M6 or Monochrom?

[andyedward]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The benefits you'd gain from trying film would far outweigh selling your M9 to finance an MM. Anyway, nobody but you can persuade yourself to try film. You either feel the need for film or you don't. Many people considering film are concerned that the "resolution" and dynamic range, etc, aren't as good as with digital, but they've missing the point.

 

Before I started photography, I knew I'd prefer the look and feel of film, but chose digital because I thought the learning curve would be quicker. Switching to film feels like I've come home, and I couldn't be happier with my brand new MP + 35 lux. I also have an R9 + 100/2,8.

 

I'm gradually buying all the darkroom equipment so I can go 100% analog. All the learning material and advice I need is out there, so all that's required is the time and energy

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

The benefits you'd gain from trying film would far outweigh selling your M9 to finance an MM. Anyway, nobody but you can persuade yourself to try film. You either feel the need for film or you don't. Many people considering film are concerned that the "resolution" and dynamic range, etc, aren't as good as with digital, but they've missing the point.

 

Before I started photography, I knew I'd prefer the look and feel of film, but chose digital because I thought the learning curve would be quicker. Switching to film feels like I've come home, and I couldn't be happier with my brand new MP + 35 lux. I also have an R9 + 100/2,8.

 

I'm gradually buying all the darkroom equipment so I can go 100% analog. All the learning material and advice I need is out there, so all that's required is the time and energy

 

Hi Andy

I do envy you the time. I was on the brink of buying an R9 a few weeks ago, but I realised that I simply don't have that kind of time.

 

My son on the other hand - had an M6 for a 30th birthday present from us, and a lovely enlarger from his partner - he now spends most of the time in his basement!

 

I suppose if I stopped this camera testing lark I'd have time to settle down with an MP and an R9 like you have

[01af]

I do envy you the time. [...] he now spends most of the time in his basement!

Yeah! Film is lovely ... but make sure you have the time (and inclination) to spend significant amounts of your life down in the basement.

[andyedward]

Hi Andy

I do envy you the time. I was on the brink of buying an R9 a few weeks ago, but I realised that I simply don't have that kind of time.

 

My son on the other hand - had an M6 for a 30th birthday present from us, and a lovely enlarger from his partner - he now spends most of the time in his basement!

 

I suppose if I stopped this camera testing lark I'd have time to settle down with an MP and an R9 like you have

 

How about just doing a couple of rolls and seeing how it goes?

 

Time? I'm a full time mental health student nurse, am currently studying for a three hour exam, and work part time!

[jonoslack]

How about just doing a couple of rolls and seeing how it goes?

 

Oh - done that - last year (with an M7) two years before (m6) . . . I do it periodically, but it always ends up in a pile of processed film and a big email inbox!

[jonoslack]

Yeah! Film is lovely ... but make sure you have the time (and inclination) to spend significant amounts of your life down in the basement.

 

Hi there

I don't have a basement - but you're right - I simply don't have the time for it.

I do have the time to get out and take photos, but not to process film. Sad, but true.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. sell m9, and go film

2. sell m9, get monochrom

3. keep m9 and be content. ISO1600 is plenty fine. If darker than that, remind myself to go to bed.

 

IMHO such decisions are meaningless without asking: What is your end goal? Print or monitor presentation?

[gniquil]

Both print and monitor.

 

I work in high tech, and contract work in web/mobile dev. Time is definitely something I don't have or rather wanna spend it in going out shooting.

 

So I guess it comes down to ease. And the point on improving with film is just self imposed. As for pros for film, it's more about the intangible quality of the film.

 

Incidentally I got my film back with an index sheet without scans. It cost me about $11 per roll. So total now $16/roll. If without index would be about $11/roll total. Anyway, it was scary. I haven't shot film since college, was worried about wrong exposure. But it came out ok. Overall a very exciting experience. Seeing photos in print is really different from seeing it in Lightroom. But then I guess printing in contact sheet style with my R3000 is probably a lot easier.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Speaking of (the scarcity of) time:

 

A friend who owns a bookshop explained me the other day what we buy when we buy books: we buy the illusion of having the time to read them...

 

In this very same mood, I ask myself if there is more than one reason for buying a book, because if there is only one, I would buy the the whole shelf...

[Guest borge]

I would advise you to check out the MM. It is a lovely camera, and it is the most analog digital camera I've ever tried.

 

I guess I do things the weird way: I shoot B&W with my MM which is digital. I shoot color with an old film camera. I rarely shoot color though (98% of my work is B&W) so for the few color shots that I make it is OK to pay for getting them properly developed, processed and scanned.

 

The advantage of this (for me) is: With color film I never have to worry about white-balance, color corrections, a color filter array (CFA) adding artifacts, sharpening, etc, etc, etc. I specifically choose a film that I like the output from and that's it.

 

The second advantage is that the MM's B&W files are extremely rich and quick and easy to process.

 

It is the workflow (for me) that requires the least amount of time from me to get my photographs processed and done for printing/publishing/etc.

[Riccis]

I am a film shooter but have been testing the Monochrom for the past week or so and like it a lot but still have to do some prints from the files. What I like the most about the Mono is the capability to shoot in low light with my lenses stopped down to get more depth of field, in my case, this is where the MM has the advantage over film.

 

Below are images from the MP and MM (not telling which is which ) and both look very nice to me. No pp done whatsoever other than a slight curve adjustment in the MM.

 

Cheers,

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!

[gniquil]

@Riccis

 

First one monochrom, 2nd MP?

