Digital M Vs Analog M

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a slide film shooter in the past, highlights are a non-issue for me. The only reasons to shoot film are the look/tonality/grain etc. And satisfaction with the process. All other arguments, either for film or for digital are only justifications IMO. 

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

As a slide film shooter in the past, highlights are a non-issue for me. The only reasons to shoot film are the look/tonality/grain etc. And satisfaction with the process. All other arguments, either for film or for digital are only justifications IMO. 

I miswrote. My highlights complaint refers to digital, not to film. I shoot negatives and can be a bit careless with film exposure, not so with digital.

I agree with what you wrote. While some aspects of film photography are a bonus, the main reason to shoot film is "look/tonality/grain" and "satisfaction with the process."

[Narsuitus]

48 minutes ago, SrMi said:

... the main reason to shoot film is "look/tonality/grain" and "satisfaction with the process.

One of the main reasons I shoot film is because I have more film equipment than digital equipment.

[martinot]

19 hours ago, adan said:

Hmmm - in what "smaller size?" The only M digital battery physically smaller than the M10's is the M8/M9's

M8/M9 Battery (small) - 1860mA•h * 3.5v = 6.8 Watt/hours

M10 Battery (medium size) - 1100 mA•h * 7.4v  = 8.44 Watt/hours

M(typ 240) Battery (large) - 1800 mA•h * 7.4v =  13.32 Watt/hours

The M10 and M (typ 240) operate at a higher voltage. Probably to drive the "quicker" shutter-cocking (up to 5 frames per second) and/or extra features (live-view, EVF, wifi - and in the 240, video/audio)

To get an M8/M9 battery to output 7.4 volts as required by the M10 (and M240) would require increasing its capacity to 2412 mA•h (+77%) - you think that would still fit in the smaller casing?

With a more modern battery chemistry, they could have gotten around 1800mAh in an M10 sized battery.

[martinot]

9 hours ago, Narsuitus said:

That is true - I have plenty of spare film. I have not yet been able to afford a spare battery.

So you buy an expensive digital M camera, and many expensive M lenses, but can not yet afford a spare battery?

Sorry, this does not compute.

[martinot]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

I have many spare batteries, most of them empty :). I try to have at least one battery fully charged. Occasionally I forget to do it. 
IMO, digital is much more practical, but a film camera without a battery is more relaxing.
The main reason why I shoot digital or analog is practicability vs. film look. Also, those bloody highlights ;-).

I have nothing against people like you shooting film. On the contrary; I think it is great that some manages to put the effort into keeping the historical tradition alive. It is absolutely great.

That said; personally I am way too lazy to bother with film. Too much hassle to purchase film rolls, store them cool and dark, load and change roll of films (I can shoot hundreds of photos during a day), and finally send them to development (or worse; do it myself with all toxic chemicals). It just takes way too much time, effort and wait.

I am too relaxed to shoot by sensors to bother with normal film.

The only film I still like to use, and not for many pictures (only ten images per pack, and quite expensive), is instant film (Instax, Polaroid) as I do not need to send them to development.

 

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, martinot said:

With a more modern battery chemistry, they could have gotten around 1800mAh in an M10 sized battery.

Which modern battery chemistry are you referring to?  Lithium-ion polymer (LiPo) batteries that are used in cellphones perhaps?  The M10's batteries contain Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion), which is more energy dense than LiPo.  Is there another cutting edge battery chemistry that you're referring to?  (If Graphene based battery technology was commercially available yet then I agree but we're a few years away from that yet.)

My Digilux 2 batteries are 1200 mAh and my SL2-S batteries are 1860 mAh but they're a bit larger and heavier than my M10's batteries.

Pete.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, martinot said:

I have nothing against people like you shooting film. On the contrary; I think it is great that some manages to put the effort into keeping the historical tradition alive. It is absolutely great.

That said; personally I am way too lazy to bother with film. Too much hassle to purchase film rolls, store them cool and dark, load and change roll of films (I can shoot hundreds of photos during a day), and finally send them to development (or worse; do it myself with all toxic chemicals). It just takes way too much time, effort and wait.

I am too relaxed to shoot by sensors to bother with normal film.

The only film I still like to use, and not for many pictures (only ten images per pack, and quite expensive), is instant film (Instax, Polaroid) as I do not need to send them to development.

 

To be clear, I shoot mostly digital, and only recently started shooting film again. Digital is much more practical and provides instant gratification.

[pedaes]

29 minutes ago, SrMi said:

instant gratification.

And a bit more!

[Narsuitus]

2 hours ago, martinot said:

So you buy an expensive digital M camera, and many expensive M lenses, but can not yet afford a spare battery?

Sorry, this does not compute.

I really have the money to buy extra M10 batteries, I just refuse to pay the ridiculously high price.

Plus, I have other digital cameras with a good supply of less expensive batteries.

 

[jaapv]

I am not that sure about the expensive bit. The four batteries I had for my M8s from 2007 are still functioning at about 80% capacity. All other batteries I had from that era have long since died.

[Guest Nowhereman]

With the introduction of CT scanning of hand luggage at an increasing number of airports, there is now the beginning of a serious issue of traveling overseas with film, discussed in a long thread on the Range Finder Forum. Here is a part of the OP by KM-25, who I believe is or was a member on LUF:

One can simply no longer travel with film overseas and expect to avoid the nasty new CT scanning technology with carry on luggage. This is such a significant issue that Kodak, Ilford and even Fuji put out bulletins about it last year, flying with film abroad is nearly a total non-starter. I went through the highly exhaustive process of contacting the security entities of each airport and there is simply no way to be assured of a hand check anymore. So flying with film abroad is for all intents and purposes, dead.

