Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital

[Lorenzo Lietti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

...I started with an M6 TTL, then got an M9, then finally an M3. Until you have used a late M3 you haven't experienced using silk to shoot with;-)...

 

 

I couldn't agree more

[Lorenzo Lietti]

I'm currently using an M240, however from time to time I start thinking about acquiring and using a film M (an M6 is currently on my watch list) but then the other half of me says don't be silly, the expense and extra effort to process and digitise negs or slides isn't worth it.

What are the pros and cons that I should seriously consider before hitting the buy key?

 

Any thoughts would be welcome to help with my decision making.

 

The comparison for me is classic cars...of course my 71 Alfa Romeo GTV will never keep up with a 2017 Lamborghini but what's unparalleled is the way I feel when I drive the Alfa, the materials used to build it, the sound it makes and the fact that all where slightly different with quirks that make them almost one of a kind. Yes my M3 DS is the Alfa Romeo GTV

[Advertisement]

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

[B-A-C]

I couldn't agree more

 

Does the MA or MP compare to the M3?  If not why not produce a camera of such quality today?

[Guest]

Two economic issues: huge development costs and tiny market size. Nikon has a fascinating article somewhere online on the difficulties and high costs of producing in 2005 a replica of their rangefinder SP model. It make for instructive reading of what it would take to produce an M3 today.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited January 13, 2017 by Guest

[250swb]

Does the MA or MP compare to the M3?  If not why not produce a camera of such quality today?

 

The perceived quality of the M3 is an illusion, it is more delicate than a modern MP, it is less complex than a modern MP, the materials used for the components wear more than a modern MP, it is less useful than a modern MP. But in the warm glow of nostalgia an M3 will always win, but it shouldn't be confused with design quality.

[Guest]

I take it you've used an M3. Compared to my M6 that has an MP 0.85x viewfinder, I like the M3 viewfinder much better — particularly because the viewfinder has a blue cast while the focusing rectangle has a yellow cast, which makes focusing easier and faster, particularly when shooting in low light. Also, the film advance is smoother, but that doesn't matter much to me.

 

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All this talk of silky smooth mechanisms, like nylons on a freshly shaven female leg, makes me think all the more how nice an all mechanical M would be, to hold to click and wind on - and that's before bothering to load film.

[Steve Ricoh]

I've been looking at the price of film - maybe I should have started by looking at cost before hand - it's eye wateringly expensive in the uk. Even expired film on eBay is expensive.

 

To reduce the unit cost, the only way around it, as far as I can see, is to buy in bulk, in 30m reels (approx) and do DIY cassettes.

[LocalHero1953]

Stick with digital - the marginal cost is zilch!

[wattsy]

I've been looking at the price of film - maybe I should have started by looking at cost before hand - it's eye wateringly expensive in the uk.

 

 

You can buy AgfaVista 200 (a rebranded Fujifilm) for £1 a roll in Poundland (albeit 24 exposure rolls). It's good film and I like it as much as Portra 160 which is £29 for 5 rolls (which IMO is not eye-wateringly expensive either). I pay £4 a roll (36 exposures) for T-max 100, £4.50 for T-max 400 and £5 for Tri-X. Taking inflation into account, I don't believe that these prices are more expensive than the cost 20 years ago.

 

Even film which is probably now more expensive – E6 film is one example, maybe top end C41 too – is only a bit more expensive than the comparative cost of film during its heyday (it's not even twice the price). But consider, £8 for a roll of Portra 400 is the price of three take away coffees or a couple of pints of beer (if you are lucky). From that roll you may end up with one or two keepers that will be valuable long after those drinks have been drunk. I know which I'd rather have spent the money on.

Edited January 13, 2017 by wattsy

[Mute-on]

Stick with digital - the marginal cost is zilch!

True. It's the eye watering capex that sinks the boat

[wattsy]

The perceived quality of the M3 is an illusion, it is more delicate than a modern MP, it is less complex than a modern MP, the materials used for the components wear more than a modern MP, it is less useful than a modern MP. But in the warm glow of nostalgia an M3 will always win, but it shouldn't be confused with design quality.

 

I take it you've used an M3. Compared to my M6 that has an MP 0.85x viewfinder, I like the M3 viewfinder much better — particularly because the viewfinder has a blue cast while the focusing rectangle has a yellow cast, which makes focusing easier and faster, particularly when shooting in low light. Also, the film advance is smoother, but that doesn't matter much to me.

 

 

 

Spats like this about which camera is better (which are really about whose camera is better) are IMO pretty tiresome and don't lead anywhere useful. It's best to like what you have and not worry about what anything else thinks.

