M9 vs old slide film from Yashica T4

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not to start film vs digital debate... I was scanning my old slides with higher resolution (3600 dpi, beyond that usefulness is questionable) and found two pictures taken from the same place 10 years apart. One using M9+28Cron ASPH in 2014 and older one using Ectachrome 200 on Yashica T4.

 

It was fun to compare both side by side and to my surprise, the slide scan was very close. I can guess that by up to A3 size print, I will not notice much difference. The photo is taken from Mt. Conness looking at the cluster of Conness Lakes. The water color in the higher lakes (closer, bigger ones) are due to silt in the water and I guess the color has changed from bluish to greenish in 10 years. BTW, these lakes will disappear as glaciers are receding every year.

 

In any case, here is the comparison.

 

Full frame (35mm FOV from Yashica vs 28mm FOV from M9)

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!

 

1:2 zoom

Edited May 6, 2018 by jmahto

[jmahto]

.. and finally 1:1 zoom

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[gbealnz]

A great comparison Jayant, thank you. There are way too many film/digital discussions that end up arguments for my liking. I shoot both and enjoy both. I also appreciate other peoples views, some won't touch digital and that's fine, others loathe film, too hard, and equally that's cool.

 

While not nit-picking (who me???) it would have been nice to have used something like the R series with an R lens for the film shot. But then again lenses have "evolved" in 10 years too. The T4 certainly holds it's own.

 

Great to see neither is head and shoulders above the other.

Gary

[pico]

•••••••••••••••••••

Both are crap, IMO. You could only judge slide film by looking on it.

And I'm both. Slide and M-E shooter.

So the intent of your response is to make you superior, and be rude to the OP.

Sleep it off and come back.

[lct]

I'm using currently this same T4's (or T5's?) Tessar 35/3.5 lens adapted by MS optical on my digital CL. What a great lens indeed. Reminds me of my all time favorite Elmar-M 50/2.8. From a hotel room with that combo, another crappy pic for our colleague above but no slide i'm afraid. And no M9 either so i'm totally OT here sorry folks.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by lct

[MarkP]

*************£££

Both are crap, IMO. You could only judge slide film by looking on it.

And I'm both. Slide and M-E shooter.

 

None of us object to constructive and robust criticism of our posts, photographs, and opinions. None of us would have objected to a comment criticising the limitations of this comparison (which I found interesting despite such a comparison having obvious limitations to which the OP implied and are obvious to all of us). This is highly inappropriate and offensive post to the OP.

 

I was initially going to report this post for removal. However, I think it speaks more about the person who posted it. So it should be kept here in perpetuity for all to see and judge for themselves as to who is the wanker masturbator.

 

Mark

Edited May 7, 2018 by jaapv

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A great comparison Jayant, thank you. There are way too many film/digital discussions that end up arguments for my liking. I shoot both and enjoy both. I also appreciate other peoples views, some won't touch digital and that's fine, others loathe film, too hard, and equally that's cool.

 

While not nit-picking (who me???) it would have been nice to have used something like the R series with an R lens for the film shot. But then again lenses have "evolved" in 10 years too. The T4 certainly holds it's own.

 

Great to see neither is head and shoulders above the other.

Gary

Yes, a "proper" film camera output would have been better comparison but I compared with what I had. T4 was a lovely companion for my hikes. Before I did this scan, I didn't know how good the results was.

[jmahto]

None of us object to constructive and robust criticism of our posts, photographs, and opinions. None of us would have objected to a comment criticising the limitations of this comparison (which I found interesting despite such a comparison having obvious limitations to which the OP implied and are obvious to all of us).  This is highly inappropriate and offensive post to the OP. 

 

I was initially going to report this post for removal. However, I think it speaks more about the person who posted it.  So it should be kept here in perpetuity for all to see and judge for themselves as to who is the wanker masturbator.

 

Mark

Thanks Mark, I chose to ignore it. It doesn't change anything what I wanted to express.

