M240 or Film Leica?

[corallus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got the Leica bug after I'd already moved back in the film direction.  Now I shoot with an early double stroke M3 (which I love by the way) and a brand new MP (which I'm starting to enjoy but not as much as the M3 yet).

 

I was always overwhelmed by the volume of shots I'd take when I was using a digital camera.  The bigger the memory card, the more shots I'd take.  Many of those shots were duplicates for all intents and purposes because I could always just take another one or two in case I wasn't completely steady or something.

 

I'd get home, though, and found myself depressed at the amount of sorting and comparing I would have to do.  Kinda took the creative fun out of it for me.  Now if you shoot 100 rolls - you could be in the same situation.  But that volume would be rare with film shooters.  

 

Film forces me to slow down, so I take fewer shots, and with less bracketing and duplication.

 

If I'm going out to shoot, I usually take 2-3 rolls of film with me - usually a combination of Fuji Neopan Acros 100 for daytime stuff and Ilford HP5+ 400 for low light and pushing.  When I shoot color it's Ektar.  When I come home, I slip into the studio, load those 2-3 rolls onto reels in a dark bag and process the film.  From start to finish it's usually 20-30 minutes of processing work in a Paterson tank or in a Jobo CPP3 and my negatives are done and drying.

 

Not long after that I'm scanning in the negatives and I've got anywhere from 50-75 shots to evaluate.  For those I want to keep / share / print I'll do some post processing in photoshop - mostly just some spotting, a contrast adjustment and a tad bit of sharpening.  Realistically - I'm usually post processing between 15-20 shots.

 

So for me anyway (I recognize this may be different for others)....I find that even with the film development step I'm saving time compared to what I used to do with digital.  

 

If I were to feel the need to go the other direction to digital, I'd need to find a way to force myself to slow down and limit the number of shots I took.  If i were to go digital leica - I'd probably do the MD with a smallish memory card.  But that's just me.

 

Regards.

 

 

[Bill Livingston]

While I completely understand the point you are making (a point others have made over the years too), I really find it hard to fully grasp why shooting in either digital or analogue format should change your shooting style so fundamentally...?

 

I don't even see why not having a screen can be seen as an advantage either.

 

It seems to me to be more nostalgia than real preference... a feeling that things were more 'substantial' and 'worthy' in the past and a craving to return to those halcyon days, ironically, often more so by people who never actually experienced them!

 

Well, like many of you, I lived in the past. I can tell you now, those days were no different from today... and people were having those same discussions back then..!

 

I used analogue cameras through the sixties and onwards, from Instamtics through to Pentax Spotmatic F's and then later Nikon F2's, eventually changing over to digital via a Nikon DSLR... and now use a M-P 240

 

I honestly can say that my shooting style and rate hasn't changed one little bit, I don't use my M 240 P any differently to when I used my Spotmatic F.

 

So I absolutely don't feel the need to buy a camera with no video, screen, live view or EVF capability... and I certainly wouldn't criticise the camera for having those capabilities... I just use those functions when needed and get on with the process of taking photos just as I always did.

 

I often come home with no additional frames to process... and sometimes I come back with sixty or seventy... of which, if I'm really honest, maybe two or three are worthwhile on a good day. About the same as when I used film every day.

 

But then I am very selective with my own stuff, always have been. I believe it's the choices you make both in the initial shot itself and then in selection and editing that determine what kind of photographer you are and what your particular style is...

 

So for me, a digital M camera is PRECISELY the same as an analogue M camera in use and practice.

 

Which is probably why my M240P is the perfect camera for how I live today...

 

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!

[pop]

.... I don't even see why not having a screen can be seen as an advantage either. .....

Having or not having a screen is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to the people who like the screenless digital Leicas, I suspect. It is merely irrelevant. The advantages of those cameras lie somewhere else. Call it the reduced instruction set of the camera. No controls to fiddle with. No settings to change inadvertently or by some glitches of the camera. Fewer options to choose from.

