biglouis Posted July 12, 2007 Share #1 Posted July 12, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I keep thinking that it is inevitable that I will upgrade my RD-1 to an M8. I bought my RD-1 as an experiment to see if I could adapt/enjoy rangefinder photography and I haven't looked back. I've made a considerable investment in Leica M and CV fit lenses and I am privileged to own some nice examples (all s/h and mostly from e-bay, gawd bless 'em). So it would make sense to consider an M8. However, there is another possibility. Either an M6 classic (I dont' need TTL) or (pushing the boat out) a MP and a s/h coolscan (all of which can be found on e-Bay). An M6 and coolscan would be approximately £1000-1200 off of e-bay (versus nearly £3000 on a M8) but I freely admit that you then have the b*gg*ration factor of film, processing, scanning etc. I am a lot more reflective when using my R-D1. By that I mean I tend to take far fewer pictures but what I do take is much better than when I sprayed around with my Nikon DSLRs. It occurs to me that film photography might make me even more disciplined. It certainly is a lot harder when you don't have the instant feedback in an LCD. What is wrong with this thinking? Should I just accept that the upgrade path is digital or should I consider an upgrade to film? LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Hi biglouis, Take a look here Upgrade from digital to film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
enboe Posted July 13, 2007 Share #2 Posted July 13, 2007 I try to shoot film at least one week out of every month. The discipine of having only 72 or 96 frames to last the day forces me to be more selective in controlling the composition and the lighting. I think a well-sorted out M6 would be an excellent trial for you. If you use it for a few months and totally hate it, then resell it. You will get 60-70% or more back out of it, which is something no digital camera can claim. Enjoy. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S. Wong Posted July 13, 2007 Share #3 Posted July 13, 2007 I think that it might depend on you shooting habits. If you shoot more than 3600 pix in a year, it might make both economical and practical sense to go for the M8. It will take a lot of time to scan all those pictures, and at 3600 frames / 36 frames per roll = 100 rolls. This would cost $15/roll, or 7.5 pounds sterling. 7.5 pounds * 100 = 750 pounds sterling skipping all the time spent in front of the coolscan would be worth the cash discrepancy for me. however, since I don't shoot nearly that much film, it makes sense (for me) to stay in film -Steven Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 13, 2007 Share #4 Posted July 13, 2007 Louis, I think it should depend on how you use your images. How do you print, to what size typically etc. Upgrading from the RD1 to the M8 will give you more megapixels but do you need them? Assuming you can keep the RD1, at this point why not try the M & Scanner? Run both systems in tandem for a while and see which you prefer. If you buy off e bay you'll be able to sell back on e bay for +/- what you pay so there's no risk financially. I now get my films processed and scanned to CD which I use as the proofs - I then re-scan the frames I want to print, which cuts down the time spent scanning. I'm considering doing my own B&W processing again too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted July 13, 2007 Guys Thanks for the responses. I decided to go out and have a good look and good try with both types of cameras. I can see the virtue in a good M6 classic and I have to say my heart could easily be won over by a MP that I also explored (in a shop which has come in for some stick in the forum from time to time - must have got them on a good day because the sales assistant was very helpful). The problem is I then played with an M8 and either the LCD screen is particularly good or the results are just astounding, in camera. My heart says MP but my head says M8. Actually, the easiest choice to make is do nothing and save my money ..... but we all know how often we do that! I actually produce few images.... even fewer since I've gone over to rangefinders because I tend to think through my shots a lot more. Fortunately, I don't do action, I am far more into architecture, landscape, flora and fauna and interiors (natural lit). From what I could see the low light performance of the M8 was astounding. But given my low output a film camera could make sense. That said the sales assistant claimed a good scan of a film frame will always outweigh a digital frame even from an M8 but that is a non-sequitur for a dedicated amateur (I can understand it from a professional point of view). I don't know if he was bulling me or of this is generally agreed. The MP I tried is just gorgeous... no other word for it but the look of the images in the M8 is gorgeous as well. I'm not about to rush into either purchase (perhaps) so I'll have to think it through - at least for a couple of days! LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted July 13, 2007 Share #6 Posted July 13, 2007 Hi Loui, In view of your shooting style, go for the M8. It'll do everything you need. I really appreciate my MP, but I suspect I'd go straight to the M8 if I didn't have it. The scanning process is a pain, IMO, if you don't have a bulk feeder and that makes it really expensive. Beating M8 colour image quality with anything less than a drum scan is tough. B&W is different and film is hard to beat, IMO. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted July 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rolo Thanks for the advice. I can see where you are coming from. Having last used film about 20 years ago - then restarted my interested in photography in the digital world I guess I have a misplaced nostalgia about film. If my lottery ticket comes up tonight (hahaha) maybe I'll buy both :-) BTW, you seem to have stopped posting pictures, which is a shame as I enjoyed your work. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted July 14, 2007 Share #8 Posted July 14, 2007 Film signatures is the bottomline. And that's the reason why digital is my alternative and film is my primary. One film signature for a particular brand of film is one digital camera. One pro film is roughly $8.00 US, one pro digital camera is roughly $3k - $5k US. If you are not particular with the characteristics of your images "for each and every occasion", then digital will be fine. But that is to my taste... -Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilyum Posted July 14, 2007 Share #9 Posted July 14, 2007 I prefer film because it frees me from fiddling with a computer and Photoshop or other cumbersome software. I have an MP which I just love. That said, the 12x Zoom Elmarit on my Lumix digital is pretty hard to beat. It's like having a basket full of prime lenses all in one, without the weight and without having to switch lenses. I can instantly crop the image to nearly any size, right in the viewfinder. I don't think any rangefinder camera can compete with it for ease and speed of handling, light weight or low cost. BTW the Elmarit also does superb macro shots and is plenty sharp enough to suit me. Best regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 15, 2007 Share #10 Posted July 15, 2007 ...Upgrading from the RD1 to the M8 will give you more megapixels but do you need them?...Assuming you can keep the RD1, at this point why not try the M & Scanner?... Good advice James but while we're at it why not trying the 3 cameras? It is a very personal matter IMO depending upon the way one print his pics mainly. If you 'print' them on screen, the M8 pics will always look sharper but also miss the grainy look of the MP. But if you print your pics on paper it all depends upon personal factors like your preference for B&W for instance and/or the size of your prints of course. Just try them all you could well be surprised then like me when i discoved than after having spent little fortunes in various M bodies my favourite camera so far is the R-D1... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macos Posted July 16, 2007 Share #11 Posted July 16, 2007 Well, just my two cents, but did I get you right that you still have your DSLRs (Nikon)? Then you should have everything to do HQ digital shots whenever you need them. Just switch the automatics off (although the referring settings might be hard to find, the guys who designed the DSLRs obviously never used to take photographs ), handle it like a manual camera, and it might help you to overcome the point and shoot attitude (at least it works for me). If the AF lenses are pain in manual mode there are excellent manual primes in the 'bay or even better new manual Zeiss with F-Mount. Rolo surely is right that you can hardly achieve the quality of an original color digital shot with a scan from film, but if you use slides it is easier than with negatives and you still have the option of the projection. Coolscan BW scans can be printed out up to 60x40 cm format without any problems, therefore I gave up the positive enlargement. And if you ask me, film shots still look different than digital ones. It is the way the light is painted on the film, the dynamic range or however you would like to call it. Consequently, I would go for an M6 or an MP and save a lot of money at the same time. BR Marcus P.S.: the fun aspect that you are looking forward to see your analog pictures for the first time and the positive feeling when your are happy with the result can never be beaten by an LCD screen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKSC Posted July 16, 2007 Share #12 Posted July 16, 2007 Here is my 2 cents: Get the M6, but skip the Coolscan. If you need to make prints off slides, pick the ones you want and have them scanned on an Imacon 949. While the cost of drum-scanning remains high, there are now several small scanning labs that offer scans on the best-of-its-class Imacon 949 for very reasonable prices. Since your film work is low-volume, this would be quite feasible, and you would be getting the most out of your film-based system. For Imacon scanning, I use Image Science in Australia. They do "raw" 200Mb, 16-bit scans for A$12 (about 5 pounds). In the UK, I have heard of (but have never used) blueskyimages, who charge about the same: Professional Film Scanning and Exhibition Printing for Photographers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted July 16, 2007 Share #13 Posted July 16, 2007 Nothing wrong about your thinking here. I shoot both film and digital and find each has its owns joys and advantages. My heart lies with the film, though; in no small measure because there is no photographic instrument in the world that is as satisfying and plesurable for collecting light as the devine Leica MP. Load up on film, let the lab scan when they process for you and you can have your cake and eat it too. Thanks. Allan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Flatline Posted July 16, 2007 Share #14 Posted July 16, 2007 I thought I was nostalgic for film again. I shot some, then ran out and had to change film, then it took me a few days to get it developed, then I had to go pick it up, and then I still had to scan it so I could adjust contrast and dodge/burn on my computer. I sold my film gear to some college girl who explained to me that only film is real photography. I was pleased to take her money. I'm sorry, I NEVER participate in these innane film vs. digital conversations, but seeing as you asked, here' my opinion: you already shoot digital, you've got the computer and software, why go film? Photography is your hobby, and we all enjoy twiddling new nobs, but ultimately I would go with what you know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share #15 Posted July 16, 2007 Guys This has been (as always) a great collection of opinions. I think the "stay with digital" argument wins through for me and in fact having just spent an excellent day in the field (literally) yesterday shooting with the R-D1 I don't think I am in a hurry to get an M8 either. Life is so full of choices LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.