Film M vs. M9

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Xmas, Well, OK, I'll count the original Sony Mavica (640 x480 still video camera) of 1981 as the first "digital camera", if you'll count the AP analog wirephoto scanner of 1936 as the first "scanner".

 

The first true digital photos I ever saw were the images sent back from Mars by the Viking landers in 1976 - a "scanning" camera. A JPL (NASA) engineer invented the word "pixel" to describe the "PIcture ELements" - although it can be argued that that is just a derivation of "bildpunkt" from the 1880 patent applications of Paul Nipkow for a TV system.

 

Of course, then one also has to acknowledge Alexander Bain's and Frederick Bakewell's creation of what amounted to early "fax" machines (1846-48) - which scanned and transmitted images. Improved by Giovanni Caselli and made commercially viable in 1861.

 

To get back to Alan's original statement, at the professional imaging level, magazines were using digitally scanned film images by the early 1980's. Nat. Geo first ran images from a "general purpose" digital camera (6 Mpixel Nikon D100/D1x - as opposed to specialized scientific cameras) in the 2003 story on Wings of Change by Joe McNally.

 

The Future of Flying @ National Geographic Magazine

 

The Future of Flying On Assignment @ National Geographic Magazine

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

I think my college got one of the first commercial drum scanners in the early 70s. As Adan said, digital capture started up in 90s but didn't take off until after 2001 because a 6 megapixel pro camera such as the DCS 460 was $25-$30 K. The same for a 4x5 scan back. The photographer I shared a studio with did high volume catalog work and had both so I got to use them too. And there were early weird expensive systems (e.g. Sinar multi-shot) that would keep you on the bleeding edge. Meanwhile early under $2,000 Nikon and Polaroid 35mm scanners became very popular. So film and scanning was much more mature and affordable for about ten years compared to digital capture.

 

The original post to choose film and scanning is a valid choice for those who shoot for themselves and have time. I can see mostly artists and enthusiasts choosing film today. Or those few professionals who can still get by shooting film due to their reputation or the nature of the work they do. But many photographers such as I, have no choice in the matter. I can still shoot film for myself, (I have some Tri-X sitting on my desk) but I just haven't found the time to deal with it.

 

Where I live (Washington DC area) there is only one lab that still does E6 film. It is about a 10 mile round trip for me and I think they only process twice a week now. This is a huge change from a 3 hour turn-around (and one hour rush) for a lab that was a mile away. Then there is the cost. The job I shot today would have cost about $450 more if I had used 120 film and Polaroids. It would have taken much longer to shoot on film and still longer to deal with taking the film to the lab and picking it up. And I probably would have to scan about a dozen images. It would be impossible to pass this time and cost on to my client. The same thing is true about the job I'll shoot tomorrow. So at this rate the cost of a digital camera seems pretty insignificant.

 

Additionally, I have jobs that require virtual tours and panoramas that might be theoretically possible to shoot on film and scan but would have a great cost and be a horrendous hassle.

 

A lot of people have simply moved away from film and scanning, but that does not mean that those who still use that workflow are somehow "wrong." I can certainly see rejecting the idea to spend many thousands on a camera body if you are happy with your current methodology. Shooting bulk loaded Tri-X or color neg. that is home processed and scanned would be pretty inexpensive and easy if you are at a low volume and are not in a hurry. But we all know this don't we?

[xrogers]

I shoot mostly black-and-white landscape, and my most used film camera for that task was a Mamiya 7. I've also used film Leicas for many years when portability and convenience was most important (with family or traveling).

 

The M9 makes a large print that looks much more like the Mamiya than my film Leica can. The Mamiya is better for fine detail, but the M9 can make a convincing, spectacular large print. Smaller and lighter, quicker handling, the ability to review, change ISO and use faster lenses all favor the Leica, and make for more and better images than I get from the Mamiya. A small drop in absolute detail seems unimportant compared to the M9's advantages.

 

With other uses or needs, this could change radically, and favor a film Leica (or Mamiya). Certainly if what you want is a camera for traditional street photography, and love that classic look in prints, I can't imagine anything better than a film Leica---it's the gold standard for that street photography look, and a Leica M makes getting that look pretty much effortless. Although it's a great street camera in its own right, M9 photos don't typically look like that without post-processing, and even then it sometimes just doesn't happen at all.

 

The M9, on the other hand, provides its own delightful look, with framing and composition that look like they were done with a Leica, but output that looks more like fine-grained medium format film. If that look makes you happy, there's nothing better than the M9.

