Jump to content

Film M vs. M9


ChiILX1

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Awestruck by the quality of images displayed from the film scanner in this thread I have to ask the question- is a film M better than an M9? Or at least, is a $500-$700 M2 with used Leica glass like a collapsible Summicron, and a Plustek 7600i scanner as good as the M9? It's full frame and the scanner sort of becomes the sensor.

 

Here's my logic:

 

First, there's build quality, which the M2/3's seem to unanimously trump the M9 in.

 

Second there is the viewfinder, which the M2/3's have a much brighter, simplified, and less ambiguous viewfinder with a full frame.

 

Third there is accuracy, which the M3 is more accurate to focus with because of it's additional magnification in it's viewfinder.

 

Ken Rockwell wrote extensively on those three things.

 

Fourth there is the aspect of picture quality and film IMO has a depth and quality you can't get in digital.

 

Fifth I like the idea with an MP, 2, or 3 that you don't need a battery. That's big for me doing extended fieldwork in ultra rural areas

 

Sixth there is the "performance of the score" – developing the prints on your own if you are into that, which is a unique interaction with your art that comes with a special satisfaction.

 

Seventh there is the whole additional variable of film make, ISO, and type to play with.

 

Eigth, apparently film gives more detail than a sensor and a scanner captures more information than a sensor too.

 

Those are the positives for film (plus the cool stuff Ken Rockwell wrote here).

 

Positives for the M9 include built-in metering (over M2/3)

 

No need to buy film, or pay for the supplies of printing & developing them.

 

And a faster digital workflow if you display online as compared to scanning.

 

It seems like regardless if prints or digital files are your end product, the film M outperforms the M9 (paired with that Plustek scanner). But with lens you could outfit (and I did) an M2 kit with a 50 for $1k as opposed to the M9's $10k. The Plustek becomes your digital sensor.

 

The only "drawbacks" are daily operational costs and patience in a workflow. As for the operational costs I'm sure someone could create (or has) an awesome calculation for how long it would take film and developing etc. to equal the price of an M9 kit. And as for waiting for your final product, that seems to me to be a poetic contrast to instantaneous digital. There is something profound and beautiful about waiting. Goethe said: "So waiting, I have won from you the end: God's presence in each element." Maybe he meant lens element?

 

Anyway, what does everyone think about this idea, that for 1/10th the price you could have a better M than Leica's latest? Does it depend on your ends (digital or print)?

Edited by ChiILX1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My main film camera is an m7. I develop B&W myself and than scan and inkjet print. It works ok, for me the main drawback is the time I need in PS to clone out the dust particles from the film, even if I use all the known precaution to avoid it. I do not own an m9 (sometimes I thin about, ok many times I think about...) but for sure the x1 gives good result as well...

Personally I think I'll go on with m7 +x1 for when I need the photo in a short time or for interior use. Never had an M2-3 but always heard positive comments about.

robert

PS I'm afraid my comment is not so usefull to you...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, what does everyone think about this idea, that for 1/10th the price you could have a better M than Leica's latest? Does it depend on your ends (digital or print)?

 

Of course that is a viable option. And that is what people did before digital cameras became available. What could possibly have made so many buy a digital camera if they already had film cameras and scanners?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of too many Cheaper and Better things then their More Expensive counterparts, but then again, why would I want to prove it? What would be the purpose of that?

 

What would be my point of trying to prove the world that taking the bus is better then driving a Ferrari to go to work?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If shooting, developing, and scanning film is what floats your boat then by all means go ahead—but don't let anyone fool you into thinking that you can get better image quality with 35-mm film and a scanner than with a modern high-end 35-mm-format digital camera. You cannot ... in particular not with a cheap scanner like the Plustek 7600i. Moreover, scanning film is a science of its own—and, by the way, awfully tedious and a lot of work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of too many Cheaper and Better things then their More Expensive counterparts, but then again, why would I want to prove it? What would be the purpose of that?

 

What would be my point of trying to prove the world that taking the bus is better then driving a Ferrari to go to work?

 

I could probably find plenty of posts of yours I personally find no purpose for, but then again, why would I feel it necessary to write about it? What would be the purpose of that?

 

What would be my point of me trying to prove to the world that the things you find important enough to start threads on are completely pointless- besides my own pretentious arrogance?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By coincidence I just remembered a new drawback to film: having to interact with the old guard of photography more often at the local shops where I would develop and print. The old guard share a common chip on their shoulders everywhere in the world- a bitterness that maybe arises from digital's disregard to their equipment, experience, knowledge, general way of doing things, and overall investment of their lives.

 

I thought the old guard type would like this thread as it challenges digital's assessment. I was mistaken.

 

P.S. My last two replies just may get this thread closed, which would brilliantly demonstrate this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Film vs Digital threads are, ultimately, pointless. As pointless as oils vs watercolours. And yes, if this turns into a personal pointless slanging match, with "my way is better than yours", or "I'm better than you", this thread will be closed.

 

And not everyone who shoots film is an old duffer with a chip on his shoulder. Me for one... I'm just an old duffer who recently bought a new MP.