[jmahto]

I'm using currently this same T4's (or T5's?) Tessar 35/3.5 lens adapted by MS optical on my digital CL. What a great lens indeed. Reminds me of my all time favorite Elmar-M 50/2.8. From a hotel room with that combo, another crappy pic for our colleague above but no slide i'm afraid. And no M9 either so i'm totally OT here sorry folks.

 

How do you adapt T4's lens to other camera? My T4 is dead and if I could use that lens then it will be great!

[MarkP]

The Contax and Yashica T* Zeiss lenses are outstanding and hold their own against the Leica lenses. These Zeiss lenses are indeed very ‘proper’ lenses. I have a pair of Contax T3s.

Edited May 7, 2018 by MarkP

[lct]

How do you adapt T4's lens to other camera? My T4 is dead and if I could use that lens then it will be great!

 

Just bought the converted lens second hand on e**y. Conversion by MS Optical in Japan, now MS Optics IINW. I would ask Japan Camera Hunter: https://www.japancamerahunter.com/services/lens-conversion/

 

[mikemgb]

Thank you for posting these, a very interesting comparison. The scan is very good quality, what scanner are you using?

[Guest Nowhereman]

Thanks Mark, I chose to ignore it. It doesn't change anything what I wanted to express.

 

I would have done the same — there is no excuse for being offensive on these forums.

 

Substantively, though, I wonder about your conclusion that  "..to my surprise, the slide scan was very close. I can guess that by up to A3 size print, I will not notice much difference..." Presumably you are comparing an unprocessed SOOC digital image to a "mildly" processed scan (i.e., meaning whatever settings were in the scanning software).

 

My conclusions between shooting slides and digital are quite different, as I posted in this thread, where I wrote: the photo below made me think that its worthwhile to shoot transparency film occasionally: had I shot this with the M10, I would have underexposed by ⅔rds  of a stop and lifted the shadows enough to show some detail inside the doorway; but in the Ektachrome slide there is no detail in the deep shadow — and there's the rapid fallout of light in the top-right of the frame, under the roof of the verandah we're standing on. This dark area is what accentuates the color of the shot. Color negative film would, in this shot, also not have the same look. So, shooting this with the M10, you would to have to be very conscious of wanting this light fall-off. My feeling is that if you shoot and scan transparency film occasionally, you can keep this look in mind much more easily when you process a digital shot.  

 

M6 | Summicron 35v4 | Ektachrome E100S

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Nowhereman Instagram

Edited May 7, 2018 by Nowhereman

[jmahto]

Thank you for posting these, a very interesting comparison. The scan is very good quality, what scanner are you using?

I used Plustek's OptiFilm 8100. Before that I used to scan by shooting with DSLR which is faster and generally of ok quality but this scanner gave me better results than that (specially accessing shadow areas in the slide, not in this example but in others).

[jmahto]

I would have done the same — there is no excuse for being offensive on these forums.

 

Substantively, though, I wonder about your conclusion that  "..to my surprise, the slide scan was very close. I can guess that by up to A3 size print, I will not notice much difference..." Presumably you are comparing an unprocessed SOOC digital image to a "mildly" processed scan (i.e., meaning whatever settings were in the scanning software).

 

My conclusions between shooting slides and digital are quite different, as I posted in this thread, where I wrote: the photo below made me think that its worthwhile to shoot transparency film occasionally: had I shot this with the M10, I would have underexposed by ⅔rds  of a stop and lifted the shadows enough to show some detail inside the doorway; but in the Ektachrome slide there is no detail in the deep shadow — and there's the rapid fallout of light in the top-right of the frame, under the roof of the verandah we're standing on. This dark area is what accentuates the color of the shot. Color negative film would, in this shot, also not have the same look. So, shooting this with the M10, you would to have to be very conscious of wanting this light fall-off. My feeling is that if you shoot and scan transparency film occasionally, you can keep this look in mind much more easily when you process a digital shot.  

