the M9. I find the image quality at 160 and 320, which I shoot most of the time, to be exemplary. But the color issues with wide lenses is driving my crazy and the folks at Leica won't even call me back to explain the problem. I expect better service from a small company.

 

But no matter what, I'll continue to use my M9s for times when I need digital. I am thinking of switching back to film for my personal projects, but I don't know if I'll be able to get the look I want at the large print sizes I want. I went out today with an M9 and two M6s--one with 160NC and one with Astia. I'll get drum scans made of the film and I'm curious to see the results.

 

I think the M8 or M9 would be great for your needs--producing high-res files to view on screen. But nearly any DSLR or even some point and shoot cameras can produce good files for on-screen viewing. A Micro 4/3rds camera could be ideal.

 

This is a personal aesthetic decision of course, but I think film scans sometimes look worse on screen but better in print, whereas digital looks great on screen (and sometimes still great in print).

 

I just made some exhibition prints from the D700 (with zeiss 35/2), M8 and M9 and at 14x21in. they're pretty much interchangeable. However, the D700 files fall apart if you try to print very large. I had planned to do some 40-inch prints from some D700 aerial photos but they just weren't good enough to meet my standards at that size.

 

My current test is not a matter of film vs. digital, but it is a matter of what works for the look I want to achieve.

 

I'll post the film results soon, if people want to see them. For now the M9, first the full frame then a 100 percent crop of a file prepared to print at 40x27in using blow up and exposure 2 to add a touch of noise/grain, which in my opinion makes prints look better when enlarged. Keep in mind that 100 percent crops usually look worse than prints.

 

I'm VERY impressed by the M9 result, even though if anything I'm biased towards film. I really want to like the film results better for several reasons. First, I like the workflow. Second, I like to carry $1200 M6s instead of $7000 M9s when I travel to rough areas and I can afford to take three cameras, one to leave in my room as backup. And finally, no matter how hard I try, I can't wean myself from the darn LCD screen. With film it's liberating to not have that option. It makes me think more and shoot less. Oh, and one more thing. When I travel it would be great to spend my evenings shooting, making contacts or having a beer with the locals instead of downloading cards.

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!

[Guest mc_k]

...

I'll post the film results soon, if people want to see them...

 

yes

[jplomley]

I'll get drum scans made of the film and I'm curious to see the results.

 

Looking forward to it. Where are you getting the drum scans done Noah? I'm currently using West Coast Imaging for all my 6x7 and 4x5 work on their Tango drum scanner. Results are exemplary. I've never bothered to try 35mm though.

[noah_addis]

Looking forward to it. Where are you getting the drum scans done Noah? I'm currently using West Coast Imaging for all my 6x7 and 4x5 work on their Tango drum scanner. Results are exemplary. I've never bothered to try 35mm though.

 

Good question. Believe it or not there seem to be NO labs left in Philadelphia doing real drum scans. A few do imacon scans or even rent time on an imacon, but that's not the same. It might have to do for now, but we'll see. Since they're meaningless test films I don't mind sending them out of town if necessary. It may take a bit longer though.

[tgray]

Good question. Believe it or not there seem to be NO labs left in Philadelphia doing real drum scans.

 

Hey, I'm in Philly too. What labs do Imacon scans? You're right, I haven't seen anyone do real drum scans in the area. Taylor Photo in Princeton, NJ (not too far away) does drum scans I believe.

[noah_addis]

Hey, I'm in Philly too. What labs do Imacon scans? You're right, I haven't seen anyone do real drum scans in the area. Taylor Photo in Princeton, NJ (not too far away) does drum scans I believe.

 

Silicon Gallery in old city does imacon scans, though I'm not sure which model they use.

 

Philadelphia Photo Arts Center has an X1 that you can rent time on for I think $50/hr.

 

I actually haven't used either place, but I've heard good things about Silicon when it comes to printing. I do my own small prints on my 4880 but I may try them for some larger ones.

 

I may just have Silicon do some Imacon scans for me for now and see how they look. While I know Tango scans are better, but if I can't get them done locally then it would be a problem since I'm not sending important film out of town.

[tgray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cool, thanks. I recently got an SWC and might want to get some good scans at some point.

 

Princeton is only an hour drive even if you live south of the city (where I do). If you are close to 95, 476, or Rt 1 and are further north, it's even quicker.

[charlesphoto99]

Hi Noah,

 

I just did some 44x66 prints on my HP Z3200 from scans I made on my Imacon 646 from 20 year old Tri-X and they look amazing. The Imacons are seriously good scanners as long as one knows what they are doing. Yes, a Tango or Heidelberg scan is going to be that much better but just like digital you might see it at 100% on the screen but not quite so much on an actual print.

 

Yeah tempted too to pull out my M7 .58 and start shooting some film. It's just facing that lab bill and the trips across town that always pull me back to the M9.

[tgray]

Just a note, the Philadelphia Photo Arts Center page makes it sound like they have a drum scanner.

[jgwill1]

Good question. Believe it or not there seem to be NO labs left in Philadelphia doing real drum scans. A few do imacon scans or even rent time on an imacon, but that's not the same. It might have to do for now, but we'll see. Since they're meaningless test films I don't mind sending them out of town if necessary. It may take a bit longer though.

 

I wouldn't write off the Imacon/Hasselblad scans, particularly with the X5, which diffuses the light and produces a very 'filmic' look. I'm personally moving towards the M9, having borrowed one for a week, but I'm certainly not giving up on my MP, M6 and tri-x quite yet. The problem these days seems to be finding a lab you can trust to do a decent dev, if you haven't the time or inclination to do it yourself!

