Jump to content

Analog vs. Digital - When to pick what?


Jewl

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, lmans said:

Wasn’t there a 240 or 262d version that the M10d is based upon? If so…. Perhaps that is an option … ah! Nothing with Leica is too cheap, if worth it. 

The first screenless Digi-M was the limited edition (600 examples) M Edition 60 which featured an exterior designed by Audi. It was made from Stainless Steel and came as a set with a specially designed Steel 35mm Summilux. It was released, in 2014, to celebrate 60 years of M camera manufacture. A few members here have this camera and at least one member has a pair of them. One peculiarity of the M 60 was that there were no strap lugs(!).

A review of the M Edition 60 can be found here;

https://www.macfilos.com/2015/03/02/2015-2-27-leica-m60-edition-review-gorgeous-steel-grey-retro-pushes-all-the-right-buttons/

Two years later, in 2016, Leica announced a 'regular release'(*) screenless version of the M262 (itself an already stripped-down M240) which was named the M-D Typ-262. This was far simpler and less technologically spec'd than the M10-D which followed.

Shooting with the M-D 262 really is pretty much exactly the same experience as shooting with a film camera but, as per Paul's wish expressed in post #26, one which records images using a digital sensor / memory cards. The only real differences between using my M2 and my M-D 262 are as follows;

Firstly with the M-D there is the ability to change ISO at will and on a shot by shot basis if need be. This, stating the perfectly obvious, is very useful. Secondly with M-D the limit to how many frames can be captured isn't ever an issue. Nor do I 'run out of film' at an important moment as has happened when shooting film. Lastly - and for me most importantly - the M-D gives me the advantage of a digital work-flow which I find to be far superior - as well as being far more practical - than when using film.

Incidentally as far as the M-D 262 goes (I don't know about its function on the M10-D) the 'small button' mentioned in the review posted earlier has a few different functions depending on when it is being used. When the camera is switched on pressing the button gives information - visible in the viewfinder - firstly regarding battery percentage and if pressed again gives 'frames remaining' (if 999 or less). The button is also used - in conjunction with the self-timer position of the on/off switch - to open the shutter curtains to allow for cleaning of the sensor. As there is no menu-screen / set-up buttons there isn't any other way to carry out this task.

I believe the small button can also be used somehow with the thumb-wheel thingy to adjust exposure compensation but I find it far simpler to use the camera in Manual mode and adjust shutter-speed/aperture manually.

With the M-D 262 there was a printed instruction book included with the 'goodies' inside the box. I suspect that for those new to screenless digi-shooting Leica thought it would be more practical for owners to have some sort of 'hard-copy' as it might be needed for reference relatively often...

A review of the M-D Typ-262 (and the one which was the 'final straw' in my decision to acquire one for myself) can be found here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX3PBhzurEo

Philip.

* Whilst it was a regular release - in that it wasn't part of a Limited Edition - from production figures being compiled in the appropriate sub-forum here it appears that, as far as can be estimated from serial-numbers known at present, there were somewhere in the region of 1700 (+/-) manufactured. This figure really is just a 'Best Guess' and the true number might be quite different.

Edited by pippy
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pippy said:

The first screenless Digi-M was the limited edition (600 examples) M Edition 60 which featured an exterior designed by Audi. It was made from Stainless Steel and came as a set with a specially designed Steel 35mm Summilux. It was released, in 2014, to celebrate 60 years of M camera manufacture. A few members here have this camera and at least one member has a pair of them. One peculiarity of the M 60 was that there were no strap lugs(!).

A review of the M Edition 60 can be found here;

https://www.macfilos.com/2015/03/02/2015-2-27-leica-m60-edition-review-gorgeous-steel-grey-retro-pushes-all-the-right-buttons/

Two years later, in 2016, Leica announced a 'regular release'(*) screenless version of the M262 (itself an already stripped-down M240) which was named the M-D Typ-262. This was far simpler and less technologically spec'd than the M10-D which followed.

