jaapv Posted May 9, 2011 Share #41 Posted May 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) And when traveling, I'm never without the M7 body since I believe it has an edge in reliability and works with batteries that can be easily kept in a pocket. And no charger, cards etc. Frank Well, Frank, film can get bulky.. For Safari photography I used to take about 100 rolls of film. No pocket large enough to take that. And I had 10 exposed rolls stolen once (). With digital I have a backup in case somebody pinches my card. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Film M vs. M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Xmas Posted May 9, 2011 Share #42 Posted May 9, 2011 ... I have also looked at a lot of film images on this forum, and taking into account the jpeg conversion etc etc most of the images just plain look 'bad' from a technical point of view, imo, too grainy too contrasty & incorrectly exposed and processed etc etc. Developing film is an exact craft. There are many many variables, and unless one does it often I don't know if an occasional user could master it. grain may be intended Delta 100 or 400 dont have much grain if you scan properly, i.e. turn off the grain enlargement mechanism, - digital ICE Developing film is mechanical, but depends on the user being diciplined, exposing film is difficult... ditto digital looking at forum JPEGs hardly meaningful, scanning means the film is 'digital'. Personally I used the xp1 films because I found the latitude to be excellent, one can process it at a good lab and then scan at home. That will eliminate all the variables and exposure errors to some extend. But do the math, how many rolls are you going to shoot per day plus processing and cost of scanner, say over a year or two, and then compare against the cost of a digital camera... And then there is the smell, dermatitus on the fingers if you are unlucky, chemicals down the drain and liters of water to wash the negs with...! C41 processing is easy at home, exposure errors are not helped by processing, but XP2 or the other C41 are tolerant of bad exposure if you are willing to scan & photoshop or fine art print. Now if I can just get a box of 4x5 film somewhere.... not going to get easier Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted May 9, 2011 Share #43 Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) When I went treking in Yellowstone for 2 weeks I was glad to have no reliance on electronics. I know the battery charging problem can be over-come but it was nice not to have to think about it. I took 10 films for 2 weeks but only used 8. I'm happy with my results in the main, and appreciated that I didn't have to worry about processing 300 RAW files on my return. I just let the lab scan the negs. All the hard work was done by someone else. I used to have an M8.2 but whenever I took pictures around my town various digital effect became apparent that I couldn't live with for such an expensive camera. I tried the latest Capture software and LR3 but couldn't lose the yellow and blue window surrounds in the distance or the moire effect on the roofing. Sensor blooming around highlights too. This is what made me decide to go back to film and wait for Leica or another company to produce something better, and they have in the M9 but this is too expensive for me. Eventually some will be appearing on the secondhand market and I may try digital again. For the moment my cheaper option is quite satisfying. Everyone has different needs or desires. Pete That not an oil slick in the water, it's more moire. M8.2 Moire 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! Edited May 9, 2011 by Stealth3kpl Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/151257-film-m-vs-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1667551'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 9, 2011 Share #44 Posted May 9, 2011 Exactly my point. These are simple Photoshop corrections, but of course easier to avoid on film. Unfortunately film has its own drawbacks, but those we have learnt to cope with over the years. It proves that everybody should use what suits him/her best. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 9, 2011 Share #45 Posted May 9, 2011 I used to have an M8.2 but whenever I took pictures around my town various digital effect became apparent that I couldn't live with for such an expensive camera. I tried the latest Capture software and LR3 but couldn't lose the yellow and blue window surrounds in the distance or the moire effect on the roofing. Sensor blooming around highlights too. You need a anti aliasing filter in for the moire, most d cameras have one built in but better to leave it to post processing as Leica have done. Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted May 9, 2011 Share #46 Posted May 9, 2011 The choice should be pretty obvious based on the look of the image and the individual's needs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sprow Posted May 9, 2011 Share #47 Posted May 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Jaap ---- yes, bringing film can be a pain. Just got back from three weeks in Zimbabwe and took about 20 rolls of film and about 700 digital images. When using film I always stash it in multiple locations both while traveling and for the flights back (some rolls in each bag, carry on and check through). Bottom line for me is I still like both very much. Frank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 9, 2011 Share #48 Posted May 9, 2011 Going totally OT here, Frank, but very interested. Where did you go in Zim and how was it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sprow Posted May 9, 2011 Share #49 Posted May 9, 2011 I was in two locations -- both on the Zambezi River. One a fishing camp just downstream of Lake Kariba and a photography/nature camp in the Rifa Conservation area. I am a big fan of Zimbabwe. Although the politics are terrible and there are substantial human rights abuses, the people in the villages and towns are a pleasure to be with. Open, generous and full of spirit. Frank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebidwell Posted May 9, 2011 Share #50 Posted May 9, 2011 An interesting thread; which I've only just come across, and it has some very differing views. OK in my case the basic question posed "Film M vs. M9" is fairly simple to answer. Its got to be my M6 but that's only because I really couldn't justify the expense of changing to an M9. I do shoot digital with a D300 but I love using film. Best wishes Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 9, 2011 Share #51 Posted May 9, 2011 I've said it before on another thread "I prefer film". I underscored that last year by ordering an a la carte MP4 .85. The budget would have stretched to an M9, but I really didn't want that. I now have an M2, M7 and MP and couldn't be happier on that front. I do shoot digital; I have a D-Lux 4 and a couple of Panasonics - a TZ6 and an FZ-50 at the moment, and I have had an Epson R-D1 and a Panasonic LC-1 in the past, not to mention a range of Olympus DSLRs and u4/3 - but I simply prefer film. I would never use digital for anything that mattered to me. Regards, Bill 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted May 9, 2011 Share #52 Posted May 9, 2011 I like my MP (my Leica, not the Hon. Member) I don't like film, I like my 3F's (Hasselblad/Imacon 3F's, not Leica 111f's) I don't want an M9 until I'm bored with my MP What was the question, again? :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 9, 2011 Share #53 Posted May 9, 2011 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? Hi EEEEEk. I thought home scanners and digital cameras were concurrent developments, (some) people used to use light boxes, 10x8 contact prints 'frames' and enlargers, even wet printing color at home, others stayed mono. Noel. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted May 9, 2011 Share #54 Posted May 9, 2011 ....I thought home scanners and digital cameras were concurrent developments..... Really? I would say the development of 'home scanners' ran it's course some time ago. Of the limited options available, none are innovative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 9, 2011 Share #55 Posted May 9, 2011 Really? I would say the development of 'home scanners' ran it's course some time ago. Of the limited options available, none are innovative. Yes home scanners had a shorter development interval, and saturated the market earlier, digital cameras are hardly innovative today? M9 is not the first full frame camera unlike the Leica I (model A). M8 not the first system digtal range finder. The CIA went to imaging sats some time ago, bigger digital cameras. A home scanner is not a way of procucing prints (for some) but a way of gettig a negative on the internet, some people dont bother. Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 9, 2011 Share #56 Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) Well, I started scanning at home in 1994, with a Nikon LS-10. 8 Megapixel equivalent Home-use digital SLRs became generally available with the Canon D30, Nikon D1 and Fuji S1 in 2000, but didn't get to 8-Mpixel until the Canon 20D of 2004. Digital RFs had to wait for the Epson R-D1 in 2005. There were pro-priced ($15,000+) digital cameras as far back 1992 (Kodak) - but then there were pro-priced drum scanners going back to Crosfields as early as 1981 (1930s, if one counts analog scanners such as those used for transmitting pictures over phone lines by the Associated Press) So home scanners have run at least a decade ahead of equivalent digital cameras - until they plateaued at around 20 Mpixels (as have "35mm" digitals, more or less). Working for newspapers since 1986, I've seen 'em all come and go. In the pro world, I first saw images scanned on a Crosfield in 1986, and first saw digital cameras in the newsroom about 2001 (Nikon D1H) and a complete transition to digital about 2004. So 18 years difference. Maybe even longer - I used an analog Scanagraver to produce halftone plates for a newspaper in 1976. Put paper print on drum, put plastic plate on another drum, print is "scanned" by a light bulb and photoelectric cell - photoelectric cell's output voltage drives a sharp needle to cut halftone dots into the plastic plate, plate goes on printing press. Sort of the "Edison Phonograph" version of image scanning... the technology actually dates to at least 1955 (link may take a while to load .pdf - bottom left corner): Cornell Daily Sun, Issue 12, 4 October 1955, Page 4 | The Cornell Daily Sun Digitization Project Edited May 9, 2011 by adan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 9, 2011 Share #57 Posted May 9, 2011 Well, I started scanning at home in 1994, with a Nikon LS-10. 