smb Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share #21 Posted August 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) "What do you want the M7 to do which your M6's don't? Same question for the M9. If you had (have) a real need then the answer should be obvious. If you've got GAS then I suggest doing nothing, or if you can't do that, just tossing a coin as it really doesn't matter what you buy." That was a good answer. It appears that the M6 lineup will suffice. An M9 is enticing more for the challenge of going digital though photographically since I prefer prints to viewing photos on the video screen I am still hesitent. I will probably upgrade my computer system to prepare for the future. As I have stated previously I have punted on this issue and will probably attempt to obtain a 6 bit coded Summilux, a lens that I have never used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Hi smb, Take a look here M7 v. M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
uroman Posted August 27, 2011 Share #22 Posted August 27, 2011 FIlms seems really antiquated to me. I cannot imagine shooting it, and I like the look of digital much better. Film, seems obsolete, though i understand the nostalgia. I prefer new cars to older ones also. And I also like newer computers over type writers, etc. Also like email over written letters. I understand that others may like the look of film. If you are computer savvy, digital is wonderful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted August 27, 2011 Share #23 Posted August 27, 2011 FIlms seems really antiquated to me. I cannot imagine shooting it, and I like the look of digital much better. Film, seems obsolete, though i understand the nostalgia. I prefer new cars to older ones also. And I also like newer computers over type writers, etc. Also like email over written letters. I understand that others may like the look of film. If you are computer savvy, digital is wonderful. You also must be one of those who prefer cyber-sex to real sex. No? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 27, 2011 Share #24 Posted August 27, 2011 FIlms seems really antiquated to me. I cannot imagine shooting it, and I like the look of digital much better. Film, seems obsolete, [...] How many years did you use film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uroman Posted August 27, 2011 Share #25 Posted August 27, 2011 i used it for about 20 years, but love digital workflow. Film has become a thing of the past for most photographers i know. Nevertheless, there are always people who like the older things. It is really a preference. Anyway, for the OP, I would go digital. Most photographers i know have done that. There are several nice digital cameras made by leica, canon, nikon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunelle Posted August 27, 2011 Share #26 Posted August 27, 2011 How many years did you use film? i used it for about 20 years, but love digital workflow. Film has become a thing of the past for most photographers i know. Nevertheless, there are always people who like the older things. It is really a preference. Anyway, for the OP, I would go digital. Most photographers i know have done that. There are several nice digital cameras made by leica, canon, nikon. I know that some of you don't like Ken Rockwell much but what he writes here is very interesting and I agree with most of it: Why We Love Film. I mainly came back to film because digital is slavery, in terms of time. I take photos and when I get back home I don't need to spend my evenings on the computer working them out. I find myself with spare time I can use for something else. And it's not true at all that digital photographs "look" better than film photos. Just take a look at the thread I created about Film Ms phhotography; for the time being there's not many images but they will come, once people know about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 27, 2011 Share #27 Posted August 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I know that some of you don't like Ken Rockwell much but what he writes here is very interesting... He's writing crap I'm afraid. As someone who had shot lots and lots of film and digital I think his comparison of scanned film to a 24 mp digital camera is just plain wrong. There are lots of reasons to prefer 35mm film, but better resolution isn't one of them. Yesterday I was looking at scans I made of film ten years ago with a Nikon Coolscan - not the cheap photo lab scans he recommends. They look excellent, but my M8 beats them hands down regarding resolution. Here's something else he's written here... Recommended Cameras "Resolution, expressed in megapixels, is no longer relevant. Forget it when comparing cameras. I've made great 12 x 18" (30x45cm) prints from a 3MP camera and 40x60" (100x 150cm) prints from a 6MP camera. 6 Megapixels is all anyone needs for anything, and every camera here has two or three times that." Sorry, but I can't take the man seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted August 27, 2011 Share #28 Posted August 27, 2011 You also must be one of those who prefer cyber-sex to real sex. No? ........................................................................... :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunelle Posted August 27, 2011 Share #29 Posted August 27, 2011 He's writing crap I'm afraid. As someone who had shot lots and lots of film and digital I think his comparison of scanned film to a 24 mp digital camera is just plain wrong. ... I don't believe that part either. Okay, another one then: Why I'm Going Back to Film Photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted August 27, 2011 Share #30 Posted August 27, 2011 An M9 is enticing more for the challenge of going digital though photographically since I prefer prints to viewing photos on the video screen I am still hesitent. I will probably upgrade my computer system to prepare for the future. As I have stated previously I have punted on this issue and will probably attempt to obtain a 6 bit coded Summilux, a lens that I have never used. Great choice, I'm sure you will be happy with the Summilux. As for digital. Don't overestimate what is needed computer-wise. While large RAW files will require decent computer hardware, there is way too much software out there. I have Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, and a whole suite of Nik Software plugins, all great stuff. But do you know what I use? Canon's free Digital Photo Professional RAW software. I only use the plugins if I want to digitally replicate some film. I think the most can be gained from going digital by keeping it simple. If you ever get an M9, just get the most basic software and use the power of the camera to get the best possible RAW files. I usually find that my RAW files need little or no work, most often I just compensate the exposure by 1/3 of a stop, or bump the saturation a bit, or some sharpening, just really little details I could easily skip. The software is only interesting if you are into heavy manipulation of images, which I think is an art form by itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piblondin Posted August 29, 2011 Share #31 Posted August 29, 2011 Everyone has a different perspective on this. My own is that I opted for an M7 because I prefer the experience of using it—its build quality, its quietness, the feel of the film advance and shutter release. For me, there is no camera that handles better, but that's me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.