[corallus]

While I completely understand the point you are making (a point others have made over the years too), I really find it hard to fully grasp why shooting in either digital or analogue format should change your shooting style so fundamentally...?

 

I don't even see why not having a screen can be seen as an advantage either.

 

It seems to me to be more nostalgia than real preference... a feeling that things were more 'substantial' and 'worthy' in the past and a craving to return to those halcyon days, ironically, often more so by people who never actually experienced them!

 

Well, like many of you, I lived in the past. I can tell you now, those days were no different from today... and people were having those same discussions back then..!

 

I used analogue cameras through the sixties and onwards, from Instamtics through to Pentax Spotmatic F's and then later Nikon F2's, eventually changing over to digital via a Nikon DSLR... and now use a M-P 240

 

I honestly can say that my shooting style and rate hasn't changed one little bit, I don't use my M 240 P any differently to when I used my Spotmatic F.

 

So I absolutely don't feel the need to buy a camera with no video, screen, live view or EVF capability... and I certainly wouldn't criticise the camera for having those capabilities... I just use those functions when needed and get on with the process of taking photos just as I always did.

 

I often come home with no additional frames to process... and sometimes I come back with sixty or seventy... of which, if I'm really honest, maybe two or three are worthwhile on a good day. About the same as when I used film every day.

 

But then I am very selective with my own stuff, always have been. I believe it's the choices you make both in the initial shot itself and then in selection and editing that determine what kind of photographer you are and what your particular style is...

 

So for me, a digital M camera is PRECISELY the same as an analogue M camera in use and practice.

 

Which is probably why my M240P is the perfect camera for how I live today...

 

IMG_0227.JPG

 

I certainly wasn't criticizing digital or screens which I believe I made clear in my post.  I still use digital for some things.  For me the move back to film made sense given what I know about how I shoot and how I like to use my time in post production.  But that's just me.  The OP was asking opinions about going with a digital leica or a film leica.  I gave my opinion - which is neither right nor wrong for anyone but me.  

 

Regards.

[Paulus]

I shoot digital most of the time and film just for fun. Lately the fun is winning. In a few weeks it will be the other way around. Digital is for sharing. Film is for my own pleasure. Maybe I'm just rebelling against the " Sofort " camera?

[indergaard]

After years of owning the MM1, M9-P, and M240... Plus the following lenses: 50/1.4 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH FLE, 50/0.95 ASPH, 21/3.4 ASPH, 75/2 APO, 90/2.5 ... All of this is now sold, and I'm using a MP (film) and 35/2 ASPH... And I haven't been happier. I guess I was chasing the ultimate perfection and technical performance for a while, and then realized that the focus on the technical aspect of photography actually kills the fun of making pictures. I'm not a professional, I don't rely on huge prints of my snapshots.

 

So my recommendation would be to take a look at film. Be aware though, it's not gonna be the same. And once you get to grips with developing and scanning B&W film - it's hard - really hard - to go back to any kind of digital B&W again... The MM1 can come close, depending on your PP skills... And some times I do miss having the low-light flexibility of the MM... But then I look at my pictures, and realize that NONE of my pictures that were made at 3200+ ISO were actually very interesting...

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Was just in a workshop with David Alan Harvey. Through most of his career, he said he walked out the door with an M6, 35mm lens, and tri-x, and felt that was all that was necessary. Today, he shoots color with velvia 50 and a Mamiya 7 and digital with a Fuji (reminds him of an m6). Liked the MM and Q, felt the MM was too expensive. Remember too, his digital choices are commercial relationships as well ... to some extent that only he and his sponsor can truly define. Personally, after a week of shooting with a 240 I was very happy to get back to film. Yes, I agree, there is no rational reason why one's shooting style should be different with a digital camera vs a film camera. Then again, this argument can be expanded to any number of camera brands, film and/or digital, that can take a Leica lens, and yet we choose what we choose. It's all between the ears -)