Leica M is a film camera system

[ShivaYash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the M8 is a fine camera. I’m still using my example, purchased new about 11 years ago.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M9reno]

I think by 2054 all 35 mm film cameras will essentially be desk paperweights due to the lack of film or the lack of places to get film processed.

I think a seismic shift is currently underway and our generation and perhaps the one behind us will essentially be the last to use film and any mechanical camera.

I'd be happy to wager that, on the road to 2054, my M(240) is likely to end up in the bin many years sooner than my M3. Heck, to put things in perspective, there are many happy people around who are still playing with wet collodion - I mean all these years, while I sat in this forum moaning about my M9's sensor corrosion!

 

https://fstoppers.com/portraits/step-step-guide-wet-plate-photography-2540

[A miller]

With due respect, I also think that thesis of this thread is flawed and goes nowhere productive.

 

There is film and then there is digital.  Very different forms of expression at the highest level of output.

It is the rangefinder that is the common link between these two different forms. 

 

Invest heavily in a new Leica digital camera and you are probably someone who wants the best of the best.  For most of use, that craving can only be satisfied for so long with a single model of digital camera given the speed of evolution of the technology (i.e., after a few years, the model ceases to reign as the "best of the best").  So talk about how specific digital models won't outlast a film camera is really a skewed argument.  They are not supposed to.  But that's besides the point.

 

To try to make sense of the thesis, my interpretation of what the OP is trying to say would be that the Leica rangefinder mechanism is better suited for film rather than digital.  I happen to think that - around the edges - this is very true.  DOF on a film plane is greater than on a digital plane and the range of focus on a Leica lens will not translate accurately on a digital camera.  Adjustments need to be made, including the adjustment of one's disappointment at cliff-like fall off of focus plane compared to the smooth transition from in focus to OOF on a 3D film plane.  On film, the DOF scale on a lens will often be conservative given the smooth transition between in focus and OOF areas.  So the RF mechanism and film fit like a glove.  But the RF mechanism still suits the digital camera very well, as good as any manual focus feature of any other digital camera.  Properly aligned and adjusted, a RF mechanism on a digital will focus on the exact focal point that you tell it to.  And the DOF scale can be made to work better than just about any digital camera.  So for those who choose digital but want a RF experience, the Leica M is brilliant.  But relative to other digital cameras, not relative to the "ebony and ivory" pairing of film and a Leica M.

 

The thesis really comes down to film vs digital.   In my world, film wins on the merits every single time in every single category.   In the world of many others, the reality is the opposite.   There is sufficient polarization on this topic that it will never been settled.  Horses for courses...(with the film horses being much stronger, more beautiful and poetic in their stride and the film courses being much longer and more exciting.  )

 

Adam

[Mark II]

DOF on a film plane is greater than on a digital plane and the range of focus on a Leica lens will not translate accurately on a digital camera.  

 

DOF depends only on the aperture and the effective magnification (focal length and the size of the film/sensor). There should be no difference between film and digital.

 

Most film will be less sharp than digital - affected by grain, the developing chemicals/process, film thickness, and any uneven flatness of the film against the pressure plate. Because of this it tends to be more forgiving of minor focus errors or camera shake.

 

However, the grain can also give the illusion of more sharpness than there actually is. When looking at a photograph, it is often perceived as (false) detail rather than something degrading the image. This works very well in images with a lot of texture, such as areas of masonry, where the grain becomes perceptually indistinguishable from the viewer’s expectation of what should the scene should look like.

 

This might give the illusion of less DOF, but it is really a very different effect that will depend on the subject and on how grainy the film is...

[A miller]

DOF depends only on the aperture and the effective magnification (focal length and the size of the film/sensor). There should be no difference between film and digital.

 

Most film will be less sharp than digital - affected by grain, the developing chemicals/process, film thickness, and any uneven flatness of the film against the pressure plate. Because of this it tends to be more forgiving of minor focus errors or camera shake.

 

However, the grain can also give the illusion of more sharpness than there actually is. When looking at a photograph, it is often perceived as (false) detail rather than something degrading the image. This works very well in images with a lot of texture, such as areas of masonry, where the grain becomes perceptually indistinguishable from the viewer’s expectation of what should the scene should look like.

 

This might give the illusion of less DOF, but it is really a very different effect that will depend on the subject and on how grainy the film is...

 

It has been remarked numerous times on this forum that a flat digital sensor vs a three dimensional film plane are different and as a result the digital sensor will not match the DOF scale on the RF lens.  It will be about a stop off.  in other words, to achieve the DOF indicated at f4 you will need to stop down to f5.6.  

possibly not exactly a stop, but it will not match, whereas film will (and possibly give a little extra depth depending on your definition of sharpness. 