 

Anyhow, I've kept all three cameras, but for me, the M9 gets all the play these days.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde

[Xmas]

Hi Alan

 

Of course your earliter devices were scanners, and some of the typesetting used scanners (I think) but your first home scanner you had was later then the little Sony I looked at, but seemed new fangled, when introduced. The military had earlier digital cameras of sorts, The CIA stopped dropping film on parachute from satelites a long time ago...

 

We seem to be able to ignore that the film was cheap cause the grannies bought it in volume. So the low end digital is what will make(is making) film expensive, and the Sony was the thin end of the wedge, and thereby important. The high end pro stuff much less significant in volume.

 

In London (I am advised) we had lots of 24/7 color labs (for pros) but only one shift mono high throughput labs, dissappearing at some rate now, though mini labs holding out well.

 

I use large quantity of bulk, expired, cine & survelliance film, will do C41 at need but dont like E6, used to do it. An shooter M2 from a retail shop is not much more then a major refurb from 3rd party manitenance shop. A collector Canon P or Weston Master meter less.

 

RD/1, M8 or M9 can turn into paper weights... 3x M2 = 1x RD/1 approx. M2 and Westons do not need batteries.

 

Noel

[Xmas]

Hi Clyde

I shoot mostly black-and-white landscape, and my most used film camera for that task was a Mamiya 7. I've also used film Leicas for many years when portability and convenience was most important (with family or traveling).

Hill walking one M2, one Weston, One mono pod, PanF

With other uses or needs, this could change radically, and favor a film Leica (or Mamiya). Certainly if what you want is a camera for traditional street photography, and love that classic look in prints, I can't imagine anything better than a film Leica---it's the gold standard for that street photography look, and a Leica M makes getting that look pretty much effortless. Although it's a great street camera in its own right, M9 photos don't typically look like that without post-processing, and even then it sometimes just doesn't happen at all.

To tell the truth I most frequently use 4x Canon P + 35mm lenses, for street, 400 ISO. sometimes an M2 or several. The Canons are faster reload, should really use 72 loads of PET film but too inconveent to process. Been known to burn highlights even with film.

 

Noel

[ChiILX1]

Thank you everyone who has left thoughtful comments. Coming from people with so much experience, many points and variables, insights and complexities, are being raised I didn't consider. Great reading and spectacular comments.

 

For those of you with a film M and an X1 (like me), when do you find yourself using the film over the digital?

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, its easier to say when I use digital over film

 

- Anything over 135mm.

- Anything that doesn't matter

- Anything requiring instant gratification

- Anything requiring flash

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

 

Of course your earliter devices were scanners, and some of the typesetting used scanners (I think) but your first home scanner you had was later then the little Sony I looked at, but seemed new fangled, when introduced. The military had earlier digital cameras of sorts, The CIA stopped dropping film on parachute from satelites a long time ago...

 

 

 

You are pretty off the wall here. That little Sony would not have produced adequate results for me and I couldn't afford or acquire CIA satellite cameras. Here's what was available in the mid 90s:

 

A 6 megapixel Kodak DCS 460 (no LCD) for $30,000 that was not close to the results I could get by using 4x5 or 120 film and a $4200 Agfa Duoscan film scanner. A few years later I got a higher resolution Polaroid Sprintscan 120.

[Xmas]

You are pretty off the wall here. That little Sony would not have produced adequate results for me and I couldn't afford or acquire CIA satellite cameras. Here's what was available in the mid 90s:

 

A 6 megapixel Kodak DCS 460 (no LCD) for $30,000 that was not close to the results I could get by using 4x5 or 120 film and a $4200 Agfa Duoscan film scanner. A few years later I got a higher resolution Polaroid Sprintscan 120.

 

Hi Alan

 

Yes but you are taking a pro news shooter position, most people use digi P&S, mobile phones etc. they used to use cheap folders and P&S roll film, few had cheap 35mm film P&S. The little Sony was the 1st nail in the coffin, for retail film, which is still hanging on.

 

Today almost every one has semi pro DSLR, lower % of P&S .

 

There were quite resonable document scaners before you got your film scanner, had one in the office, about 1000 DPI I think. So the technoogy was there.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

 

Yes but you are taking a pro news shooter position, most people use digi P&S, mobile phones etc. they used to use cheap folders and P&S roll film, few had cheap 35mm film P&S. The little Sony was the 1st nail in the coffin, for retail film, which is still hanging on.

