adan Posted January 27, 2011 Share #61 Posted January 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Film, and support for mechanical Leicas, will be available when the youngest member of this forum is drooling oatmeal from their chin in a retirement home. That is really not an issue. I would pick an MP over an M7 if I wanted to buy a new Leica film camera today. Getting a new gear machined will always be possible. Getting a "one-off" replacement for an integrated circuit if Leica disappears is unlikely. (In the real world, I would buy a nice used M4-2 and not worry about electronics or batteries at all ) Other than that - I support Doug's comments. "I prefer X" is not the same as "X is better"- ever. One is personal taste (which cannot be debated - some people like kippers (!)). The other is a factual claim which must be supported by evidence. Saying it doesn't make it so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Hi adan, Take a look here Leica Film Future. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
StS Posted January 27, 2011 Share #62 Posted January 27, 2011 (...)"I prefer X" is not the same as "X is better"- ever. One is personal taste (which cannot be debated - some people like kippers (!)). The other is a factual claim which must be supported by evidence. Saying it doesn't make it so. Or looking at it, rather. Which shows, the judgement is rather useless. Or has someone ever heard the sentence "water colours painting is better than oil painting"? Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 27, 2011 Share #63 Posted January 27, 2011 a dwindling band of Luddites who can't or won't evolve. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to add you to my ignore list after these comments, so I won't be able to debate the matter with you. I guess you'll say this is me ducking the issue, but I've read these cheap shots maybe two or three hundred times now (this is no exaggeration) and, like I said above, life is too short to waste it on garbage like this. I'm still young and work with computers every day - day in and out. I have several digital cameras (including an M8), iPhones (two) an iPodTouch, flat-screen TVs. My home is networked and I can stream music (and soon films) wherever I want. I have two mac laptops at home and one at work. Probably 80% of my life is spent in front of some kind of screen. I have no idea how you have the effrontery to label me a Luddite? Now I have no idea - seriously no idea - why people like you want to bother coming over to the film forum. It really astonishes me. I sometimes venture a look over at the digital threads. If there are images on them, I'm really often truly appalled: halos, blown highlights, over-saturated colors, over-sharpened, unnatural skies, appalling skin-tones, unpleasant noise, poor dynamic range, a flat 'digital' look that lacks all atmosphere, an HDR sheen to many images where post-processing has gone wild trying to make up for the shortcomings of the digital sensor, red edges and other pixel faults, and so on, and so on. But how would it help anyone if I appeared on every one of those threads and pointed-out those faults and stated (over-and-over ad nauseam) that film was better? I would consider that behavior offensive. So I refrain from that bumptious idiocy, and silently leave. As I said, I have seriously no idea what axe you have to grind? I can't help feeling that you look at comparisons like the one on TwinLensLife, and call the methodology 'flawed' simply because it somehow rankles with you that film handles all of those lighting situations so much better than digital. Did you follow the link on that blog to the first tests? Look at the way that film gracefully handles shooting into the sun, and specular highlights that fade the way the eye sees them. These are "specifics" as far as I'm concerned. But you don't really care about that. You just want to prove some point because the superiority of film unconsciously undermines the choices you've made. Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbeyFoto Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share #64 Posted January 27, 2011 I find I get more dynamic range and more accurate color and more resolution and less noise than film grain with the DMR than with any of the slide films I've used in the SL. Doug, Correct me if I am wrong but the discussion about dynamic range hinges on the comparison between C41 negative film against digital. I am guessing you have issues with color neg film and there is no doubt your DMR kit has produced some great photographs. So I am not trying to question your position, but maybe asking for clarification. Frankly I am happy to own a SL2 but have been nervous to plunge into a R8/9+DMR. I do not have your resourceful capacity to make kit work. I am dependent on others with that sort of expertise. All the best, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbeyFoto Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share #65 Posted January 27, 2011 (In the real world, I would buy a nice used M4-2 and not worry about electronics or batteries at all ) I have been lookking at M4s. Why a M4-2? Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 28, 2011 Share #66 Posted January 28, 2011 Not to drag the thread too far off-topic, but because they: > are usually the least expensive M film bodies, > have the functional upgrades present from the original M4 on (rewind crank, rapid-load system) > have (IMHO) slightly better framelines for 35, 50, and 90 lenses than later models (at the expense of NOT cramming in lines for 28 and 75 lenses). "Better" meaning a bit more accurate (larger) for longer distances, more complete for the 90 lines (corners as well as sides) and no cutouts in the bottom of the 35-50 lines for the metering LEDs. (also applies to the original M4) > have no electronics except simple wires to link the hot shoe and PC outlet to the shutter (M4, too) The only downsides to the M4-2 are no self-timer, extremely few silver bodies available, and (maybe, some claim) slightly rougher "feel" compared to the German-made predecessors. Otherwise, the M4 and M4-2 are functionally ideintical - but any M4 will be 5-10 years older than an M4-2 and may cost ~30% more - depending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 28, 2011 Share #67 Posted January 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) On the side issue of film vs. digital - so far as I can tell, "digital" was introduced into the discussion by a (from the context) film user in response to a comment on electronic M7s vs. mechanical MPs: "..and also the digital ones of course, which makes (for me) the idea of building an electronic camera as robust and long lasting as the M1-M6 rather pointless, you will have an expensive paperweight in due course. And paying something like 3 times the cost of an M6ttl when it was availiable, or twice an MP, is out of the qustion for me anyway, not to mention the 'running costs' of repairs to these when film bodies vare much cheaper to maintain." Of course, the original post itself obviously has a digital subtext - "I am concerned Leica will withdraw support for MP/M7 in the near future." Why on earth would Leica withdraw support for their flagship film cameras - except for.....? If you want to have purely film-oriented discussions in the Film Forum - fine. Start with your own postings - because if YOU raise the subject of digital, you have no complaint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted January 28, 2011 Share #68 Posted January 28, 2011 I'm afraid I'm gonna have to add you to my ignore list after these comments The snippet you quoted was taken out of context. I wrote [paraphrasing] that a blanket claim that film is "better" will result in a (not paraphrased) perception ... not that film users are... I have no idea how you have the effrontery to label me a Luddite? Looks like you're reading what you expected into my comments, not what I wrote. Now I have no idea - seriously no idea - why people like you want to bother coming over to the film forum. perhaps it's because I use film cameras too? I have seriously no idea what axe you have to grind? All I care about is accuracy. A blanket statement that film is "better" isn't accurate and is of no benefit to anyone, using either film or digital. I can't help feeling that you look at comparisons like the one on TwinLensLife, and call the methodology 'flawed' simply because it somehow rankles with you that film handles all of those lighting situations so much better than digital. Did you follow the link on that blog to the first tests? The conclusion that film is better is flawed because it compare two specific systems with numerous variables and claims that only one of the variables accounts for the difference. Adios plasticman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted January 28, 2011 Share #69 Posted January 28, 2011 Doug, Correct me if I am wrong but the discussion about dynamic range hinges on the comparison between C41 negative film against digital. I am guessing you have issues with color neg film and there is no doubt your DMR kit has produced some great photographs. So I am not trying to question your position, but maybe asking for clarification. I found that C41 films do not give me the definition I wanted for my gallery prints, so I chose to limit my pre-DMR color film use to transparencies, mostly Kodachromes. The irony is that most of my film use now is C41. I use it in my Leicaflex SL for convenience, for family snapshots. Rather than spend hours in front of the computer processing raw files for family albums I get C41 processed and scanned very inexpensively. The scans are good enough for web albums or small prints and if I get a family photo that I want to make a bigger print of I can get a better scan of the negative. Frankly I am happy to own a SL2 but have been