[pico]

Compared to film Ms, The M8 and M9 were clunky,

I cannot understand from where that impression arises. Clunky how? Exactly.

[…] to me there is something wonderful about exiting the endless digital upgrade cycle […] with the knowledge that my 1996 vintage M6 and my 1970s Summicrons and Elmarits will be making great images for the rest of my life.

You will be making great photo because you use a Leica? (fade in dreamy commercial music). May your life be as long as you can get film and processing (or DIY), and as it remains cost-effective, in the meantime I will sell short.

 

[m0n0]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I see this as well. I belong to a community darkroom and am always surprised at the number of teens and people in their early twenties who are there developing/scanning film and making prints. Other than making me feel old, it's good to see

 

The film vs. digital photography situation closely parallels that of the LP vs. digital music. The CD was supposed to be the death knell of the vinyl LP and, when it was first introduced in the '80s, it quickly signaled the death of it's analog predecessor. Analog pressing plants all but disappeared, vinyl sales feel through the floor, etc. But, just like film, vinyl had a significant resurgence. There are many more LPs being produced today than there were even 10 years ago and it has become quite a successful niche - and much of it driven by young music lovers.

 

As others have said, I don't foresee film ever being the dominant format again, but I do see it's use on the upswing and think it will be enough of a niche to remain viable for a long time to come.

And now it's the CD that's dead while vinyl lives on as a product valued for its analog properties. Digital has little use for particular physical forms. Similarly analog cameras will continue to be valued and used long after digital technology has replaced today's digital cameras with smartphones, smartwatches or whatever follows from them. The digital rangefinder and the digital SLR are, like desktop computers (as to analog typewriters) mere user interfaces, metaphors for the manipulation of their digital capabilities. The first generation mimics its analog predecessors rather literally. Subsequent ones develop other formats and interfaces and functions that eventually change the very practice. Speaking for myself, I like my digital M's because they're (imperfectly) continuous with my analog M's. In using them I am sticking with photography as a practice whose aesthetics (I typed 'canons' and my phone autocorrected to the brand name) were developed over a hundred years of film photography. I've no need for more .

 

Sent from my EVA-L29 using Tapatalk

[pico]

Digital has little use for particular physical forms.

 

What particular physical forms? Do you mean that digital is nondiscriminating regarding particulars, therefore opportunistic, omnivorous for better or worse?

Edited December 31, 2017 by pico

[m0n0]

What particular physical forms? Do you mean that digital is nondiscriminating regarding particulars, therefore opportunistic, omnivorous for better or worse?

Omnivorous ...Protean. More readily "upgraded", redesigned, miniaturised, cut into hybrid forms ( one of my cameras makes calls) . Their product cycles are driven by Moore's Law. Meanwhile, as mere analog beasts and social creatures our 'cycles' for forming any sort of craft tradition and collective memory around our tools and artefacts take a little longer. I'd like to work with media that don't "revolutionise" themselves (for whose benefit? Ours or the corporates?) every five years.

 

Whether it's for better or worse depends on what we are about.

I'm an amateur. I'm just struggling to take a decent photo. No, I don't want a computational camera on an automated drone to video it in 5k glory (why settle for the single moment when you can have the entire unfolding scene ) for me.

 

Sent from my EVA-L29 using Tapatalk

Edited December 31, 2017 by m0n0

[Nevik]

As a new owner of  my first ever M a M4 P i am agreeing with the general sentiment of the op. I dont see a M10 as a reason to be using digital. If I want the benefits of a top computerised camera I reach for my 1DX. It just does everything I ask of it, it nails the shot without a thought.

But thats it you dont have to put much of you into getting a picture, plus the more advanced digital gets the better film looks to me.I feel  that the goal of digital is just more of everything, more speed, more definition, more pixels, more colour, more more more.

Then I look at the pictures and images shot on film and they just look more.........beautiful.

So the next job I will be adding a roll or two of film.

[Mark II]

It has been remarked numerous times on this forum that a flat digital sensor vs a three dimensional film plane are different and as a result the digital sensor will not match the DOF scale on the RF lens.

 

That is not what I see, shooting both film and digital projects with the same lenses, nor what I would expect. A film image taken at f2 will look just the same as a digital image at f2. Most perceptual differences come down to the subject and the type of film (graininess and resolution).