 

Anyway, here are a few of mine... of course in B&W

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!

[Riccis]

@Riccis

 

First one monochrom, 2nd MP?

 

 

Correct

[Nick_S]

3. keep m9 and be content. ISO1600 is plenty fine. If darker than that, remind myself to go to bed.

Frank

Maybe go for option 3, supplemented by an M film body when you have funds so that you can experiment with both media. You can always sell the film body at a similar price further down the line.

 

However, don't underestimate the time it takes to scan film if you want to digitize a roll of film, rather than isolated images, (even with a fast scanner like the Nikon 5000ED which I use). My problem is finding a decent lab nearby to dunk my Ilford XP2 super films in.

 

Nick

[Peter H]

To my mind, though many of the shots people have posted above are beautiful, some are calling out for colour.

[Keith (M)]

Some of us hear and cannot resist the siren-call of film, others are tone deaf...

 

M7, MP, IIIg, Rolleicord, kitchen sink, Epson V700 (oh, and an M9).

[philipus]

Hi Frank

 

It's great you're considering film.

 

First, let's get the obvious out of the way:

 

No, shooting film does not make anyone a better photographer. Kim and other digital shooters who've "discovered" film are wrong. I'm not saying it's a bad thing they've discovered film - I think it is great that film gets attention these days. I see this as a simple question of choice of medium and one's preferences in terms of the desired look and the time and money one wants to spend.

 

Pico is right that it depends on what you want to do with the images. In this respect, I'm surprised, actually, that you're paying for for such expensive scanning for images that may be printed (mostly, as I understand you) at 8x11.

 

Let's imagine you get 4000$ for your M9. Buy an Epson V750 for 800$ - for your needs a very capable scanner (which even includes a fluid mount kit). The rest can be spent on film and development for 320 rolls. Buy Tri-X on 100ft bulk rolls (bulk loader <20$ on ebay) and cut costs further (or buy rebranded Tri-X - Arista Premium - for 2,89$ a roll if you don't want to bulk load). Btw, the Epson will let you scan all images as a contact sheet/index as well, saving you further money.

 

If you instead were to buy the Monochrom, you'd have to add the difference, which in the US would be an additional 3950$. This is, evidently, the equivalent of another 395 rolls fully developed.

 

I don't know how much film you'd shoot in a year, but I (as an active amateur) shoot about 100 rolls per year. Sounds little, perhaps. In any event, I'd, then, last for several years with 600-700 rolls.

 

Btw, I don't understand your idea about the OMD as well. An M6, which you probably know, is capable of colour photography. It's rather good at it, actually

 

Anyway - and this is the important bit - none of the above matters unless you want to use film for your photography. If you have made this decision, then the money and the time (within reason and according to your personal situation) won't matter.

 

Personally, I've chosen film and am happy with it. Nothing in the imagery I've seen from the M9, MM or the M convinces me that this is the right time for me to go digital.

 

Due to time constraints I have my film developed. Then I scan on my Coolscans (I have a V ED since about a decade (a frightfully capable scanner) and a 9000). It takes about one hour per roll (b/w about 40min, slides just over an hour), scanning and basic post-processing included. I don't find that to be too much. When I used my EOS 5D2 I spent pretty much the equivalent amount of time working on the much larger amount of photos I had at any given event taken, selecting images and processing those I selected.

 

Good luck

Philip

 

Ps. I'm not going to go into the technical debate of film vs digital but as for the "resolution" of film vs M9 you may wish to read Puts comments here.

[thighslapper]

I have boxes and boxes of prints, enldess folders of slides and cans and cans of negatives.....

 

It is impossible to find anything and I haven't looked at them for years.

 

At least with digital you can have several hundred thousand images at your fingertips in seconds and print off what you want.

 

I personally cannot see the sense in using film and then scanning the results into a computer. I've yet to see anything that indicates film B&W images are better then those produced by the MM...... different maybe, but not better ......

 

You need to decide whether you wish to don Victorian clothes, spend hours in the dark playing with chemicals, and adopt slowed down retro photography or not..... we are talking a lifestyle choice here rather than a technical decision

 

Anything inbetween sounds a bit unsatisfactory to me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

You need to decide whether you wish to don Victorian clothes, spend hours in the dark playing with chemicals, and adopt a slowed down retro lifestyle or not.....

 

Anything inbetween sounds a bit unsatisfactory to me.

 

I don't agree with your caricature of a workflow that includes film, nor do I agree at all that there is no sense "using film and then scanning the results into a computer" but I do share a dislike for boxes and sheets of transparencies, negs, etc. I know that it is possible to be properly organised but, for me, it never works out as planned and there is an undeniable attraction to having everything easily organised and accessible on a hard drive.

[tmldds]

I have boxes and boxes of prints, enldess folders of slides and cans and cans of negatives.....

 

It is impossible to find anything and I haven't looked at them for years.

 

At least with digital you can have several hundred thousand images at your fingertips in seconds and print off what you want.

 

I personally cannot see the sense in using film and then scanning the results into a computer. I've yet to see anything that indicates film B&W images are better then those produced by the MM...... different maybe, but not better ......

 

You need to decide whether you wish to don Victorian clothes, spend hours in the dark playing with chemicals, and adopt slowed down retro photography or not..... we are talking a lifestyle choice here rather than a technical decision

 

Anything inbetween sounds a bit unsatisfactory to me.

 

+1! I will even add, with the MM, you have the ability to change ISO instantly, a versatility that no film camera can claim. In addition, with SEP2, you can "simulate" as many film characters as you desire...