nervous to plunge into a R8/9+DMR. I do not have your resourceful capacity to make kit work. I am dependent on others with that sort of expertise. If I hand't been offered the DMR on very favorable terms it's likely I wouldn't have bought it - it's a very big expense, but it has been a huge benefit for my wildlife work. And I'm never, ever selling the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted January 28, 2011 Share #70 Posted January 28, 2011 In a way, the inital question is a strange one to ask in the area of consumer goods. Is it wise to "invest" in a flat-panel TV? If it breaks down in five years, it certainly can't be fixed. In fact, if it breaks down tomorrow, it most certainly will be replaced as well. Thinking about, there are few consumer goods with better prospects for long term usability than Leicas - still in production, the manufacturer is happily pushing more lenses in the market together with M9s and there are several independent workshops, who can still repair them, should this ever change. But then, maybe there is one product - several years ago, I saw an used Steinway Type D in their showroom, factory refurbished. I couldn't see a difference to a brand new model. The used one was built in the 1880s... Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted January 28, 2011 Share #71 Posted January 28, 2011 ...in case someone is interested, has some spare cash, spare space and a ground floor, which can carry half a ton: Model D - Steinway & Sons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted January 28, 2011 Share #72 Posted January 28, 2011 Ugh! Another film vs digital "debate". Of all things in today's world of photography, it is this I hate more than anything else.The question of whether film or digital is "better" will never be decided in any meaningful way. As an exclusive film shooter, I do not feel that digital photography or anyone's decision to shoot digital diminishes me in the least. Some people seem to take it as a personal affront any time someone comes on the film forum and has the temerity to utter the D-word. Back to the topic at hand, with the continuing evolution of digital, we're seeing film companies consolidating their film lines. We've lost Kodachrome (others we are losing are Astia and Neopan 1600), but are gaining films optimized for scanning (which Kodachrome certainly was not) because even we film photographers are increasingly following a hybrid workflow, scanning (the D-word again!) instead of printing. We may have fewer types of film available, but what we will have will be outstanding. Not worried about film going extinct in my lifetime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 28, 2011 Share #73 Posted January 28, 2011 Not to drag the thread too far off-topic, but because they: > are usually the least expensive M film bodies, > have the functional upgrades present from the original M4 on (rewind crank, rapid-load system) > have (IMHO) slightly better framelines for 35, 50, and 90 lenses than later models (at the expense of NOT cramming in lines for 28 and 75 lenses). "Better" meaning a bit more accurate (larger) for longer distances, more complete for the 90 lines (corners as well as sides) and no cutouts in the bottom of the 35-50 lines for the metering LEDs. (also applies to the original M4) > have no electronics except simple wires to link the hot shoe and PC outlet to the shutter (M4, too) The only downsides to the M4-2 are no self-timer, extremely few silver bodies available, and (maybe, some claim) slightly rougher "feel" compared to the German-made predecessors. Otherwise, the M4 and M4-2 are functionally ideintical - but any M4 will be 5-10 years older than an M4-2 and may cost ~30% more - depending. The M2 is the next cheapest, it is missing the 135 frame, and fast load tulip, but its removable spool is more reliable... It may have a self timer. It has brass gears which are smmmmmmmmooooooth, oops key board priblems. The few silver chrome M4-2 are collectors! The M4-2 accepts the winder or lever wind baseplate, the black chrome on a used one will look terrible so the $<<< An early production may need mods for a winder. But the later ones have the flarey rfdr Leica FAQ — RF patch flare And the need for the rfdr adjustment special tool, see same database. So they are the last of the line before Leica fixed the M7 and MP finders, for flare but still need the special rfdr adjustement tool. You need to select on serial number, to avoid late ones which flare... You can have the missing rfdr bits put back (I think). Most people can ignore the problem, e.g. all M4-P and M6 users. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 28, 2011 Share #74 Posted January 28, 2011 Ugh! Another film vs digital "debate". Of all things in today's world of photography, it is this I hate more than anything else.The question of whether film or digital is "better" will never be decided in any meaningful way. As an exclusive film shooter, I do not feel that digital photography or anyone's decision to shoot digital diminishes me in the least. Some people seem to take it as a personal affront any time someone comes on the film forum and has the temerity to utter the D-word. Back to the topic at hand, with the continuing evolution of digital, we're seeing film companies consolidating their film lines. We've lost Kodachrome (others we are losing are Astia and Neopan 1600), but are gaining films optimized for scanning (which Kodachrome certainly was not) because even we film photographers are increasingly following a hybrid workflow, scanning (the D-word again!) instead of printing. We may have fewer types of film available, but what we will have will be outstanding. Not worried about film going extinct in my lifetime. Hi You need to scan Kodachrome with the digital ICE disabled, otherwise the results will be 'interesting' it is a silver grain film as fas as the ICE algorithms are concerned. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted January 28, 2011 Share #75 Posted January 28, 2011 (...) others we are losing are Astia (...) Is this from a reliable source? Over here, Astia is still available, also no comments on the Fuji homepage. (...) but are gaining films optimized for scanning (which Kodachrome certainly was not) because even we film photographers are increasingly following a hybrid workflow, scanning (the D-word again!) instead of printing. We may have fewer types of film available, but what we will have will be outstanding. Not worried about film going extinct in my lifetime. Fully agree here, if film is the medium of choice, there has never been a better time to use it. Even vintage cameras show amazing performance, when loaded with one of the new films. When the dust has settled, I'll have a look at what is availabe, take my choice and optimize my processes for it. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 28, 2011 Share #76 Posted January 28, 2011 Ugh! Another film vs digital "debate". Of all things in today's world of photography, it is this I hate more than anything else.The question of whether film or digital is "better" will never be decided in any meaningful way. As an exclusive film shooter, I do not feel that digital photography or anyone's decision to shoot digital diminishes me in the least. Some people seem to take it as a personal affront any time someone comes on the film forum and has the temerity to utter the D-word. Back to the topic at hand, with the continuing evolution of digital, we're seeing film companies consolidating their film lines. We've lost Kodachrome (others we are losing are Astia and Neopan 1600), but are gaining films optimized for scanning (which Kodachrome certainly was not) because even we film photographers are increasingly following a hybrid workflow, scanning (the D-word again!) instead of printing. We may have fewer types of film available, but what we will have will be outstanding. Not worried about film going extinct in my lifetime. Digital is achieving greater market penetration, little evolvement. Dig is (still) different in the way it deals with over and underexposure or when a sceane is too contrasty, some films have more dynamic range, most films have smoother shoulders and toes (than dgital), even if you dont use soft working developers like D-23 or POTA, or C41 mono films, etc. I think you can use similar techinques with digital but most people dont. For similar reasons many people are using single coated lenses, with digital or film. Some swap lenses when the sun comes out..., sometimes I do this, depends on the film I'm using. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted January 28, 2011 Share #77 Posted January 28, 2011 All I care about is accuracy. A blanket statement that film is "better" isn't accurate and is of no benefit to anyone, using either film or digital. Screw with the accuracy! As usual, you dont get the point! To state that grainless is superior or resolution is better is only mere an opinion. It is not about being accurate or stating a fact but for everybody's preference. If one says that shooting birds is boring hobby so let it be, without going to facts "accuracy" . That has to be accepted as an opinion from human being. Hate or love it. What is so hard to understand about that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted January 28, 2011 Share #78 Posted January 28, 2011 Screw with the accuracy! I see... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 29, 2011 Share #79 Posted January 29, 2011 Over here, Astia is still available, also no comments on the Fuji homepage. From Fuji Japan: Google Translate 35mm Astia discontinued, 120 and 220 remain available at this time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 29, 2011 Share #80 Posted January 29, 2011 Astia went from Europe last year. Neopan 1600 has also gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.