Edited by andybarton
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could probably find plenty of posts of yours I personally find no purpose for, but then again, why would I feel it necessary to write about it? What would be the purpose of that?

 

What would be my point of me trying to prove to the world that the things you find important enough to start threads on are completely pointless- besides my own pretentious arrogance?

 

 

You: Bus, Me:Ferrari.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest -a non-image related comment- film is more fun! You get in to the meat and potatoes of images making, in my opinion.

 

Second, the digicam I have is good but not as good as film. So, there are my two reasons.

 

PS: who gives a rat's ass about people that "get all grumpy 'n shit."

 

It's one thing to take a photograph. It's another to take a photograph that means something. Lots of people can speak at length about a lot of things... that have nothing to do with making art. In the end, I'm not interested in a chemical analysis of the hairs upon a paint brush.

 

"dude. stfu and get it on paper."

Edited by sfage
Link to post
Share on other sites

My main film camera is an m7. I develop B&W myself and than scan and inkjet print. It works ok, for me the main drawback is the time I need in PS to clone out the dust particles from the film, even if I use all the known precaution to avoid it. I do not own an m9 (sometimes I thin about, ok many times I think about...) but for sure the x1 gives good result as well...

Personally I think I'll go on with m7 +x1 for when I need the photo in a short time or for interior use. Never had an M2-3 but always heard positive comments about.

robert

PS I'm afraid my comment is not so usefull to you...

 

Super useful! How do you like developing your own B+W's? I've never tried nor taken a course. What's the process like for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally speaking, I would want to examine a full highest resolution scan from any scanner before I bought it, and preferably one from a contrasty and difficult to scan transparency. I would be very wary of assuming that a cheap scanner can provide as high quality as it would appear from any images posted on the web - people rarely post very difficult to scan images.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Developing A B&W film is not really difficult. But to get the best out of developing needs experience and takes time. It s part of the game! The same (more or less) applies to scanning. I used a nikon 5000ED . Now, if you shoot film in the way people tend to shoot digital (let say 200 frames in one afternoon) scanning becomes tedious and takes time.

I do not like to enter a digital-film debate, but I just tell you that the biggest drawback with film is that if you have 100 iso in the camera and need to take picture in a low light situation...you still have 100 iso ! And if you are used to digital...

robert

PS I'll go tomorrow for a short holiday in Germany (but too far from Solms :( ) and after much thinking I decided to take the m7 for B&W (delta 100/400) and the x1 for color snaps and low light shots (I mean when I need 1.600 iso).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP. An M9 is way over the top for me. I wouldn't feel I'm getting my moneys worth out of it, and I don't think I'd have as much fun as I have with film. I enjoy seeing film in the fridge, blowing a film on an evenings walk, waiting for the negs to return, scanning them in and playing with software to get something out of them. I really enjoy the film journey. Even awful images provide interest for me. However, I can understand others finding the trip a PITA. If I were blowing things up big or had deadlines to meet or lots of projects to cover the M9 would be great. For me for the moment I'm happy with my clockwork Ms, my battery-free Weston meter, a bunch of Portra400 and Ektar100 and my bulk film loader packed with Acros100, HP5+ or Neopan400. :):):)

I found a can of Kodak 400 C41 film in a draw that must be 7 years old. I judged that it hadn't been used by looking at the leader so put it through the camera. This old film gave some freaky colours and outrageous detail-obscuring grain, but a couple of the images came out really nice. Ah, the romance.

Pete

 

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!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Super useful! How do you like developing your own B+W's? I've never tried nor taken a course. What's the process like for you?

 

I process all my own b&w. The whole process takes about half an hour, plus drying. I don't scan every frame.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest MikeN
It seems like regardless if prints or digital files are your end product, the film M outperforms the M9 (paired with that Plustek scanner).

:D...apparently you've never used a M9, neither another modern digital one...:D

 

A good medium format film camera, PERHAPS, may outperform a M9. And only with a high-end scanner, which then probably costs more than a M9 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a Plustek scanner better than an M9? Yes of course it is, an M9 can't scan film so it must be rubbish.

 

Answering the loaded questions in the thread starter is like going back in time ten years and taking part in film vs digital debates. And ten years on it's just embarrassing that they could still be happening. Evolve, move on, nobody cares if people want to use film or digital, but people may care if you have a good photograph from either medium to show.

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, with your knowledge of these threads, could you share a link to the most useful thread on doing what you do? Thanks again.

 

 

Here is my process from another thread

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/179996-kind-film-i-should-use-2.html#post1692375

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:D...apparently you've never used a M9, neither another modern digital one...:D

 

A good medium format film camera, PERHAPS, may outperform a M9. And only with a high-end scanner, which then probably costs more than a M9 :)

 

Yup, but, the Plustek and V700 are under five hundred bucks. The M9 is seven thousand (no lens).

 

The real question is: do you get images from your machinery that prints well and is suitable for art itself... and more importantly, that can be sold?

 

Yes.

 

So, respectfully, the argument is immaterial.

Edited by sfage
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...