8 Megapixel equivalent Home-use digital SLRs became generally available with the Canon D30, Nikon D1 and Fuji S1 in 2000, but didn't get to 8-Mpixel until the Canon 20D of 2004. Digital RFs had to wait for the Epson R-D1 in 2005. There were pro-priced ($15,000+) digital cameras as far back 1992 (Kodak) - but then there were pro-priced drum scanners going back to Crosfields as early as 1981 (1930s, if one counts analog scanners such as those used for transmitting pictures over phone lines by the Associated Press) So home scanners have run at least a decade ahead of equivalent digital cameras - until they plateaued at around 20 Mpixels (as have "35mm" digitals, more or less). Working for newspapers since 1986, I've seen 'em all come and go. In the pro world, I first saw images scanned on a Crosfield in 1986, and first saw digital cameras in the newsroom about 2001 (Nikon D1H) and a complete transition to digital about 2004. So 18 years difference. Maybe even longer - I used an analog Scanagraver to produce halftone plates for a newspaper in 1976. Put paper print on drum, put plastic plate on another drum, print is "scanned" by a light bulb and photoelectric cell - photoelectric cell's output voltage drives a sharp needle to cut halftone dots into the plastic plate, plate goes on printing press. Sort of the "Edison Phonograph" version of image scanning... the technology actually dates to at least 1955 (link may take a while to load .pdf - bottom left corner): Cornell Daily Sun, Issue 12, 4 October 1955, Page 4 | The Cornell Daily Sun Digitization Project Hi Adan So you dont count the little Sony CCD sensor floppy disc system as a digital nxm pixel camera, until ... ? Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 9, 2011 Share #58 Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) For what it's worth I started scanning all of my assignments in 1995. Originals were almost always 35mm, 120 or 4x5 chromes. That would be many thousands of images. I was generally pleased with the results but scanning was tricky and time consuming as the software was not nearly as evolved as current raw converters. Monitors and color calibration were not so great back then either. Scanning and retouching fees definitely were a boost to my income though. I did not deliver any film to clients from 1995 on. I did some digital capture starting in the late 90s but switched almost completely when the 1Ds came out in 2003. A lot of other pros and enthusiasts had film scanning workflows and later went to digital capture. I have three film scanners that I rarely use today. I'm operating under the illusion that some day I'll go through all of my old negs and trannies and scan the best ones. I can't see adding more film images to that backlog. Edited May 9, 2011 by AlanG Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 9, 2011 Share #59 Posted May 9, 2011 Hi Alan But that is fast news. I have a scanner attached to each computer for archival of family prints, only scanned 3 or 4 negatives. Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted May 9, 2011 Share #60 Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) The short answer - for me - is, no, film and a cheap scanner do not equal an M9. The M9, in my experience, produces far better image quality than I ever got with film. It is simply extraordinary. But the longer answer is... why must we ever obsess over this? Can't we accept that both film and digital are legitimate mediums, each with their own qualities, strengths, weaknesses, and adherents? The beauty of our world is that it doesn't have to be a choice. I carry my M9 with me everywhere I go. Every day. It is glorious beyond description. Except for the odd day when I take my M6 or M7. On those days I'm reminded that there is no finer experience in photography than feeling the snick of the cloth shutter on a film M. And then stroking the lever to advance the frame. It is sublime. And in my truck, down in the center console, there sit an old unopened box of Kodachrome and a box of out-of-date Delta 3200. Two rolls I'll never shoot. I keep them there simply because they make me feel good. Because they remind me of something in this world that was, and is, exquisitely good. No, the question isn't whether film is better than digital, or vice versa. You want to know what heaven is? Enjoying them both... Edited May 9, 2011 by Jager 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.