Any film shooters getting the itch to shoot digital?

[Topsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, ianman said:

I use my M9 in the same way I use my film cameras… MP, Hassy or Zero Pinhole. In the almost 14 years I’ve owned it (I bought it the day it came out 09/09/09), I’ve not clocked up 10.000 frames on the M9 yet. So yes, once the film is in or the card is in, the only difference for me is the lever. I don’t use digital like it’s a machine gun. Looking, seeing, thinking about and then taking the pictures are all the same steps and are carried out with the same calmness and satisfaction. 

My approach exactly though I've not had my M9s half as long as you @ianman I use them 90% at base ISO no chimping and just work as if they are film cameras. I love that I can see the results as soon as I get home and that I don't have to "finish a film" or waste shots. I have said before that I prefer the output from my M9s to 35mm film and I have done my own tests shooting the same subjects side by side with M9 and Kodak Portre (even Fuji Provia 100F) and every time I have preferred the M9 files. I am content now to stick to 120 film for my film fix using Bronica SQ-Ais.

[Greenhilltony]

On 9/20/2023 at 2:31 AM, ianman said:

It is a personal thing and I agree with you both. What I failed to mention in my previous posts and is actually quite relevant is that, like many here,  I started taking pictures in the film only era. Mainly using Kodak high speed infrared B&W film. I use my M9 in the same way I use my film cameras… MP, Hassy or Zero Pinhole. In the almost 14 years I’ve owned it (I bought it the day it came out 09/09/09), I’ve not clocked up 10.000 frames on the M9 yet. So yes, once the film is in or the card is in, the only difference for me is the lever. I don’t use digital like it’s a machine gun. Looking, seeing, thinking about and then taking the pictures are all the same steps and are carried out with the same calmness and satisfaction. 

The lever brings me a lot more hormone and dopamine when go out shooting. Since 13 years ago, which is half of my current age, I went into both digital and film thanks to my dad’s own Minolta X300 and financial support. From the beginning I found winding the lever is much more interesting and a very satisfying action to do. Sentimentally, I also enjoy clicking the shutter on my M3 more than the M10-P, though the M10-P has the actually quieter shutter. And the M10-P, like every other digital camera, will heat up within your palm easily when you’re actively shooting, especially in sunny days. It kind of scares me lol.

Currently, I always prefer bringing a few rolls of film to scenes I have extensively captured and learnt the exposures with my M10-P previously. It is challenging to use film in some of those lighting conditions. However, I enjoy taking challenges imposed by myself and conquering them. That’s why I stay with using manual lenses, rangefinders, and film instead of jumping into the spec race of other mirrorless digital cameras. Doing things like feeling the distance and sometimes check the answer in viewfinder, eye-metering a scene, imagine the exposure zones in mind and see how the result goes, select aperture and imagine the DOF and would the bokeh be too blurry to tell the stories, etc., would be considered troublesome and mad by the majority of camera users nowadays. But I love it.

[Sunyforreal]

The Nikon ZF is an interesting digital alternative for us film shooters. Sort of feels like Nikon’s verson of a M10/M10p, or maybe SL2-S. Would be curious to hear yalls opinions. I have a lot of F mount glass, as well as a Contax G2 and Nikon F6 sitting around. Maybe this ZF could be a replacement? It certainly won’t replace my MP or FM3a.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Sunyforreal

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sunyforreal said:

The Nikon ZF is an interesting digital alternative for us film shooters. Sort of feels like Nikon’s verson of a M10/M10p, or maybe SL2-S. Would be curious to hear yalls opinions. I have a lot of F mount glass, as well as a Contax G2 and Nikon F6 sitting around. Maybe this ZF could be a replacement? It certainly won’t replace my MP or FM3a.

Looks very good (ex-FE2 user). Just don't like the fully articulated screen. Tempting, but I already have too many cameras.

[Sunyforreal]

8 minutes ago, Studienkamera said:

Looks very good (ex-FE2 user). Just don't like the fully articulated screen. Tempting, but I already have too many cameras.

The fully articulating screen is definitely love or hate. I used to have an X-T4 (which I didn’t love for other reasons) and the articulating screen didn’t bother me much. 
 

Can’t think of another “retro” full frame camera other than Leica’s own rangefinders. Would have been cool (albeit unrealistic) to see Nikon go all the way in, and basically create a digital FM3a with the same or better sensor. Still, I wish they had more selection of smaller, better glass. Right now the only lenses they’re making which fit the aesthetic purpose of the ZF are the 40/2 and 28/2.8. Would love to see a 21/28/35/50/85/135 spread of AI sized prime glass for this camera. I hope this camera does really well so Nikon can invest in it.