Shooting with the M-D 262 really is pretty much exactly the same experience as shooting with a film camera but, as per Paul's wish expressed in post #26, one which records images using a digital sensor / memory cards. The only real differences between using my M2 and my M-D 262 are as follows;

Firstly with the M-D there is the ability to change ISO at will and on a shot by shot basis if need be. This, stating the perfectly obvious, is very useful. Secondly with M-D the limit to how many frames can be captured isn't ever an issue. Nor do I 'run out of film' at an important moment as has happened when shooting film. Lastly - and for me most importantly - the M-D gives me the advantage of a digital work-flow which I find to be far superior - as well as being far more practical - than when using film.

Incidentally as far as the M-D 262 goes (I don't know about its function on the M10-D) the 'small button' mentioned in the review posted earlier has a few different functions depending on when it is being used. When the camera is switched on pressing the button gives information - visible in the viewfinder - firstly regarding battery percentage and if pressed again gives 'frames remaining' (if 999 or less). The button is also used - in conjunction with the self-timer position of the on/off switch - to open the shutter curtains to allow for cleaning of the sensor. As there is no menu-screen / set-up buttons there isn't any other way to carry out this task.

I believe the small button can also be used somehow with the thumb-wheel thingy to adjust exposure compensation but I find it far simpler to use the camera in Manual mode and adjust shutter-speed/aperture manually.

With the M-D 262 there was a printed instruction book included with the 'goodies' inside the box. I suspect that for those new to screenless digi-shooting Leica thought it would be more practical for owners to have some sort of 'hard-copy' as it might be needed for reference relatively often...

A review of the M-D Typ-262 (and the one which was the 'final straw' in my decision to acquire one for myself) can be found here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX3PBhzurEo

Philip.

* Whilst it was a regular release - in that it wasn't part of a Limited Edition - from production figures being compiled in the appropriate sub-forum here it appears that, as far as can be estimated from serial-numbers known at present, there were somewhere in the region of 1700 (+/-) manufactured. This figure really is just a 'Best Guess' and the true number might be quite different.

Good stuff.....  thanks. I know that the 240 series in general (246 Monochrom for one) and I am sure the M-D 262 is heavier and thicker than lets say the M10d or the MA. It isn't like it is obvious unless compared side-by-side and even then it isn't by much in terms of dimensions etc.       I would say the M-D 262 is a good option, fun....a way to take analog to digital. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently got the new M6 as well. I haven't shot film in decades and it has been a nice change from digital. I shoot mostly night, landscapes, astrophotography so digital is obviously much better and easier here. I'll probably try shooting long exposure film for fun, but I mostly got the M6 for more personal photos where I like the aesthetics of film much more and that doesn't have huge technical requirements from what I normally shoot. So for now the M6 is used more for everyday life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been hauling my M4 around Vietnam for almost a month and have only shot two rolls of film, primarily because it is monsoon season and the lighting absolutely sucks.  I have used my phone more just to send snapshots home.

I love the film process but if you already have a digital camera it is a lot cheaper to use.  I am sure I will keep hauling the Leica around in my travels but I miss my X100F as it is much smaller and more capable.  

I was stuck on the back of a motorcycle for four days in the rain touring central Vietnam and the Leica lived in a Billingham bag.  The X100 is not weather proof but that presents a different problem.  I am sure I will keep using both, but I cannot see a reason to use film when you know the results will suck.  We did not have a choice before digital but now we do.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been leaving my M10 and M10M at home more frequently and using the M-A ; but that is because I'm finding for digital, the X100V is sufficient and more versatile - one handed operation, back-button AF, close-up, low level shots with the tilt screen and to a large degree its weather proofing. Maybe a Q3 can help Leica, but the Q2 was not for me. The digital Ms are now used when technically necessary.

