Q or M

[Robert M Poole]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now it does. Weird. On first click, I got a 404.

 

As far as sharpness goes, all I can say "wow!" Although it's easier to focus with Summarits, I'm still impressed considering it's your first time using a rangefinder (if I understood you correctly). Can you tell me more as to which focusing technique you used: patch or zone or sheer luck? I'm genuinely curious as I've never used a rangefinder before either. Thanks.

My first time using a Leica RF. Though I do have an Olympus 35sp that I've put two rolls of film through so I am a newbie.

 

Patch focusing on most of them. These are just the keepers, there were a few less good pics too. I thought the focusing was very easy.

[Advertisement]

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

[Joshua Lowe]

The thought of switching from an M240 to a 35mm film M body with a Q has crossed my mind several times.

[Peter Kilmister]

The thought of switching from an M240 to a 35mm film M body with a Q has crossed my mind several times.

Going back to film hasn't crossed my mind once until you mentioned it. Hopefully it won't happen again.

 

Unless you are an analogue freak, the benefits of digital photography are enormous. Film was great in its day. It has been surpassed because the results are instantaneous compared with processing in a darkroom with all those chemicals ... or sending the film away for processing. Slides were much better but then you needed a projector, a screen, and a darkened room.

 

Be practical and move into the 21st century.

[Mornnb]

Going back to film hasn't crossed my mind once until you mentioned it. Hopefully it won't happen again.

 

Unless you are an analogue freak, the benefits of digital photography are enormous. Film was great in its day. It has been surpassed because the results are instantaneous compared with processing in a darkroom with all those chemicals ... or sending the film away for processing. Slides were much better but then you needed a projector, a screen, and a darkened room.

 

Just one of many advantages digital has.

Less noise, greater sensitivity to light, more resolution. The image quality standard digital provides is higher.

Another point is historic preservation, digital preservation does not degrade over time in the way film and prints do, ones and zeros stay ones and zeros.

[colint544]

I bought an M Monochrom in August 2012, and was thrilled with the results I got with it. The detail, the sharpness, the low light performance. I've shot so many pictures with that camera, and I still love it. But lately I've drifted back to shooting black and white film, on my M2 and M5. I've come to realise that I actually prefer the results film gives, especially in good to reasonable light. You don't get the problem of highlights sharply dropping off a cliff to a zero value. There might be less razor sharpness to the images, but there's more warmth, tonality - dare I say it - atmosphere to the images. Particularly when they're printed on fibre-based paper.

 

The MM still has a place in my life, but it's mostly relegated to real low-light work now. Sure, shooting film is more hassle, but it's worth it to me. Film and digital can quite happily co-exist, and I can completely see the appeal of having a Leica Q to use alongside a film M. In fact, I'd be happy to have that exact combo myself.

 

As for digital ones and zeros standing the test of time better than film, that hasn't been my experience. Great care must be taken keeping digital files stored on the latest devices. You need to constantly transfer them to the newest media. I've lost scores of digital images from the early 2000s because I foolishly thought that storing them on optical discs and Zip drives was sufficient. Most images were unretrievable ten years later. My negatives, some dating back to the late 1970s, I filed away in ring-binders. They're all fine, and can be wet printed or scanned right into the future. And fibre-based prints, if properly fixed, simply won't ever fade.

 

Here is a link (below) to some shots I took in 2008, on a camping trip with some friends. You need to click the "open in tumblr" button to see them properly. It was in Glen Etive, in Scotland. They were all shot on an M6, loaded with Tri-X film. A 50mm and a 21 mm lens. These are low-res JPEG scans from Snappy Snaps. But, try as I might, I just can't seem to get that sort of atmosphere, that timeless look into my MM shots.

 

Best wishes, all,

 

Colin

 

http://colintempleton.tumblr.com/post/111686771329/colin-templeton

[ramosa]

Going back to film hasn't crossed my mind once until you mentioned it. Hopefully it won't happen again.

 

Unless you are an analogue freak, the benefits of digital photography are enormous. Film was great in its day. It has been surpassed because the results are instantaneous compared with processing in a darkroom with all those chemicals ... or sending the film away for processing. Slides were much better but then you needed a projector, a screen, and a darkened room.

 

Be practical and move into the 21st century.