 

What is true is that the calibration of the depth-of-field scale might well be chosen differently for film and digital, because the inherently higher resolution of digital might justifies a smaller circle of confusion and hence a narrower range on the DOF scale of the lens. However, the images will look the same at the same viewing size and you will not see a difference unless enlarging the digital image to an extent not possible with the (assumed lower resolution) film.

[pgk]

It has been remarked numerous times on this forum that a flat digital sensor vs a three dimensional film plane are different and as a result the digital sensor will not match the DOF scale on the RF lens.

 

DOF must be one of the most muddled up concepts in photography! Its physics. It can't vary. How we define or sample it can. The DOF scales on a lens are calculated according to an established perception of sharpness in a given sized print. It can't change. We can however redefine what we perceive as being a standard of 'sharpness' that a digital camera can deliver. Doing so isn't changing the DOF scales, its changing our interpretation of what we understand is 'sharp' so the scales can no longer be utilised because we can't alter them to take into account our revised interpretation of DOF.

[A miller]

I think the (i) 3D nature of the film plane and (ii) (where applicable) the grain of film provides a generally smoother transition between in focus and OOF areas. Call it perception or a fact, i got a B in physics. This is my humble experience.

 

My MM was so sensitive to RF misalignment that in the year i had it i had to have it adjusted 3 times. On a film M i probably wouldnt have noticed the misalignment. I have 4 film Leicas, 2 Hassys and a 1958 Linhof all of which I use regularly and it is probably the case that all of these cameras are not perfectly aligned. But i dont notice given the much broader range of tolerance!

[A miller]

An article discussing the inaccuracy of the DOF scale of a RF lens on a digital sensor, citing "circle of confusion" differences etc...

 

http://www.artfx.fr/en/depth-of-field-and-digital-sensors/

 

 

 

Here's an excerpt: 

depth of field scale on an optical rangefinder

 

 

 

     The depth of field scales engraved on the lenses are handled with care: They are often calculated with the value of a circle of confusion which isn’t adapted to digital cameras. Leica, for example, they are calculated with a value of 25µm, completely valid in film but totally irrelevant if you put your lenses on a M8 or a M9! On a M8 or M9, the size of the photosites are 7µm, multiplied by 1.5 this gives 10.5µm for a realistic circle of confusion! The depth of field scales engraved on the lenses are therefore largely overestimated when using lenses on digital cameras

Edited January 3, 2018 by A miller

[105012]

I think the most relevant DoF scale would be one related to ones typical display or print standard. So one might for example typically print on 20x30cm paper or 8x10 inch or display at web resolution or on a 27 inch display etc. There exist both film and sensors which can easily out resolve the CoC used to calculate the DoF scales on Leica lenses, but this scale is likely to be quite reasonable for ones typical output size. Zooming in to 100% pixels on a display is, I would suggest, an atypical way to view a picture.

[Mark II]

I think the (i) 3D nature of the film plane and (ii) (where applicable) the grain of film provides a generally smoother transition between in focus and OOF areas.

I think there is some confusion in terminology...

 

The DOF does not change based on the medium, only the definition of what a viewer might consider “sharp enough” (because digital tends to be higher resolving). If you had a sensor/film with infinite resolution and a perfect lens, you could argue that the DOF scale on the lens would need to be infinitely narrow - yet at normal viewing distances the images would look the same.

 

The only effect of any thickness to the film emulsion would be to slightly blur the image - but I do not think this is significant with most films. Even with a slowish film like Delta 100, on my scans it looks as if the resolution is mainly limited by the grain (or, if I am more brutally honest, the flatness of the film when scanning...)

 

BTW, digital sensors are also not flat - the photo sites have a 3D structure that can cause interesting interactions with shallow ray angles. This is most obvious with the corner colour shifts when using wide-angle lenses, and reduced sensitivity effects that mean that hyper-fast lenses are not always as efficient as you might expect. There must be some analogues to these effects with film, although it is not something I have ever lost sleep about :-)

[pgk]

An article discussing the inaccuracy of the DOF scale of a RF lens on a digital sensor, citing "circle of confusion" differences etc...

