rsolomon Posted December 8, 2018 Share #21 Posted December 8, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) A fun post to read, enjoy! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 8, 2018 Posted December 8, 2018 Hi rsolomon, Take a look here Finally bought a digital Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ernstk Posted December 9, 2018 Share #22 Posted December 9, 2018 On 12/7/2018 at 6:34 AM, Mic77 said: Are you really sure? Can a digital M really seriously replace a film like TRIX,Acros, HP5 etc? Specifically a M240 type ? Yes, M10 can beautifuly S/W ! Yes, of course the M240 can replace film. Ernst Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 10, 2018 Share #23 Posted December 10, 2018 Replace, yes. Be the same, no. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 10, 2018 Share #24 Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) On 12/7/2018 at 10:41 AM, too old to care said: I've just starting playing with the M240, but here is my first test. This photo was taken with a M6, 50mm F2 Summicron. Exposure was 1/15 second, hand held. Lens was wide open (f2). Film was Plus X (ISO 125) developed in Rodinal at 50/1. The negative was scanned on a Plustek scanner set at 3600 dpi. I like the soft look of the shot, the narrow DOF, slightly out of focus due to the hand held long exposure. The shadows of her ear covering her face. 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! Congratulations for M240. It is a fantastic camera and you may not need any other digital for quite some time! After seeing your dog pic from both film and digital, I remembered my similar comparison picture of my cat using M2 and M240. Only diffrence is that I was going in other direction (long time M240 user and new to M2). You are right that film holds its own. My post below. Where M240 pulls ahead from film M is in pics with lots of details (as in landscapes). With right lens (most M lens are), I am never tired of pixel peeing landscape pictures. They can be printed as wide as you want! As you shoot more, I will be interested in your thoughts. Edited December 10, 2018 by jmahto 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 10, 2018 Share #25 Posted December 10, 2018 7 hours ago, Ernstk said: Yes, of course the M240 can replace film. Ernst Yes and No. I can PP M240 shots to look like film but it is not exactly the same. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted December 10, 2018 Share #26 Posted December 10, 2018 4 hours ago, jmahto said: Yes and No. I can PP M240 shots to look like film but it is not exactly the same. Is the difference between processed digital and film enough to generate a preference for film? I would guess that it’s nothing to do with anything; a prejudice. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernstk Posted December 10, 2018 Share #27 Posted December 10, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) 6 hours ago, jmahto said: Yes and No. I can PP M240 shots to look like film but it is not exactly the same. I have to say that I much prefer my M240 (and especially my M8) photos over any film I've ever used. Both of these cameras allow me to produce images that I couldn't get close to when using film. Ernst 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted December 10, 2018 Author Share #28 Posted December 10, 2018 Been playing more. Night shots with film was always difficult due to focusing issues and low ISO. The M240 makes this much easier because I can bracket several shots without using a bunch of film. I particularly like the live view zoom focusing I get. I also shot some low light color shots under different lights and was able to creat acceptable photos by working in raw. I’m very happy, but in my opinion, film still appeals to me more for B&W. Wayne 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 10, 2018 Share #29 Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Exodies said: Is the difference between processed digital and film enough to generate a preference for film? I would guess that it’s nothing to do with anything; a prejudice. Yes there is a difference. Instead of hijacking this thread, I did a quick conversion comparison post in my film thread. I created my own preset by looking at the TriX scan. Film has no grain in dark areas but simulated digital has uniform level of grain in white and dark both areas. I am sure better job can be done in PS but I wanted a quick conversion for myself. To be fair, the difference is minimal and visible only at close scrutiny. Different film types and difference level of digital processing makes comparison difficult and at the end it becomes subjective preference. But there is difference. 3 hours ago, Ernstk said: I have to say that I much prefer my M240 (and especially my M8) photos over any film I've ever used. Both of these cameras allow me to produce images that I couldn't get close to when using film. Ernst It is correct that digital is much easier to work with and produce satisfying images. However only images where film (35mm) can't get close to digital output is in lots of details. Even there I have found color differences which are difficult to match by simply WB change. For example with Ektar 100, I get a little different sky color compared to my M240's. If I try to match that by WB sliders then non-sky colors shift as well. In order to fully match, I will have to do local processing. To be fair, I see Portra 160 sky color different than Ektar's too. Just like grain distribution, color response to different parts of the picture is different between different films and different digital sensors. Having said that, color difference is fully subjective. People debate on skin tones till cows come home. Therefore I will not argue which is better (since it is subjective), but simply say that I won't discount the difference. Edited December 10, 2018 by jmahto 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 10, 2018 Share #30 Posted December 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, too old to care said: Been playing more. Night shots with film was always difficult due to focusing issues and low ISO. The M240 makes this much easier because I can bracket several shots without using a bunch of film. I particularly like the live view zoom focusing I get. I also shot some low light color shots under different lights and was able to creat acceptable photos by working in raw. I’m very happy, but in my opinion, film still appeals to me more for B&W. Wayne It is good to read about someone else's discovery process. Keep it coming. I went other way this year (shot close to 30 rolls with M2 in last 12 months) and compared with M240 all the time. Good to see you are happy. Photography is supposed to be fun. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted December 26, 2018 Author Share #31 Posted December 26, 2018 I haven't played much with the Leica since I posted my last comment, until today. One of the things that kept me away from a digital Leica is that I though I would not be able to macro photography. Today I proved myself wrong. I used a cheap adapter and installed my f2/50mm Pentax macro lens (KA mount) and set the camera for live view. I did not use the focus aid, and hand-held the camera with the lens set at f8. The results could have been better with a tripod, but even that I thought the experiment was ok. I'm not going to post the photo, because of the slight focus error. However, I learned something. After I shot the photo I was confused why the focus aid did not work. I then realized that the camera did not recognize the lens, because it is not Leica. Once I put my Summicron lens back on, I tried the focus aid set for manual. I then noticed something that I did not see before, when the image comes into focus, there is a red display at the exact focus point. It is not very noticeable, but it is there. This will make focusing so much easier in the future. I am really starting to really love this camera. Oh, what the heck, I'll post the photo after all. Remember, it was hand held and I am almost 73, so my hands are not that steady and I did not have focus aid on. The photo has a slight crop too, about 10%. I did not want to post this photo in the normal section, because I do not think it deserves to be there. Wayne 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! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/292064-finally-bought-a-digital-leica/?do=findComment&comment=3653477'>More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted December 26, 2018 Share #32 Posted December 26, 2018 @too old to care You should be very pleased with that result. Depth of field is a bit narrow, but many people think that is fashionable and like that style. Half the fun with digital is to break rules. Digital photos cost next to nothing, after the initial purchase costs, and one can use Lightroom for as long as one likes without having to be concerned about temperature, extraneous light, and chemicals going off. Digital photography has set us free from past limitations of analogue film. The downside is that almost everyone now uses a smartphone instead of a camera. Occasionally someone manages to get a really good shot with a smartphone, say one in a billion. It's a bit like monkeys trying to type out a Shakespeare play, "To be or not to be be, that is the qwertyidly bproshlifz!..." Just enjoy your passion. You deserve it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted December 31, 2018 Author Share #33 Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) Thanks for the replies. One of my favorite uses of a camera is macro shots of flowers. As you have seen from above I already have a cheap ($25) adapter that allows me to use a Pentax KA macro lens on the camera. Problem is, it is a bad fit, hard to install, and I often get notices that no lens is secured. I am afraid that I will damage the camera by using it. Leica has a macro adapter (B&H) for $695 that is basically an extension tube that moves the lens out enough to give you a 2:1 macro attachment using a normal Leica 50mm lens. B&H also has a Novoflex adapter for $255 that adapts a Pentax lens to the Leica. I assume it is a much better version of my $25 adapter. Question is, does anyone have either of these adapters, and would you share your impressions of them? I would love to have the Leica version, but at $695 it seems rather steep. Thanks, Wayne 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! Edited December 31, 2018 by too old to care Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/292064-finally-bought-a-digital-leica/?do=findComment&comment=3656222'>More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 1, 2019 Share #34 Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) An alternative is the OUFRO, which is just a fixed extension tube. It doesn't work with 6 bit coding, but otherwise it's great for near macro. And much cheaper (used) than the current Macro-Adapter-M. I use it with the Apo-Summicron-M 75, which has a closer than normal minimum focus distance. Edited January 1, 2019 by LocalHero1953 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted January 1, 2019 Share #35 Posted January 1, 2019 Since digital Leica Ms allow liveview, I bought some adapters SLR lenses to M, for fun and some are cheap but good enough. - from Fotodiox (Nikon F, Contax Y/C to M adapters for Micro Nikkor 55mm and the big but excellent Macro Planar 60mm to 1:1 this without more adapter) to be honest, some adapters need to be "readapted" as their thickness not so accurate : so I don't recommend them for other use than liveview focussing - as I use also Leica R lenses, I have for years Leica R to M ( old version for Leicina ref. 22228 ) and lesser Fotodiox R-M adapter (this one lost the M locking in use) ... as side note, when I use those exotic lenses with adapter, I disable "lens detection" feature . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted January 1, 2019 Author Share #36 Posted January 1, 2019 11 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: An alternative is the OUFRO, which is just a fixed extension tube. It doesn't work with 6 bit coding, but otherwise it's great for near macro. And much cheaper (used) than the current Macro-Adapter-M. I use it with the Apo-Summicron-M 75, which has a closer than normal minimum focus distance. That is perfect, if I can find one. The adapter that I have works perfectly on my M6, but very difficult to attach to the M240. It feels like it could damage it, thus I do not want to take the chance of messing up the camera to save a few dollars. I'll look fo for the Oufro. Thanks, Wayne Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted January 1, 2019 Author Share #37 Posted January 1, 2019 11 hours ago, a.noctilux said: Since digital Leica Ms allow liveview, I bought some adapters SLR lenses to M, for fun and some are cheap but good enough. - from Fotodiox (Nikon F, Contax Y/C to M adapters for Micro Nikkor 55mm and the big but excellent Macro Planar 60mm to 1:1 this without more adapter) to be honest, some adapters need to be "readapted" as their thickness not so accurate : so I don't recommend them for other use than liveview focussing - as I use also Leica R lenses, I have for years Leica R to M ( old version for Leicina ref. 22228 ) and lesser Fotodiox R-M adapter (this one lost the M locking in use) ... as side note, when I use those exotic lenses with adapter, I disable "lens detection" feature . I have a different brand adapter, but looks exactly like the Fotodiox. I am afraid of it due to the difficulty I have installing it on the camera. It fits my M6 well, but I can hardly get it on the 240. I think the quality control is a bit lacking. I'm going with the Oufro if I can find one. Thanks, Wayne Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share #38 Posted January 2, 2019 Been doing some research, and discovered that you can get the OUFRO on eBay easily. Apparently it only extends the lens 10mm, where the new Leica macro will go out several times that distance. I guess you can stack the OUFRO, but to get the same magnification, I would need several, which would add up to about the same costs. I just cannot justify that much money for an extension tube, so I think I will go for the better Novoflex adapter and use my Pentax lens. Thanks, Wayne Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeger Posted January 2, 2019 Share #39 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) On 12/26/2018 at 2:11 PM, too old to care said: I haven't played much with the Leica since I posted my last comment, until today. One of the things that kept me away from a digital Leica is that I though I would not be able to macro photography. Today I proved myself wrong. I used a cheap adapter and installed my f2/50mm Pentax macro lens (KA mount) and set the camera for live view. I did not use the focus aid, and hand-held the camera with the lens set at f8. The results could have been better with a tripod, but even that I thought the experiment was ok. I'm not going to post the photo, because of the slight focus error. However, I learned something. After I shot the photo I was confused why the focus aid did not work. I then realized that the camera did not recognize the lens, because it is not Leica. Once I put my Summicron lens back on, I tried the focus aid set for manual. I then noticed something that I did not see before, when the image comes into focus, there is a red display at the exact focus point. It is not very noticeable, but it is there. This will make focusing so much easier in the future. I am really starting to really love this camera. Oh, what the heck, I'll post the photo after all. Remember, it was hand held and I am almost 73, so my hands are not that steady and I did not have focus aid on. The photo has a slight crop too, about 10%. I did not want to post this photo in the normal section, because I do not think it deserves to be there. Wayne 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! Happy New Year. Did you focus at the stigma of the flower, I'm just curious... Edited January 2, 2019 by jaeger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucisPictor Posted January 2, 2019 Share #40 Posted January 2, 2019 Am 10.12.2018 um 14:56 schrieb jmahto: Yes there is a difference. Instead of hijacking this thread, I did a quick conversion comparison post in my film thread. I created my own preset by looking at the TriX scan. Film has no grain in dark areas but simulated digital has uniform level of grain in white and dark both areas. I am sure better job can be done in PS but I wanted a quick conversion for myself. To be fair, the difference is minimal and visible only at close scrutiny. Different film types and difference level of digital processing makes comparison difficult and at the end it becomes subjective preference. But there is difference. It is correct that digital is much easier to work with and produce satisfying images. However only images where film (35mm) can't get close to digital output is in lots of details. Even there I have found color differences which are difficult to match by simply WB change. For example with Ektar 100, I get a little different sky color compared to my M240's. If I try to match that by WB sliders then non-sky colors shift as well. In order to fully match, I will have to do local processing. To be fair, I see Portra 160 sky color different than Ektar's too. Just like grain distribution, color response to different parts of the picture is different between different films and different digital sensors. Having said that, color difference is fully subjective. People debate on skin tones till cows come home. Therefore I will not argue which is better (since it is subjective), but simply say that I won't discount the difference. Of course, there is a difference. But it's not about better or worse, it's just ... well ... "different". And to be honest, as much as I also like analogue film, with digital photography I am way more flexible, it's much more versatile - and not only more convenient. So, congratulations to Wayne. The M240 was a very good decision: the most versatile M camera ever! I own the M240, the M8 and the M6 and I love them all, but my preference is exactly that order (1. M240, 2. M8, 3. M6). 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.