 

While some may need "instantaneous," some of us (myself included) do not. And what fun is practicality? (Just joking a bit on this one, but not completely.) And--no--I'm not an "analog freak," as I have used--and do use--both film and digital (including in the RF version). Both have benefits. That said, I am quite intrigued by what digitals Leica will bring out in the next year, especially if they return the upcoming M to M6 or, at least, M9 size and weight. I do love what I'm seeing from the Q sensor (but a 28mm fixed lens would not be an option for me). As one who wants Leica not only to survive, but also thrive, it'd great to see folks loving this camera so much. It makes me much more hopeful about Leica's future than where I stood a year ago.

[Alan Aurmont]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought an M Monochrom in August 2012, and was thrilled with the results I got with it. The detail, the sharpness, the low light performance. I've shot so many pictures with that camera, and I still love it. But lately I've drifted back to shooting black and white film, on my M2 and M5. I've come to realise that I actually prefer the results film gives, especially in good to reasonable light. You don't get the problem of highlights sharply dropping off a cliff to a zero value. There might be less razor sharpness to the images, but there's more warmth, tonality - dare I say it - atmosphere to the images. Particularly when they're printed on fibre-based paper.

 

The MM still has a place in my life, but it's mostly relegated to real low-light work now. Sure, shooting film is more hassle, but it's worth it to me. Film and digital can quite happily co-exist, and I can completely see the appeal of having a Leica Q to use alongside a film M. In fact, I'd be happy to have that exact combo myself.

 

As for digital ones and zeros standing the test of time better than film, that hasn't been my experience. Great care must be taken keeping digital files stored on the latest devices. You need to constantly transfer them to the newest media. I've lost scores of digital images from the early 2000s because I foolishly thought that storing them on optical discs and Zip drives was sufficient. Most images were unretrievable ten years later. My negatives, some dating back to the late 1970s, I filed away in ring-binders. They're all fine, and can be wet printed or scanned right into the future. And fibre-based prints, if properly fixed, simply won't ever fade.

 

Here is a link (below) to some shots I took in 2008, on a camping trip with some friends. You need to click the "open in tumblr" button to see them properly. It was in Glen Etive, in Scotland. They were all shot on an M6, loaded with Tri-X film. A 50mm and a 21 mm lens. These are low-res JPEG scans from Snappy Snaps. But, try as I might, I just can't seem to get that sort of atmosphere, that timeless look into my MM shots.

 

Best wishes, all,

 

Colin

 

http://colintempleton.tumblr.com/post/111686771329/colin-templeton

 

Simply stunning! Thanks for sharing.

[Prosophos]

I bought an M Monochrom in August 2012, and was thrilled with the results I got with it. The detail, the sharpness, the low light performance. I've shot so many pictures with that camera, and I still love it. But lately I've drifted back to shooting black and white film, on my M2 and M5. I've come to realise that I actually prefer the results film gives, especially in good to reasonable light. You don't get the problem of highlights sharply dropping off a cliff to a zero value. There might be less razor sharpness to the images, but there's more warmth, tonality - dare I say it - atmosphere to the images. Particularly when they're printed on fibre-based paper.

 

The MM still has a place in my life, but it's mostly relegated to real low-light work now. Sure, shooting film is more hassle, but it's worth it to me. Film and digital can quite happily co-exist, and I can completely see the appeal of having a Leica Q to use alongside a film M. In fact, I'd be happy to have that exact combo myself.

 

As for digital ones and zeros standing the test of time better than film, that hasn't been my experience. Great care must be taken keeping digital files stored on the latest devices. You need to constantly transfer them to the newest media. I've lost scores of digital images from the early 2000s because I foolishly thought that storing them on optical discs and Zip drives was sufficient. Most images were unretrievable ten years later. My negatives, some dating back to the late 1970s, I filed away in ring-binders. They're all fine, and can be wet printed or scanned right into the future. And fibre-based prints, if properly fixed, simply won't ever fade.

 

Here is a link (below) to some shots I took in 2008, on a camping trip with some friends. You need to click the "open in tumblr" button to see them properly. It was in Glen Etive, in Scotland. They were all shot on an M6, loaded with Tri-X film. A 50mm and a 21 mm lens. These are low-res JPEG scans from Snappy Snaps. But, try as I might, I just can't seem to get that sort of atmosphere, that timeless look into my MM shots.

 

Best wishes, all,

 

Colin

 

http://colintempleton.tumblr.com/post/111686771329/colin-templeton

 

This has been my experience too.

 

By the way, your Glen Etive shots are lovely.

 

Peter.