Anyways, digital is for everyday and film is for photos with more emotional attachment where the reward from the process effort is worthwhile.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the type who only expose film when the light is perfect. When I am travelling I would get up hours before dawn in order to get to location to wait for my shot. I then do the same just before sunset. With digital I can fill the day with megapixels because I can do more with the dng file. It’s just practical. I shoot film in larger formats.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like and use both film and digital Ms. I never take both film and digital out at the same time—it's too confusing for me. I just decide on one or the other.

Often, time is the deciding factor. Right now, my work life is very busy, and I don't have as much free time as I'd like for developing and scanning film. So I'm shooting digital.

Sometimes I have a particular goal in mind. My family and I went on a beach vacation recently, to an old-fashioned resort where my wife's family has been going for decades. Many family photos have been taken there on film, and so I decided to use film as well. I left my digital M at home and shot fifteen rolls of 35mm and 120 over about two weeks, all using the same color stock. I like to keep things cohesive. (Because I'm pressed for time, I sent the rolls out to get developed and will scan them at home.)

Light is another deciding factor. I mainly shoot digital in the evening.

There are also times when I'm after a very specific look. Sometimes I want hyper-detailed digital; other times I want the more artistic look of film. I like the way my lenses render differently on film and digital.

The bottom line is that everyone has to find his own way to navigate the choice. The best thing is not to overthink it and to trust that you'll figure it out in time. One thing is definitely true: having a film M and a digital M is very rewarding!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you don't have a darkroom at your disposal, I think it's better to stay in the digital world; analogue only makes sense when you print your negatives in the darkroom; scanning the film is just working back in a digital world and then what is the point of film; by the way, to be able to scan a film properly, you need to develop the film for less time and you can no longer make decent prints of it,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 13 Stunden schrieb JoshuaRothman:

[...]

The bottom line is that everyone has to find his own way to navigate the choice. The best thing is not to overthink it and to trust that you'll figure it out in time. One thing is definitely true: having a film M and a digital M is very rewarding!

I agree to this! Especially not to overthink things. You can always sit at home and try to think through how thinks would work out best but in the end, you just waste time for shooting and to practically find out what works best! And yes, having both is very rewarding and such a great feeling ;) 

vor 8 Stunden schrieb altphoto:

if you don't have a darkroom at your disposal, I think it's better to stay in the digital world; analogue only makes sense when you print your negatives in the darkroom; scanning the film is just working back in a digital world and then what is the point of film; by the way, to be able to scan a film properly, you need to develop the film for less time and you can no longer make decent prints of it,

I agree. As I mainly like to use film for how the pictures look eventually (digitally), that's totally fine for me. And I also do think you can still print them achieving an acceptable outcome. But this is not my main focus to have prints in my hand! Of course, I still hope to get more printed out than before when I mainly used digital cameras!

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2022 at 5:08 AM, Jewl said:

Of course, I still hope to get more printed out than before when I mainly used digital cameras!

It's worth it to purchase at least a decent printer to view the images on paper, frame some, give some away, sell or whatever you do. I always found if I ordered prints then I'd wait too long and forget, or add additional copies or images I didn't need just to meet an order minimum or to get free shipping. There's a nice convenience to be able to just print one image that you like whenever you want. I guess that goes for film or digital but with a good film scan you can print A3 no problem and larger.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2022 at 8:08 PM, altphoto said:

if you don't have a darkroom at your disposal, I think it's better to stay in the digital world; analogue only makes sense when you print your negatives in the darkroom; scanning the film is just working back in a digital world and then what is the point of film; by the way, to be able to scan a film properly, you need to develop the film for less time and you can no longer make decent prints of it,

I am not buying you here..... Now, I process my own film, so I suppose that alone takes away from your argument, but.... you seem to be concentrating on the end product, while I place my emphasis/enjoyment on the 'taking of the shot' process....

There is no doubt that if I was going to have a digital and enjoy it, it would be the MD262, for the very reasons as explained by Pippy. It is the closest to film without being film. The key is, it is still not film, as close as it might be. 

