Film M vs. M9

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

No kidding? People actually waited until digital cameras fit their needs and budgets before buying them? Is this a surprise to anyone?

 

By the way, the early Mavicas were not digital cameras. Much later, they made "Digital Mavicas." I am not aware of any photographers shooting commercial work digitally back in 1981. The first 1 megapixel chip was not developed until 1987. In 1991 Kodak had a 1.3 megapixel Nikon D3 based camera - DCS 100. This used a shoulder strapped hard drive/processor and was pretty bulky. These did not catch on too well but met the needs of some. The first Leaf MF digital backs came out around 1991. Leaf didn't have a 6 megapixel back until 1998.

 

It wasn't until 1994-95 that consumer digital cameras appeared.

 

Digital backs:

 

Digital camera back - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

More on Kodak digital cameras:

 

Kodak Pro digital cameras DCS

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 10, 2011 by AlanG

[Archiver]

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.

 

They were around for a while, but could not compete with cameras that used solid state media. I used to work in an electronics retailer, and we had those in the display cabinet back in the late 90's or so.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

By the way, the early Mavicas were not digital cameras. Much later, they made "Digital Mavicas." I am not aware of any photographers shooting commercial work digitally back in 1981.

It was back in the early 80s when I worked in a photo retailer in London whilst a student that I remember a Mavica sort of appearing - is this the 'early' Mavica you refer to?

[Xmas]

Hi

 

They all used CCD sensors...

 

Sony Mavica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Noel

[pgk]

Hi

 

They all used CCD sensors...

 

Sony Mavica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Noel

Ahhhh yes. The one I remember was the analogue version!

[Archiver]

As nice as the scans are in the Plustek thread, I haven't seen anything there that makes me think that the images are better or even as good as those from my M9. To achieve the kind of resolution and detail that the all-knowing (cough cough) Ken Rockwell speaks of, you would need a scanner that is probably in the price range of the M9 itself, as well as significant skill in scanning, dust removal and postprocessing.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the images in the Plustek thread, and they make me want to get a Plustek and shoot more film. I adore my M7 and feel a stronger emotional connection with it than with my M9, which almost doesn't seem possible. But then I think of this, which I wrote in another forum:

 

One roll of Fuji Superia XTRA 400 costs $5 in Australia, and dev/scan/print costs $20 at my local Fuji Frontier lab, making one roll of film cost $25. $7000 dollars therefore buys me 280 rolls of film, which will last about six years if I only shoot one roll per week, and gives me 10640 photos, as the M7 gives me 38 photos per roll.

 

For that same amount of money, the M9 allows me to change ISO on the fly, achieve far better per-pixel sharpness than anything I've seen from a Plustek, let alone a Fuji Frontier lab, and shoot a virtually unlimited number of photos in our equivalent six year period.

 

I regularly shoot hundreds of images a week. If I go out on a weekend I come back with well over 250 images. And my ability to learn from my mistakes is much, much greater with digital's immediate feedback, not to mention the super image quality and control that the M9's files give me. No need to spend time with a dev tank or drive to the photo lab, the photos are there as soon as Lightroom takes the raw through my presets, right at my desk.

 

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

 

Having said all of that about the M9, I also love my M7, and I want to shoot it more. I have a Ricoh GXR with the aps-c modules, and the image quality, while definitely not M9 material, is just as good as most aps-c DSLR's I've seen. The small size of the GXR makes it a take-everywhere camera for me, and I often use it instead of the M9 when light weight and security is extra important. I imagine that many X1 users will feel similarly.

 

So I would use the GXR in most situations, but I'd like to shoot films like Ektar for rich landscapes; Pro 160C for daylight portraits; Delta 400 and 3200 for low light images where I want to emphasize mood. Digital will show what was there, whereas with film if I aim correctly, it's as if art appears.

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

 

If you only got one planet to live on then the bus is better, or an Amish buggy, if you got two planets a diminituitive Ja town car is all you can affort.

 

Your got three planets?

 

Noel

[AlanG]

If you only got one planet to live on then the bus is better, or an Amish buggy, if you got two planets a diminituitive Ja town car is all you can affort.

 

Your got three planets?

 

Noel

 

 

To some people, $7,000 is not a lot of money so they are hardly agonizing over spending it.

[pico]

We had a well endowed wet darkroom in a Chicago suburb during an age when my company was eating up all the small time papers. I'd sweat it out making a good print and some chap hired especially for his job would put it on a roller scanner and send the image via telephone wires to Chicago, turning it into something like Joseph Nicéphore Niépce's first work. But it flew, sold papers. WTF do I know about business?

[Xmas]

To some people, $7,000 is not a lot of money so they are hardly agonizing over spending it.

 

You mean for a Leica, I was thinking about all the dead fish, dead birds and dead molluscs lin the gulf, to keep the Ferrarri in gas... I'll give you it is probably more efficient than an average US auto.

 

The Amish buggy may only be one horse power but it is still transport.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

You mean for a Leica, I was thinking about all the dead fish, dead birds and dead molluscs lin the gulf, to keep the Ferrarri in gas... I'll give you it is probably more efficient than an average US auto.