 

That said, the internet wisdom that the M3 is some kind of hand built jewel does seem a little overdone to me. Leica built around 20,000 of these per year which makes it a pretty mass produced product by most standards – it's not exactly a Fabergé egg.

Edited January 13, 2017 by wattsy

[Frase]

The perceived quality of the M3 is an illusion, it is more delicate than a modern MP, it is less complex than a modern MP, the materials used for the components wear more than a modern MP, it is less useful than a modern MP. But in the warm glow of nostalgia an M3 will always win, but it shouldn't be confused with design quality.

I'm not sure I would agree with that especially the delicate part. There is still an awful lot of M3 around that are working perfect, much easier to get a perfect M3 than a perfect Nikon F.

Having owned both in the past I enjoyed them both.

[Doc Henry]

Spats like this about which camera is better (which are really about whose camera is better) are IMO pretty tiresome and don't lead anywhere useful. It's best to like what you have and not worry about what anything else thinks.

 

That said, the internet wisdom that the M3 is some kind of hand built jewel does seem a little overdone to me. Leica built around 20,000 of these per year which makes it a pretty mass produced product by most standards – it's not exactly a Fabergé egg.

 

Ian , I agree , M3 a solid construction I say Yes !

https://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm

The equivalent in 2017 ? Yes M-A

Best

Henry

Edited January 13, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Wayne]

I would say the question is kind of akin to the question: Is there any benefit to riding a horse, compared to driving a car? Both get you from one point to another; but the trips will be vastly different. In terms of convenience and production, digital offers advantages that film cannot answer. In terms related solely to esthetics, film may have some advantages digital cannot answer. I see benefits to using film; but I think they are related entirely to me, rather than to camera, film, or sensor.

 

I am on a film binge for over a month now. Meanwhile, digital cameras are sitting unused as I cannot bring myself to choose them over the film cameras when I head out the door. Right now, I prefer walking around, shooting at things I choose, and developing the film when I get home. The anticipation, sometimes followed by disappointment, is a big thing right now. I can not explain it. All I know is that I find it to be a benefit to my life.........The digital process does not include it.

 

However, come August, and my daughter's wedding, you can bet that I will have one of the digital Leicas along.

 

Right now, were it practical to ride a horse and leave the car in the garage, I would be spending quite a bit less on gasoline.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Wayne

[earleygallery]

I owned the M3, I didn't like it. I now have an M2 which is great.

 

I prefer the lllf most though.

 

Go figure.

[Doc Henry]

I would say the question is kind of akin to the question: Is there any benefit to riding a horse, compared to driving a car? Both get you from one point to another; but the trips will be vastly different. In terms of convenience and production, digital offers advantages that film cannot answer. In terms related solely to esthetics, film may have some advantages digital cannot answer. I see benefits to using film; but I think they are related entirely to me, rather than to camera, film, or sensor.

 

I am on a film binge for over a month now. Meanwhile, digital cameras are sitting unused as I cannot bring myself to choose them over the film cameras when I head out the door. Right now, I prefer walking around, shooting at things I choose, and developing the film when I get home. The anticipation, sometimes followed by disappointment, is a big thing right now. I can not explain it. All I know is that I find it to be a benefit to my life.........The digital process does not include it.

 

However, come August, and my daughter's wedding, you can bet that I will have one of the digital Leicas along.

 

Right now, were it practical to ride a horse and leave the car in the garage, I would be spending quite a bit less on gasoline.

 

Wayne for my last wedding all my photos are in film , only a few in digital

Why ? the married prefer film in comparison with pictures taken by a prof with his Canon 5DII

I'll post a picture here if you like

Best

Henry

Edited January 13, 2017 by Doc Henry

[honcho]

One benefit of using only a film Leica is that you'll be spared life-wasting 'discussions' about the next digital Leica M.  Frees up valuable time to be a photographer.

[Jaybob]

I keep water spots and dust off of my b&w and c-41 negs by using a salad spinner after stabilization or photo-flo bath.  I also have one of those plastic zip up drying cabinets and a JOBO TBE2 tempering box.

 

The new CineStill CS-41 chems are super easy.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Wayne]

Wayne for my last wedding all my photos are in film , only a few in digital

Why ? the married prefer film in comparison with pictures taken by a prof with his Canon 5DII

I'll post a picture here if you like

Best

Henry

Thanks Henry, I would love to see such a photo. I will, of course, be taking film cameras a well. I will probably take the M9. I do love my MM1, but it is a camera that absolutely insists, at least in my amateur hands, on high contrast scenes in order to give up it's best. Add to this the fact that, again, for me, I have to shoot somewhat underexposed- when highlights are blown, it is forever- with MM1; I am not confident that my level of skill with the camera makes it a safe/wise choice for such an important event.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Wayne