AbbeyFoto Posted May 17, 2012 Share #41 Posted May 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because of all the great info that I'm getting here, I'm now even more at odds with what to get. I'm torn between M3, M6TTL and M7. I kind of feel that as a first film camera for me, should have the electronics of M7 and once film becomes second nature to me, maybe then I should go further back in time and get an M6 or M3. What do you guys think? Also, I don't want to start a film vs digital debate but how would you guys compare the digital M's with the film ones in terms of look and quality? I'm not talking about the grain cause that I'm clear about in terms of the film grain not being able to be replicated in digital. I ask here because you guys would obviously know best instead of some of the other forums. Thanks again for all the great info. Your original post seemed to be a response to the MM announcement and the ensuing discussions about B&W technique. It is clear that the MM will require going back to basics and building a technique to match the camera. Ansel Adams is back in fashion! I do wonder if spot meters will also see a revival. Given that I suggest by passing auto exposure. You can do that on a M7 but do buy carefully if you are going in that route. My vote would be for a M6 (TTL or not) or MP. Oh and don't forget the filters! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Hi AbbeyFoto, Take a look here Which Leica Film Camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
firststream Posted May 17, 2012 Share #42 Posted May 17, 2012 Another option for you then, just to confuse the decision even further. I like your idea of purchasing the M7 now, with the plan to obtain an M3 in the future. If you are seriously intent on that...get the .58 M7, not the .72. This is exactly my set-up (M3 and .58 M7). The 28mm lines on the .58 are magnificent (it is my favourite focal length), and the 50mm visualizes great. Truth is, the 135mm will not be used that much, although your shooting preferences may be different from mine on this factor. You'll have the two extremes of Leica viewfinders and it is something that works best for me. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornellfrancis Posted May 17, 2012 Share #43 Posted May 17, 2012 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornellfrancis Posted May 17, 2012 Share #44 Posted May 17, 2012 Because of all the great info that I'm getting here, I'm now even more at odds with what to get. I'm torn between M3, M6TTL and M7. I kind of feel that as a first film camera for me, should have the electronics of M7 and once film becomes second nature to me, maybe then I should go further back in time and get an M6 or M3. What do you guys think? Also, I don't want to start a film vs digital debate but how would you guys compare the digital M's with the film ones in terms of look and quality? I'm not talking about the grain cause that I'm clear about in terms of the film grain not being able to be replicated in digital. I ask here because you guys would obviously know best instead of some of the other forums. Thanks again for all the great info. I was like you. When I first started looking at leicas I thought the M7 was the obvious choice. It was the newest camera and had the aperture priority mode which I was accustomed to shooting. So I decided to take a trip up to tamarkin camera in CT to talk to Dan tamarkin about their used M7s. While I was there Dan showed me the M7s as well as M6s, TTLs and MP. Dan guided me and told me the real question was whether or not I needed AP mode. I was undecided but Dan suggested that I give the TTL a try. It still had a meter in it which would possibly make things a bit easier for me. To be honest I was very excited about my purchase, but also slightly reluctant as I was not used to shooting in full manual mode. Well, after a couple weeks I realized that I had made the right choice. Shooting manually with the meter became second nature very quickly (especially since the TTL's shutter speed dial turn in the same direction as the arrows). For me at least, AP mode had become useless. In fact i think i got better results manually with the in-camera meter than i got with most AP shots with other cameras. With the fully mechanical cameras (Anything except for M7) you also don't need batteries to operate. There is a wonderful simplicity there. As I shot more and more with the TTL I decided I needed another body as I wanted to load one with B&W and one with color film. Obviously the first choice that popped into my head was another TTL. But I decided to do some further reading and research and talk to some more experienced folks. Many people recommended that I take a look at the legendary M3. Hmmmm M3, but that doesn't have a meter right? I mean how can you take any photos? Isn't it just a guessing game? But then something in my head told me I should give it a try. After all, many great photographers took many great images using that very meterless M3. Well long story short I found a nice single stroke M3 on eBay and bought myself a gossen digisix meter (based in the reccomendations of people on this forum) and I haven't looked back since. The M3 is a joy to use the finder is incredible and much easier to focus than my TTL. I thought that the lack of an in camera meter would make shooting difficult and cumbersome, on the contrary, I find that I shoot faster and focus more on the composition when I only have to meter once at the beginning and make adjustments as necessary. I love shooting the M3 so much that I'm considering replacing my TTL with another M3. I'm just an amateur hobbyist and in fact I only started on this Leica journey 6 months ago but feel free to take a look at some shots here (all shot with either the M6 TTL or M3) http://cornellfrancis.tumblr.com In the end you can't really go wrong. And you can sell these cameras fairly easily so don't be too fun shy. Best of luck to you. http://cornellfrancis.tumblr.