 

The Amish buggy may only be one horse power but it is still transport.

 

Noel

 

Well if you are going to go that route how many trips do I need to make between my office and a lab if I shoot 2 or 3 jobs a week on film? And what is the fuel consumed for shipping the film to me and the chemicals to the lab? And what about the resources used to make all of that film and the processing chemicals? How about the water used and the fuel used picking up the chemicals and energy used removing the silver and disposing them? How much energy and other resources are used by the lab to simply run control strips and keep the line in spec? And what about the fuel used for all those employees to get to and from work? And how much energy and materials went into making all that processing equipment and build the lab? How many car trips did that take? How many of these people walked or biked to work?

 

A digital camera plus a Ferrari starts looking reasonable. In any case, I mostly ride an "ALAN" and rarely drive my sports car. (Which, in any case, gets over 30 mpg on the highway and 23 in the city.) The bike cost me about $1000 to put together and yes I could be riding a much cheaper bike or one that I built out of gathered wood using hand tools that I made myself out of rocks. And why don't we all live like the Amish or Native Americans any more?

 

 

I've really lost track of your train of thought. What are you getting at by the way? Some people prefer film and some prefer digital. Some have no choice but to use digital. Some find one is cheaper, better, more efficient, easier, more challenging, more artistic, more fulfilling, better suited to them, than the other. Isn't this obvious?

 

An old Brownie probably will make a better quality image than the original Mavica, yet some people found the Mavica useful enough to buy it.

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 11, 2011 by AlanG

[Xmas]

Hi Alan

 

Like the bike, excellent transport but be careful with traffic. 30 to gal in US not that good townies can get 70 to gal imperial.

But there are a lot of dead guys in the gulf.

The skuba/cine guy Jacque Custeau did a retrospective of a film he had shot 20 years earlier in the med. Every thing looked different until the UW photo swam past a rock, they recognised.

At which point Jacque detected that all the plant and fish were long gone.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

 

Like the bike, excellent transport but be careful with traffic. 30 to gal in US not that good townies can get 70 to gal imperial.

But there are a lot of dead guys in the gulf.

The skuba/cine guy Jacque Custeau did a retrospective of a film he had shot 20 years earlier in the med. Every thing looked different until the UW photo swam past a rock, they recognised.

At which point Jacque detected that all the plant and fish were long gone.

 

Noel

 

And this was due to Kodak dumping chemicals?

 

http://www.dynrec.com/pollution/

Edited May 11, 2011 by AlanG

[Xmas]

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?

 

Hi Alan

 

I reread the thread from the beginning and stuck at NB23's one liner, must have missed it first time. It is like denying global warming...

Given up on the digital v hybrid dialogue.

 

Noel

[lincoln_m]

To go back to the OP comparison. If the same lens is used on say M7 or M9 then we are comparing a scanned film with the image on the M9 sensor. If high res film is used (TMAX100 = 100 lp/mm, Velvia is about 80lp/mm) even Leica lenses will struggle with 80lp/mm according to the MTF graphs whose finest reported line is the 40lp/mm. So the lens and the film act as two filters in series probably giving 30-40lp/mm at best. Most digital camera reviews seem to report resolutions of 20-24lp/mm.

 

Although a 5400dpi scanner (35Mpixels) can resolve the film grain, I don't see much difference in the image detail from a previous 2800dpi (16Mpixels) Dimage III, but the files are now 240Mbytes each at 16bit per colour TIFFs. I feel for Leica 35mm cameras and lenses on high quality film we are in the 15-20Mpixel range, si an 18Mpixel M9 is equal to the best film M on the best film in terms of resolution.

 

Digital camera reported dynamic ranges seems to be at best 9EV ( or 9 bits? ), I guess this is the subject's dynamic range (input dynamic range) I get the feeling that B&W film can cope with a wider input dynamic range in the subjects light ( say 11 EV ?? not sure) but it's output ( negative film density) is less, so a scanner scanning a B&W film has the subjects dynamic range already compressed by the film. Slide film might not cope with such a wide input dynamic range but films like Velvia certainly output a large DMAX causing even my Dimage Elite 5400 to clip at both ends some times.

 

With these analogue front-ends and digital back-ends I feel the quality of the scanner is the weak point. The Minolta Elite 5400 does have noise in the shadows, and the film in slide holders is never perfectly flat, but I do love my film images and the fact that you have the original in a more solid physical format, film, slide with the scanned digital file as a backup of the original. The price of the pro scanners seems to be growing. Pro Nikon scanners seem to be £8000 now (Nikon 9000) I'm sure they used to be £2000 (Nikon 8000). One may be able to make a better image from a slide in the future than you can today, but will we be able to make a better image from a DNG in the future?

 

Working with digital RAW images seems to be harder work than working with scanned TIFFs. This maybe because you need to be "The Process of Developing" for the image while a developed film image has already been effected by the chemicals to give a result, sort of like an in-camera JPEG already applies image tweaks to the RAW data from the sensor. If each of many digital shots need these digital processing steps to be done by hand before a fair assessment can be obtained then one is inclined to perhaps just use the JPEG and forego the work on the RAW file.