The above sounds alarmist but refers to someone who needs to take some 400 rolls of film for a project, and eventually finds a solution in the latter part of the thread. But it looks like this is the beginning of a real problem for traveling with film.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

With the introduction of CT scanning of hand luggage at an increasing number of airports, there is now the beginning of a serious issue of traveling overseas with film, discussed in a long thread on the Range Finder Forum. Here is a part of the OP by KM-25, who I believe is or was a member on LUF:

One can simply no longer travel with film overseas and expect to avoid the nasty new CT scanning technology with carry on luggage. This is such a significant issue that Kodak, Ilford and even Fuji put out bulletins about it last year, flying with film abroad is nearly a total non-starter. I went through the highly exhaustive process of contacting the security entities of each airport and there is simply no way to be assured of a hand check anymore. So flying with film abroad is for all intents and purposes, dead.

The above sounds alarmist but refers to someone who needs to take some 400 rolls of film for a project, and eventually finds a solution in the latter part of the thread. But it looks like this is the beginning of a real problem for traveling with film.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

This isn't new unfortunately. Some years ago I was filming a documentary project in France, this was when I was still based in the US at the time, it was a project that I wanted to shoot on S16mm film rather than with a digital cinema camera. Half of the filmstock type we were to use wasn't available from Kodak France, ( film loads for the Aaton A-Minima ), and as we were not willing to take the risk of travelling with the filmstock that came out of Kodak's NYC base and we had it shipped to our hotel base-camp in France via Fedex insuring that it had the proper Kodak shipping labels on the packaging identifying the contents as 16mm unexposed film and with Kodak's "Do Not Xray" labels attached too.

On our arrival in France the film stock was waiting at the hotel, all good........But not trusting or leaving anything to chance I had "snips" of film processed to test just in case it had been Xrayed en-route, and it had! Low grade fogging streaking showed on the tests and that meant  8000' of film couldn't be used. We found other work-arounds for the shoot but it was a mad and costly scramble.

[martinot]

35 minutes ago, petermullett said:

This isn't new unfortunately. Some years ago I was filming a documentary project in France, this was when I was still based in the US at the time, it was a project that I wanted to shoot on S16mm film rather than with a digital cinema camera. Half of the filmstock type we were to use wasn't available from Kodak France, ( film loads for the Aaton A-Minima ), and as we were not willing to take the risk of travelling with the filmstock that came out of Kodak's NYC base and we had it shipped to our hotel base-camp in France via Fedex insuring that it had the proper Kodak shipping labels on the packaging identifying the contents as 16mm unexposed film and with Kodak's "Do Not Xray" labels attached too.

On our arrival in France the film stock was waiting at the hotel, all good........But not trusting or leaving anything to chance I had "snips" of film processed to test just in case it had been Xrayed en-route, and it had! Low grade fogging streaking showed on the tests and that meant  8000' of film couldn't be used. We found other work-arounds for the shoot but it was a mad and costly scramble.

Too bad!

Did Fedex reimburse you for their faulty handling of their goods?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, martinot said:

Too bad!

Did Fedex reimburse you for their faulty handling of their goods?

There was a partial reimbursement from Fedex and through the Production Insurance my company carried, maybe 50% overall of the loss, but it took nearly a year to recoup even that. The biggest "loss" was not being able to use the Aaton A-Minima which was perfectly suited to where and how we were filming, I had to use it's big sister the Xtera which wasn't ideal but at least we could get fresh filmstock for that camera load in France.

I've given up taking film of any type/format on-board flights or even in checked baggage for some years now. I order / buy it at the destination if possible and process there too, again if possible to avoid shipping the exposed film. If going to destination where I would want to use film I'd use ground transportation rather than flying, limited, hardly ideal and somewhat awkward, but you do what you have to do I guess.

[Danner]

On 5/16/2021 at 11:54 AM, jaapv said:

As a slide film shooter in the past, highlights are a non-issue for me. The only reasons to shoot film are the look/tonality/grain etc. And satisfaction with the process. All other arguments, either for film or for digital are only justifications IMO. 

... and to free the photographer from the shackles to their computing machines 😉

[SrMi]

On 8/4/2021 at 2:25 AM, Danner said:

... and to free the photographer from the shackles to their computing machines 😉

I would not shoot film if I had to use a darkroom. 

[erniethemilk]

I shoot with an M10-P & an M6. Love both, but I do tend to reach more for the M6 quite a bit.  I just find the whole process of shooting film quite mystical even now! 
 

Maybe I should sell the M10-P and buy an MP. 🤔

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[horosu]

1 hour ago, erniethemilk said:

I shoot with an M10-P & an M6. Love both, but I do tend to reach more for the M6 quite a bit.  I just find the whole process of shooting film quite mystical even now! 
 

Maybe I should sell the M10-P and buy an MP. 🤔

I was in the same situation like you: had the M9, M240, the M10, but somehow, I still enjoyed shooting film more.

Then I got the M-D- now I shoot it almost exclusively. It's like the MP with a digital sensor. All the controls are in the same place. It has the same tactile feeling (due to the black paint). 

 

[a.noctilux]

Horea,

as happy user of M-D, if you don't mind, please participate this M-D productions thread

with your serial number (or partial n° would be fine as some of us) 🙏