 

M6 | Summicron 35v4 | Ektachrome E100S

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Nowhereman Instagram

I was merely commenting on the resolution and how it may look like in a print (I may print at some point to see the difference).

 

I went through the other thread you mentioned. Nice discussion. I have gone through multiple iterations of scanning my slides/negatives as better alternatives became available to me. Shooting with DSLR was the previous iteration. The advantage of this scan was that, it was i) free from noise of DSLR sensor and ii) I could get lot more details from the shadows or underexposed slides (My Plostek has multi exposure mode). Only drawback is that it is very time consuming compared to DSLR route. 

 

As for your picture, I agree about the dark areas. In digital we have the tendency to lift shadows and end results look different. Interestingly, I found that there is lots more details in Kodachrome shadows that I didn't know about looking at the picture via projection. In my scanned files, I could access them by processing (reducing blue in dark areas). However, this is very time consuming and for 99% cases, I like the look which I got from slides directly without any digital manipulation.

[jmahto]

Just bought the converted lens second hand on e**y. Conversion by MS Optical in Japan, now MS Optics IINW. I would ask Japan Camera Hunter: https://www.japancamerahunter.com/services/lens-conversion/

 

Looks good.  I was very much tempted for a sec then I compared the size and form factor with 40-summicron-c that I love on M240 (and use to get 50+mp stitched 28mm FOV). I think I will continue using 40 summicron-c instead of T4's lens.

Edited May 8, 2018 by jmahto

[mikemgb]

I used Plustek's OptiFilm 8100. Before that I used to scan by shooting with DSLR which is faster and generally of ok quality but this scanner gave me better results than that (specially accessing shadow areas in the slide, not in this example but in others).

 

Thank you, the Plustek seems to give excellent results, I use an Epson V650 which works very well on medium format but not so well on 35mm, I'm looking at alternatives.

[lct]

Looks good.  I was very much tempted for a sec then I compared the size and form factor with 40-summicron-c that I love on M240 (and use to get 50+mp stitched 28mm FOV). I think I will continue using 40 summicron-c instead of T4's lens.

 

My Summicron-C 40/2 works fine on the CL as well and is faster than the T4's of course but it has not the Tessar look. Similar contrast and acutance as that of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 for those interested. Kind of landscape i can get with it below. I don't know how it renders on full frame cameras though. FWIW.

 

[jmahto]

My Summicron-C 40/2 works fine on the CL as well and is faster than the T4's of course but it has not the Tessar look. Similar contrast and acutance as that of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 for those interested. Kind of landscape i can get with it below. I don't know how it renders on full frame cameras though. FWIW.

 

I thought of that (Tessar look) after my reply. Please don't tempt me. btw, I see T4s going for more than $400 !!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Nowhereman]

...As for your picture, I agree about the dark areas. In digital we have the tendency to lift shadows and end results look different. Interestingly, I found that there is lots more details in Kodachrome shadows that I didn't know about looking at the picture via projection. In my scanned files, I could access them by processing (reducing blue in dark areas). However, this is very time consuming and for 99% cases, I like the look which I got from slides directly without any digital manipulation.

 

What you get in the shadows of a scan or a digitalization is a function of the dynamic range. My experience is limited to scanning with an Imacon Precision III and, now, digitalizing with an M10. My impression is that the dMax on the M10 digitalizations are close to that of the Imacon, although I've scanned only two of the same slides for comparison with the same setup. 

 

The Imacon has a dMax of 4.2 while, from what I've read, that of the Plustek is 3.6 — that’s 2 stops less (0.3 on the log scale is 1 stop) — apparently you can get to 4.0 using SilverFast software with multi-pass scanning, but that reportedly takes 30 minutes per frame. 

 

Incidentally, looking at my slide above on a light table with a loupe, the deep shadows are just like the image above.