I had the pleasure of testing both the MD262 and my MA the other day, side by side in a street walk. It is hard to explain because the reasoning I am using is purely an intangible one, and one that perhaps only comes from the user. Using both cameras is about as close as one can get to an experience but remember there is still the 'meter' factor and there is still the exposure button and there is still the changing of the ISO and there is still the ability to shoot, and shoot and shoot with the MD262. 

The huge intangible factor for me with the MA is knowing I have one roll of film... So I work around it by being more selective in my shots. While I can bracket, it is not on very many shots. I also enjoy the process of loading film...the tactile feel one gets from it. I shoot with 400 ISO, so there you go....I learn to deal with one ISO setting and not manipulate the scene by engaging in higher ISO. Only digital has exposure comp, not the MA so I don't have that to deal with. 

Bottom line...great cameras and both feel about the same in one hand... But still the MD262b brings to the table camera features that are like eating a potato chip or chocolate in that they are hard to turn away. One goes for that extra piece of chocolate. Why? Because it is there.  The MA comes with no enticement and thus you shoot without it. Less distraction, be it what it may. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lmans said:

I am not buying you here..... Now, I process my own film, so I suppose that alone takes away from your argument, but.... you seem to be concentrating on the end product, while I place my emphasis/enjoyment on the 'taking of the shot' process....

There is no doubt that if I was going to have a digital and enjoy it, it would be the MD262, for the very reasons as explained by Pippy. It is the closest to film without being film. The key is, it is still not film, as close as it might be. 

I had the pleasure of testing both the MD262 and my MA the other day, side by side in a street walk. It is hard to explain because the reasoning I am using is purely an intangible one, and one that perhaps only comes from the user. Using both cameras is about as close as one can get to an experience but remember there is still the 'meter' factor and there is still the exposure button and there is still the changing of the ISO and there is still the ability to shoot, and shoot and shoot with the MD262. 

The huge intangible factor for me with the MA is knowing I have one roll of film... So I work around it by being more selective in my shots. While I can bracket, it is not on very many shots. I also enjoy the process of loading film...the tactile feel one gets from it. I shoot with 400 ISO, so there you go....I learn to deal with one ISO setting and not manipulate the scene by engaging in higher ISO. Only digital has exposure comp, not the MA so I don't have that to deal with. 

Bottom line...great cameras and both feel about the same in one hand... But still the MD262b brings to the table camera features that are like eating a potato chip or chocolate in that they are hard to turn away. One goes for that extra piece of chocolate. Why? Because it is there.  The MA comes with no enticement and thus you shoot without it. Less distraction, be it what it may. 

I have the M9, it works just like the D variants because the screen is pretty much useless for anything other than menus which I don't need very often. I keep my M9s on ISO 160 for most of my stuff and work with it. If I want to get the limitations of a roll of film I have 3 2GB SD Cards which only have 40 shots (DNG + JPG fine) but the best thing about using them is when I get home if I've only taken a few shots I don't have to either burn the rest of the film or wait until I've finished it to see the pictures. I've said before these days my film shooting is mainly on Medium Format even though I have 3 film Ms. Also the sensor in the M9 is as close to (slide) film shooting as any digital can get.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Topsy said:

I have the M9, it works just like the D variants because the screen is pretty much useless for anything other than menus which I don't need very often. I keep my M9s on ISO 160 for most of my stuff and work with it. If I want to get the limitations of a roll of film I have 3 2GB SD Cards which only have 40 shots (DNG + JPG fine) but the best thing about using them is when I get home if I've only taken a few shots I don't have to either burn the rest of the film or wait until I've finished it to see the pictures. I've said before these days my film shooting is mainly on Medium Format even though I have 3 film Ms. Also the sensor in the M9 is as close to (slide) film shooting as any digital can get.

