M9 vs M7

[ddp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

One thing I have noticed using Nikon's D3 and D3s for low light work - weddings & events for one - is that they might have the ability to record the image at 6400 ISO or greater...but the AF at those light levels still struggles unless you can find something of contrast. I can focus my M8 just as fast in some cases when the light is dying. Granted, there is no way i can shoot it at ISO 6400 but I can use it at 640 with my 35/1.4 wide open and a slower shutter speed. Using the M8 alongside the Nikon stuff for weddings makes for an interesting companion, at least for me.

 

Back to the main topic - a GOOD scan can still reveal some beautiful subtleties in film that you won't necessarily get with digital. Just different, and to some of us still quite enjoyable.

[Advertisement]

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

[Audiocide]

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.

 

I just use a regular flatbed Canon 8800 at home. But I only digitize my negatives for archival purposes, and would rather make a print if I'm going to be hanging them on the wall.

 

I find the Canon scans good enough to put on the internet.

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!