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 17, 2012 Share #45 Posted May 17, 2012 i didn't go through the whole route that cornell did, perhaps because i started from a different place more than 40 years ago, but we ended up in the same spot with one exception. i looked at the m3 and decided on the m4 (a bit more difficult to find, not as many made) and believe the frame lines, viewfinder, etc are perfect FOR ME (caps because it is a personal rather than absolute judgement). the m4 is the last of the classically built leicas and was heavily used by photo journalists in vietnam, if that gives you a sense of their ruggedness and ease of use. i use the light meter app in my iphone, great camera and on many days i prefer it to the m9. just a feel in the hand type thing, nothing to do with the film vs digital issue, slows me down, the focus is on the shot. wouldn't give up the m9 for anything, but i do love that m4 -- a great camera with a great click when you press the shutter....mechanical poetry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted May 17, 2012 Share #46 Posted May 17, 2012 ... when you press the shutter....mechanical poetry. Thank you for this image. Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted May 17, 2012 Share #47 Posted May 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) +1 Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share #48 Posted May 17, 2012 So what are the main things that you prefer in these film M's (in terms of photos) over their digital counterparts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 17, 2012 Share #49 Posted May 17, 2012 Everything... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted May 17, 2012 Share #50 Posted May 17, 2012 Hey Bill, Welcome back! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 17, 2012 Share #51 Posted May 17, 2012 use one and you will see, and if you don't, no big deal, it just doesn't speak to you. sorry to be cryptic but you are asking for answer that is different for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share #52 Posted May 17, 2012 use one and you will see, and if you don't, no big deal, it just doesn't speak to you. sorry to be cryptic but you are asking for answer that is different for everyone. I'm sure you're right about actually shooting film to,see for myself. I realize that the answer is different for everyone and that's why I asked. Id like to hear different people's opinions on why they prefer film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted May 17, 2012 Share #53 Posted May 17, 2012 Did you already check out the various threads that discussed this? I would say that they basically cover all facets of the matter. Even the older ones get regularly revived and are quite fun to go through. Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share #54 Posted May 18, 2012 If I want instant gratification with film, what is the best approach (without compromising on quality if that's possible)? What I mean by that is what films, slides, etc. I can just scan at home and upload into aperture for post processing without having to go through the dark room process or sending out to a lab for development? I saw a few older threads on this but since I have not been keeping up with film, I don't know if the info is out dated in terms of film availability, new techniques and or scanning equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornellfrancis Posted May 18, 2012 Share #55 Posted May 18, 2012 If I want instant gratification with film, what is the best approach (without compromising on quality if that's possible)? What I mean by that is what films, slides, etc. I can just scan at home and upload into aperture for post processing without having to go through the dark room process or sending out to a lab for development? I saw a few older threads on this but since I have not been keeping up with film, I don't know if the info is out dated in terms of film availability, new techniques and or scanning equipment. If you want instant gratification go with digital. What do you mean when you say you don't want to go through the darkroom process or send out to a lab for development (by the way you don't need a darkroom to develop film yourself). Film has to be developed. Otherwise there is no image. You either have to do it yourself or send it out... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 19, 2012 Share #56 Posted May 19, 2012 If I want instant gratification with film, what is the best approach (without compromising on quality if that's possible)? What I mean by that is what films, slides, etc. I can just scan at home and upload into aperture for post processing without having to go through the dark room process or sending out to a lab for development? ... You're restricted to Polaroid instant film that develops itself inside a specially designed camera and the colours in the pictures produced can be surprising. I'm not sure what you mean by compromising on quality but most people would place Polaroid instant film on the low end of a quality scale. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted May 19, 2012 Share #57 Posted May 19, 2012 Much depends on what you want to do with the images you produce. You can get a projector and project slides; a different experience than viewing digital images onscreen. You can have prints made from your color neg film. You can develop and print your own B+W, or just develop the film then scan it. You can scan any film and then use it just like digital images, but beware: Scanning quality varies enormously, flatbed scanners do not perform as well as dedicated film scanners, and you may wish to have your films scanned professionally. Buying and developing film can be expensive, but if you are judicious, will still be a lot cheaper than getting an MM. Most people agree film and digital have different "looks", characterized by contrast and the way highlights and shadows are recorded. It's hard to say one look is better than the other; it's just different. You can use software to replicate the look of film, up to a point, but why not try the original? Yes, color slide film has less latitude for exposure, but I find all exposures need to be accurate, even digital. Working with a handheld meter is obviously slower, but more accurate than always relying on a built-in meter. Perhaps have a think what kind of images you want to produce -- large landscapes with minimal grain, color or B+W, whether you like a grainy or grain-free look, portraits, city scapes? And whether you want slides, large or small prints, postcard prints, or are happy scanning and keeping digital copies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted May 19, 2012 Share #58 Posted May 19, 2012 I posted two pictures representing how I see film and digital here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/239051-b-w-film-digital.html For film I mostly use Ilford XP2 400 so far, it's developed and scanned in one hour at the store ($13) so the time is no different from digital. The scans from the store are 2.2MP but I'll do hi resolution scans as needed. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted May 19, 2012 Share #59 Posted May 19, 2012 If I want instant gratification with film, what is the best approach (without compromising on quality if that's possible)? What I mean by that is what films, slides, etc. I can just scan at home and upload into aperture for post processing without having to go through the dark room process or sending out to a lab for development? I saw a few older threads on this but since I have not been keeping up with film, I don't know if the info is out dated in terms of film availability, new techniques and or scanning equipment. Afraid you can't have the cake and eat it. Film must be necessarily developed. The easiest compromise is to shoot transparencies and have them developed at a serious and reliable lab that doesn't butcher them. That might take a couple days patience. For BW the way is one only, DIY, at least based on my personal experience. In my hometown I couldn't find any good and reliable labs as to BW treatment. Besides, one of the joys of BW are the endless combinations you can have between films, developers, speed push, speed pull, etc. Any lab will necessarily stick to THEIR own procedures and will hardly meet your requests if diverging from their standards. Furthermore a side effect of film vs digital is that it forces you to pauses, either when you have to change the roll and when you have to develop your films, which inevitably lead you to regroup and think better about what you're doing, hence favoring your consciousness. You lose the possibility to shoot 500 times in a row because you can do only 36 at a time so you have to make them count, especially when you feel the moment is coming and you already shot 35... Also waiting some time to see the results of what you did will help you to judge them with cooler mind. Quoting an old oriental proverb, it's only by patience that the orchard turns into jam. In any case just for the sake of precision I personally never gave up completely digital. I acknowledge its advantages - greater autonomy, immediate outcomes, instant switching speed, easier to share on the net. But shooting film is just different and put me in a different state of the mind. I feel that digital and film easily coexist and complement each other. Being an amateur myself which one to use is just a matter of mood and I like it. Hope this helps, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share #60 Posted May 19, 2012 If you want instant gratification go with digital. What do you mean when you say you don't want to go through the darkroom process or send out to a lab for development (by the way you don't need a darkroom to develop film yourself). Film has to be developed. Otherwise there is no image. You either have to do it yourself or send it out... Im sorry, I see now that what I wrote did not come out as intended. I fully understand that the film has to be developed. I was more trying to figure out if it made sense to get prints done by the lab or get the negs to scan and manipulate in computer and then either print yourself or outsource to someone like White Wall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.