I understand that entirely…. It is nice to get home and view right away…. I like that 2GB card idea. … but while that sensor is nice to hv on M9… many are or have to update, thus losing that slide like feel

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"but while that sensor is nice to hv on M9… many are or have to update, thus losing that slide like feel"

That's interesting, I've found that all digital - from my beginning use of it in 2000 - acts pretty much the same as slide film in that you have to expose for the highlights.  Certainly digital has a wider dynamic range than slide film but I don't see any noticeable difference in the way my M10R or Q2 reacts to overexposure compared to slide film. Despite the much wider overall dynamic range, you still can't recover blown highlights. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

"but while that sensor is nice to hv on M9… many are or have to update, thus losing that slide like feel"

That's interesting, I've found that all digital - from my beginning use of it in 2000 - acts pretty much the same as slide film in that you have to expose for the highlights.  Certainly digital has a wider dynamic range than slide film but I don't see any noticeable difference in the way my M10R or Q2 reacts to overexposure compared to slide film. Despite the much wider overall dynamic range, you still can't recover blown highlights. 

 

This might be true....a difference in regards to digital, or ...what might have to be done when shooting digital. Hey a question regarding digital/film in regards to the sunny 16 rule. While those who are shooting digital and have light meters (most cameras)...if you were going to use the sunny 16 rule, it seems to me that the same 16 rule doesn't apply the same equally to digital and film. Film shoots well with the Sunny 16 but does digital? I see a difference but does anyone else? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lmans said:

This might be true....a difference in regards to digital, or ...what might have to be done when shooting digital. Hey a question regarding digital/film in regards to the sunny 16 rule. While those who are shooting digital and have light meters (most cameras)...if you were going to use the sunny 16 rule, it seems to me that the same 16 rule doesn't apply the same equally to digital and film. Film shoots well with the Sunny 16 but does digital? I see a difference but does anyone else? 

Can't speak for later model digital Ms but with the M9 I'd not even consider the "Sunny 16 (S16) Rule" it's way too much of a guess for digital (and slide film). I find that with both digital and slide you need to be a bit more accurate with exposure than guessing with the S16 method. I can't imagine anyone ever got decent slides with S16 and it is my opinion that the same would apply to digital shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Topsy said:

Can't speak for later model digital Ms but with the M9 I'd not even consider the "Sunny 16 (S16) Rule" it's way too much of a guess for digital (and slide film). I find that with both digital and slide you need to be a bit more accurate with exposure than guessing with the S16 method. I can't imagine anyone ever got decent slides with S16 and it is my opinion that the same would apply to digital shooting.

That is very true, in the main, sunny 16 only works because of the wide latitude of modern negative films. Note: I said "in the main".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"in the main, sunny 16 only works because of the wide latitude of modern negative films"

"Modern" in this case would probably be negative film from the 1930's onward!  :)

Re "exposure meters" ...  my uncle had a camera - don't recall what brand - that had a small, rectangular translucent screen as part of the structure at the bottom of the camera that you could look through.  The screen was graduated in light transmission from left to right and had the camera F stops listed within the screen.  You would look through the screen and, based on the amount of light, you could see some/all of the F-stops.  The correct f stop for the exposure was the highest number stop you could see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

"in the main, sunny 16 only works because of the wide latitude of modern negative films"

"Modern" in this case would probably be negative film from the 1930's onward!  :)

Re "exposure meters" ...  my uncle had a camera - don't recall what brand - that had a small, rectangular translucent screen as part of the structure at the bottom of the camera that you could look through.  The screen was graduated in light transmission from left to right and had the camera F stops listed within the screen.  You would look through the screen and, based on the amount of light, you could see some/all of the F-stops.  The correct f stop for the exposure was the highest number stop you could see.

You are correct with your "1930s onward" comment but that latitude has widened considerably in more recent times. I remember the exposure meter that your uncle had but, like you, I can't recall the brand. Back in the 1950s I used a Kodak Photo Guide to good effect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...