 

For hard working Pros I can see the appeal of the full digital flow. For us more leisurely users film types, grains, speeds, all add to the art of the image capture.

 

Digital camera autofocus, may be quicker in some cases but I have had many shots with sharp backgrounds and out of focus subject so perhaps the all manual M9 fits better with the Leica M tradition and way of working.

 

I might spend £2000 on a film scanner if a better one than Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 existed for >£500 <£2000 but £5000 for an M9 is really only suitable for hard working Pros according to my bank account.

 

I love film, slide and B&W , I'm not at all keen on Colour Print films anymore as they are too flat/dull and grainy compared to even Provia 400F.

 

So with a Plustek scanner I'd say it's not as good as M9, but a better scanner could be found later to give a comparable (or better?) image. I suppose if the M9 sensor was in a scanner that too would cost £5000. The price of quality I suppose?

 

Film with it's random particles (grain) works great for natural world but is more noticeable in the rectangular urban world. Digital with it's row, column sensor works well in urban but not so good in natures ( random , fractals ) where there are no straight edges.

 

Regards, Lincoln

[Xmas]

Hi Lincoln

 

Some people still wet print so this thread is a subset of the film users.

 

If you are using digital you can get some compression by using a single coated lens, I do this with contrasty film to avoid too much high light burn, with mono, on sunny days. In color you also (additinally) get pastel colors, which some people like, subjectve though. A tyoe II 5cm cron is still a nice lens on film but improves shots on digital M, hanging on to specular highlights.. I'm happy with a type I on film... These lenses are not that expensive and available, a Canon LTM f/1.8 is cheaper, a J8 people give me... I have a Nikkor HC as well, still cheap...and a CV 40mm f1/4 SC.

 

A modern lens is ok on dull days... on film.

 

With (retained silver) film you can additionally compress the input range by using a soft working developer e.g. D-23 or POTA, POTA was developed for A bomb photographs, 'brighter then a 1000 suns', the chromogenic mono chrome have more dynamic range than the retained silver, if using mini labs, more difficult to print after wards though. The color C41 have a mask to reduce contrast.

 

If you are wet printing you can get to see the grain but you lose micro contrast from the enlarger lens, - if micro contrast is important, grain does not worry me.

 

If I want micro contrast I use a 6x6 or 6x7 and tripod... 35mm is about immediacy, M4 28mm close in like Winogrand... note he used a SC lens.

 

Leica M4 Garry Winogrand

 

Once you hand hold a camera the lens and film (or sensor) performance dissappears...

 

If you are using a M9 (or M8) you may need to reduce resolution locally to avoid moire, I dont know how good the pshop plug ins for this are, most other d cameras will have this built in, not a good idea IMHO, I'd want a moire eraser tool.

 

I could use a M8 or M9 on dull days, until the rain started, cold high humid days would be difficult... I dry of film cameras in bus shelters, stick in zip lock with silica gel, before coffee or other beverage.

 

Noel

[ChiILX1]

Thanks everyone for the really thoughtful and experienced responses!

[Stealth3kpl]

 

I love film, slide and B&W , I'm not at all keen on Colour Print films anymore as they are too flat/dull and grainy compared to even Provia 400F.

 

Lincoln

 

Sorry to post more shots (and I apologise about the state of our kitchen).

I'm often very surprised at how good a cheap flatbed scanner (V700) and Ektar perform. These two are not too flat or grainy (but perhaps flatter and grainier than Provia?). With results like this I'm not desperate to lay a wad down for an M9 but that's not to say I won't.

 

Test shots with my new summicron 35 Asp.

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!

 

[AlanG]

 

Working with digital RAW images seems to be harder work than working with scanned TIFFs.

 

Is someone else doing the scanning? Have you compared the effort required to make a scan vs. adjusting a raw file? And raw files can be batch processed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tomasis7]

i think the camera type is suitable for the photographer when he wants the end result as wet print using silver or inkjet paper print/ small web thumbnail.

 

To compare scanned pic to digital is only contributing to megapixel race, pixelpeeping, it is adding for more worthless discussion. For me scanned pic is comparable to contact sheet at analogous way.

 

Why compare results on monitor screen at 72 dpi, or photoshop manipulated results on digital inkjet printer?

 

As for film vs digital debate, I always look at the end result, not the tools (cameras) their selves.

 

Im lucky with M3 filled with IXMOO. It definitely beats everything hands down (for me). Im filled with pleasure when I take a camera and a few rolls. No more gimmicks as batteries, cards, thoughts if I have filled cards or check if batteries are 100% fresh etc.

 

No matter if I leave the camera idle for 1 year, I take the camera instantly and take photos. It may be small thing but it is such mind freeing activity. The camera is always ready as a woman in brothel.

 

I dont need mention how wet prints look. Better I let other taste handmade honey when they eat sugar.