 

http://www.artfx.fr/en/depth-of-field-and-digital-sensors/

 

Here's an excerpt: 

 

    The depth of field scales engraved on the lenses are handled with care: They are often calculated with the value of a circle of confusion which isn’t adapted to digital cameras. Leica, for example, they are calculated with a value of 25µm, completely valid in film but totally irrelevant if you put your lenses on a M8 or a M9! On a M8 or M9, the size of the photosites are 7µm, multiplied by 1.5 this gives 10.5µm for a realistic circle of confusion! The depth of field scales engraved on the lenses are therefore largely overestimated when using lenses on digital cameras

 

If I may say so, this is a classic of the confusion associated with DOF. If you engrave any DOF scale on a lens it will only be valid for one set of parameters (usually signified by a specific circle of confusion - CoC). The DOF scales are intended for use with film cameras and a specific CoC. They are NOT overestimated; they are simply inappropriate for use with a redefined CoC. Think about it this way: Leica have, and still do, built RF film cameras for which their older lenses had a relevant DOF scale engraved. So it makes perfect sense to retain this DOF scale as changing it would lead to confusion. So its NOT an overestimate at all - its simply as relevant as its always been; to film cameras. The alternative would be to do away with the DOF scale which would then impact negatively on film users.

 

Perhaps this thread should be renamed: Leica is a camera system which uses lenses with film DOF scales .

Edited January 3, 2018 by pgk

[Gregm61]

Meanwhile, I've been watching what Leica has been up to along the way. Compared to film Ms, The M8 and M9 were clunky, and the M240 seemed like a bit of a beast, though Leica was making progress. In late 2015, I tried out an M262, and decided to go for it. I liked that camera a lot, and made quite a few pictures that I really like with it. When the Fuji X-Pro2 came out, however, I felt that the M240 generation had been outclassed. The Fuji's image quality was as good, the high ISO performance was better, it was more versatile and more productive in fast-changing dynamic situations, the user experience was pleasantly Leica-like (in terms of compactness, weight, and handling), and I could justify buying two bodies simultaneously while planning to upgrade to their eventual replacement without losing several thousand dollars in the process. Given that a Leica M was never going to cover the majority of my particular needs, it was silly to consider buying two M10s – no matter how excellent – and then eventually follow up with two new M11s after the M10s had lost 50% of their value. Given the excellent Fuji option, Leica was off the table as a long-term solution for digital work.

 

 

The M262 does what a Leica digital rangefinder should do.....gives the user both the rangefinder user experience and provides high quality digital still files and a very nice 24 megapixel resolution. No 4K video, no live view, no anything else included in other cameras like the Fuji system you wound up buying into. There's no REAL REASON to upgrade from an M262 if your goal is just digital still images until the day Leica substantially increases the resolution, which the M10 does not do. That you even think "upgrade to an M10" means you've fallen into the digital mindset.

 

If you buy a digital camera to use for a long period of time, why care what the value is in a year or two, much less 5 or 6 years? Again, digital mindset. In that same period of time a film Leica user will spend lots of costs in related film and development/printing/scanning. To me, the M262 or any other digital camera is an "all-in-one" camera. You are paying for the camera and years worth of film and development costs, and if you keep and use it, I don't doubt 5-7 years use more than makes up for the cost of running a similar amount of film through an M6 would have cost, plus the price of the M6 itself.

 

As far as the Leica digital M not being as versatile as any other camera, much less the Fuji? Well.....duh, LOL....when was that ever not the case comparing a rangefinder camera to an SLR, film or digital? One didn't buy an M6 in the 1980's because it was more versatile than a Nikon F3 or Canon F1. There's nothing new about that comment going back 50 years now. Most Leica users probably have something similar for when it's needed like I have an Olympus E-M1 Mark II outfit, but the Leica M262 gets way more use because I like the rangefinder way of taking pictures.

 

There are digital rangefinder users and everyone else. You obviously fall into the later category as most do. It's obviously a niche Leica has no problem working around.

[jaapv]

If I may say so, this is a classic of the confusion associated with DOF. If you engrave any DOF scale on a lens it will only be valid for one set of parameters (usually signified by a specific circle of confusion - CoC). The DOF scales are intended for use with film cameras and a specific CoC. They are NOT overestimated; they are simply inappropriate for use with a redefined CoC. Think about it this way: Leica have, and still do, built RF film cameras for which their older lenses had a relevant DOF scale engraved. So it makes perfect sense to retain this DOF scale as changing it would lead to confusion. So its NOT an overestimate at all - its simply as relevant as its always been; to film cameras. The alternative would be to do away with the DOF scale which would then impact negatively on film users.

 

Perhaps this thread should be renamed: Leica is a camera system which uses lenses with film DOF scales .

 

 

Not quite - they are not overestimated IF: you use 1930-ies thick-emulsion  film and print you photographs to the -then usual- 6x9 cm size. For all more contemporary use they are rather optimistic...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Not quite - they are not overestimated IF: you use 1930-ies thick-emulsion  film and print you photographs to the -then usual- 6x9 cm size. For all more contemporary use they are rather optimistic...

 

Ahhh yes. The joy of legacy systems .