 

Today almost every one has semi pro DSLR, lower % of P&S .

 

There were quite resonable document scaners before you got your film scanner, had one in the office, about 1000 DPI I think. So the technoogy was there.

 

Noel

 

I am not following whatever you are getting at. I am a commercial photographer not a "news" shooter. I simply reported when and why I switched from film and scanning to digital capture. I don't see anything to debate about it. Other people made different choices.

[Xmas]

I am not following whatever you are getting at. I am a commercial photographer not a "news" shooter. I simply reported when and why I switched from film and scanning to digital capture. I don't see anything to debate about it. Other people made different choices.

Hi Alan

 

The switch over point is arbitary dependent on your needs, an early adapter could have gone to digital in '81, you wanted some larger numbers of MPixels so had to wait, my street shooting mate just sold his M8 for a M6, he had tried a M9.

If he was to buy a M10 and be happy, I might have to think again.. demain

 

Noel

[wildlightphoto]

... my street shooting mate just sold his M8 for a M6, he had tried a M9.

If he was to buy a M10 and be happy, I might have to think again.. demain

 

 

Why not make your choice based on your own wants and needs instead of on what your street shooting mate chooses?

[Xmas]

 

Why not make your choice based on your own wants and needs instead of on what your street shooting mate chooses?

Hi

 

'A wise man learns from the mistakes of others'

I'm perfectly happy with a Canon P or Leica M2 and HP5 or XP2, if I try something different and it is a failure I have wasted time and money.

'If you are a Lemming dont run with the crowd'.

He has now one of the new compacts he is prototyping for me, it is like reading one of the review sites, Ken's or Irwin's, except you can lean over his shoulder when he chimps. I'd trust him more than some.

 

Noel

[ddp]

My time with the M8 ended when I got back film I had shot over a similar period and compared the 2 side by side. It wouldn't have mattered if it was an M9 I was using, I simply preferred the rendition of my Leica glass on film. Quite simple.

 

I live quite happily in both digital & analog realms and they both have a place in what I do.

[tmldds]

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...

 

What a wise advise!

 

Tri:)

[Xmas]

My time with the M8 ended when I got back film I had shot over a similar period and compared the 2 side by side. It wouldn't have mattered if it was an M9 I was using, I simply preferred the rendition of my Leica glass on film. Quite simple.

 

I live quite happily in both digital & analog realms and they both have a place in what I do.

Hi

 

My reasons were

 

i) my friend worked out a M8 repair at Solms would be more expensive then a M6 repair in UK

ii) his modern cron 5cm would iris image 5-10% of shots with the low sun outside field of view as the sensor and IR filter interacted.

 

He liked the M8 shots, but could not cope with i) I could not cope with ii)

 

Noel

[pgk]

The short answer - for me - is, no, film and a cheap scanner do not equal an M9.

I think that this sums up the situation very succinctly indeed. Personally I see no advantage in either a totally film based workflow or a totally digital workflow. The problem is usually maintaining quality when mixing the two. If the original system had included a high end scanner such as an Imacon, then I would have thought that the 'quality' would have been very high (if different), but I am very skeptical of claims and reviews of cheap scanners which make them out to be as wondrous as much more expensive ones. If it sounds too good to be true.........

 

On another issue raised, was the Sony (floppy disc - Mavika?) ever actually put into production and sold? I remember its appearance but thought that it had remained as a 'concept' camera.

[andybarton]

 

On another issue raised, was the Sony (floppy disc - Mavika?) ever actually put into production and sold? I remember its appearance but thought that it had remained as a 'concept' camera.

 

Yes. My office were using one only 5 years ago.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sblitz]

since there have been some posts in this thread regarding the start of things digital, in today's ny times there is an obit for Willard S. Boyle, 86, shared nobel prize in 2009 for inventing ccd -- in only an hour -- while at bell labs, based on the photoelectric effect explained by einstein and brought him the nobel in 1921. Patent was granted in 1974, tompsett followed with a patent in 1978 for a device that would yield video cameras small enough to fit one's palm. here is the link.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/science/space/10boyle.html?ref=obituaries

[Xmas]

Yes. My office were using one only 5 years ago.

 

As well as the Sony there were three of four others simlar in technology, but at impressive £, and some needed PC cards to get the image on to the computer, again £.

 

But as the decade went on USB and RAM chips & similar lead to 8 Mpixel DSLR at the turn of century.

 

Noel