[noah_addis]

Well, I dropped the film off for Imacon scans. I know they shouldn't be written off, I was just thinking that if I was going to do a test, it should be with as good of a scan as possible.

 

After some consideration though, I figure the imacon scan is a good idea. If I do decide to go back to film for my unassigned or non-deadline projects, I'd rather scan myself. And I can either rent time on the Imacon or buy my own (used, most likely).

 

I should have the scans early next week. BTW if you're in Philly the folks at Silicon Gallery seemed very friendly and extremely knowledgeable. Some of the large prints they had laying around looked incredible.

[jplomley]

About five years ago I compared Imacon 949, Creo iQ3, Cezanne Elite, and Tango drum scans, and the Tango drum scans are the only ones that come off the scanner in a state that requires very little sharpening in post. This is a good thing, because sharpening scans of B&W film is difficult without exaggerating grain. So the less manipulation you need to do in post, the better. Of course the drum scans are oil mounted and this also plays a factor in grain perception. I know Steve Schaub at the Figital Revolution modified his 35mm holder for his Imacon 646 to allow him to wet mount. You may want to contact him and see how he went about this. He noted a dramatic improvement concerning the minimization of grain, as you would expect. But this is not standard OEM kit. Would be interested in seeing some of your scans Noah when you get them back. I've really only done serious scanning on 6x7 and 4x5. Just one more note, I hope you told them no sharpening, because the Imacon sharpening algorithms are not pretty IMHO. You need to dial down the Flextight SW to about -70 to totally negate sharpening. Even at zero, there is still sharpening applied.

[jplomley]

Forgot to mention, of the three CCD based scanners, I ended up ranking them in the order Cezanne Elite>Creo iQ3>Imacon in terms of resolution, grain aliasing, and color accuracy. Cezannes are difficult to find, but most high end fine art scan shops will have a Creo iQ3 or at least the Eversmart Supreme, which IMHO is superior to the new iQ3 hardware wise.

[charlesphoto99]

A good way to go with the Imacons is to scan 3F which is essentially a RAW scan. Then get a copy of the Flexcolor software and do your own conversions to tiff at your leisure. And that way you can always go back and redo. Of course the scanning takes much longer than just initially scanning in 16 bit grayscale to the size you need. Which is what I've always done, but after 6 years of owning an Imacon I've finally wised up and started scanning to 3F as I often find my older scans not up to size or quality.

[barcoder]

If just finding a lab is this difficult what about actually using the scanners? I don't see how this workflow is any better than digital's. The initial hurdle of finding a proper lab seems like a major hurdle.

[noah_addis]

If just finding a lab is this difficult what about actually using the scanners? I don't see how this workflow is any better than digital's. The initial hurdle of finding a proper lab seems like a major hurdle.

 

If I decide to go in this direction I'll likely get my own Imacon.

 

I do know several very good c41 labs.

 

Mostly, I care about the look of the photographs, not absolute technical quality. But as for workflow, I do most of my work on the road and I actually like film because I spend more time shooting and less time downloading cards. I like film for archival purposes. I like that I don't need to worry about access to electricity for the laptop and chargers. I like that I tend to think more about what I'm shooting and can't be distracted by the LCD.

 

But again, ultimately, it's about the look and feel of the photographs. If I like the look of the digital files better, I'll stick with it.

 

And in any event I'll keep the M9s for deadline or time-sensitive assignment work.

[barcoder]

Noah, I admire your work and respect your knowledge of film photography.

[jplomley]

Mostly, I care about the look of the photographs, not absolute technical quality.

 

Could not agree more, particularly in 35mm street and PJ where the "atmosphere" of B&W film is a positive attribute. But for fine art landscape work using 4x5 chrome films like RVP-50, the Tango leaves the Imacon in the dust, as do the other pre-press scanners. Resolution aside, the problem I have with the Imacons is Dmax. its just not as good as PMT based detectors or the inverted CCDs used by Cezanne and Creo. But one big advantage the Imacons have is speed.

[Audiocide]

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.

 

 

Perhaps because, for some of us, rangefinders are faster and more convenient. I use Leicas for all of my professional work.

 

...

 

I'm VERY impressed by the M9 result, even though if anything I'm biased towards film. I really want to like the film results better for several reasons. First, I like the workflow. Second, I like to carry $1200 M6s instead of $7000 M9s when I travel to rough areas and I can afford to take three cameras, one to leave in my room as backup.

 

Perhaps I spoke out of turn. I was only thinking of certain types of professional photography where SLRs with autofocus and easier metering make more sense.

 

@noah_addis: I really enjoy taking either my M7 or M9 everywhere I go. Although, after a couple of instances of almost having a drink spilled on them, or people grabbing at them out of curiosity, I'm seriously thinking of getting my Leicas insured.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jamie Roberts]

Perhaps I spoke out of turn. I was only thinking of certain types of professional photography where SLRs with autofocus and easier metering make more sense.{snipped}

 

One problem I face professionally is that "easier metering" usually means "mediocre" or "downright wrong metering." I actually prefer the M9's meter to my D3's because in truth "predictable" is "easy", though I admit I try to turn off all the crap in the Nikon's metering system so I can do it for myself

 

Autofocus is necessary in my work sometimes, but really a lot more rarely than people think, and I'm really debating giving it up entirely, to tell the truth. I don't shoot sports, though

 

I also use a fair bit of film and great scanning is hard to find here in Toronto, too... though there's lots of places that are good enough for most of the work I do, and still one or two places that do a great job with optical enlargement and printing from a neg. There's also a handful of master printers around North America. In their hands, the right M7 (or M6 or M3) shot is going to sing.