[250swb]

36 minutes ago, Sunyforreal said:

The Nikon ZF is an interesting digital alternative for us film shooters. Sort of feels like Nikon’s verson of a M10/M10p, or maybe SL2-S. Would be curious to hear yalls opinions. I have a lot of F mount glass, as well as a Contax G2 and Nikon F6 sitting around. Maybe this ZF could be a replacement? It certainly won’t replace my MP or FM3a.

The Zf looks amazing, and not just for it's looks. I mean a 24mp sweet spot, great for low light, and a pixel shift sensor that could give nearly 100mp photos! Great for film scanning. It even has an actual switch (not a crappy menu option) for shooting in B&W! With a Leica M adapter or Nikon lenses it's going to be fantastic. And the slower versions of the native Z lenses don't let the side down, another game changer from Nikon in making very high quality lenses affordable at a reasonable price.

Edited September 21, 2023 by 250swb

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, 250swb said:

The Zf looks amazing, and not just for it's looks. I mean a 24mp sweet spot, great for low light, and a pixel shift sensor that could give nearly 100mp photos! Great for film scanning. 

I've been looking for a digital camera to scan 35mm and 120 film and think the Zf might be the ticket.  Wondering how adapted Leica lenses would perform on the camera if I use the camera for non-scanning duties. I have  some Nikon AI lenses that I would want to use as well. 

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't think that pixel shift really changed the resolution of captured images but provided more accurate color since, for a pixel shift exposure, the sensor does not need to interpolate color values from adjacent pixels.  But I'm far from an expert on this technology.  

 

[otto.f]

3 hours ago, Sunyforreal said:

The Nikon ZF is an interesting digital alternative for us film shooters. Sort of feels like Nikon’s verson of a M10/M10p, or maybe SL2-S. Would be curious to hear yalls opinions. I have a lot of F mount glass, as well as a Contax G2 and Nikon F6 sitting around. Maybe this ZF could be a replacement? It certainly won’t replace my MP or FM3a.

ISO 204800 and 7 metering modes, enough options to drive me crazy. Nice that the 60’s design comes back but 710 grams is not how I remember my FE.

[Ouroboros]

Nikon Zf looks very tempting to me too, for all the above mentioned reasons plus pixel shift options up to 4x native res, IBIS, a flippy and usefully functional lcd that folds nicely away out of sight, access to amazing Z mount and a multitude of legacy F mount lenses, retro looks similar to, if a little larger, than my FM2n and, as mentioned, scanning resolution potential that would easily complement my mf & lf originals. 

The weight and slightly more bulk compared to a Nikon F is a minor whinge and no argument against it.  On the face of it at this point, Zf looks like a camera I could happily take alongside any of my FM2n, Leica MP or M10-R.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Ouroboros

[kivis]

I have the itch for about 50% of all the cameras on the market, film and digital. It's called GAS. Serious disease, but I have it under control,,,,,for the most part. 🤪

[250swb]

5 hours ago, logan2z said:

I've been looking for a digital camera to scan 35mm and 120 film and think the Zf might be the ticket.  Wondering how adapted Leica lenses would perform on the camera if I use the camera for non-scanning duties. I have  some Nikon AI lenses that I would want to use as well. 

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't think that pixel shift really changed the resolution of captured images but provided more accurate color since, for a pixel shift exposure, the sensor does not need to interpolate color values from adjacent pixels.  But I'm far from an expert on this technology.  

 

 

Pixel shift doesn't interpolate and invent pixels like a scanner, it makes four exposures each with the sensor shifted one pixel width (or whatever) to fill in the gaps between the photosites, so if you start with 24mp you end up with 96mp. Technically only possible using a tripod, but as it does it more or less instantly it remains to be seen if you can see anything moving like grass in a landscape between each shift. With all the Nikon Z cameras you also get IBIS for your Leica M lenses and any other manual lens (maybe a Nikon collection), but the Zf has a claimed eight stops of IBIS which is a massive. Weight wise I still use Nikon F, F2, F3 F100 (to name a few) so it won't replace a Leica M but the weight wouldn't bother me. I already have a Z7 so may not upgrade immediately but it sure is tempting. 

[logan2z]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Pixel shift doesn't interpolate and invent pixels like a scanner, it makes four exposures each with the sensor shifted one pixel width (or whatever) to fill in the gaps between the photosites, so if you start with 24mp you end up with 96mp.

My understanding (which could be incorrect) is that for a 4-shot pixel shift exposure there is no real increase in resolution - the only affect is on color fidelity due to a lack of interpolation.  It seems like you need 16-shot pixel shift to get an increase in resolution.  That seems to be borne out by this comparison:

https://www.zekefranco.co/articles/resolution-comparison-a7r-iv-vs-a7-iii-vs-pixel-shift

And Sony's Pixel Shift video:
 

I guess my real question is, if I'm using a 24MP FF camera to scan 120 B&W film, is that sufficient resolution - even with pixel shift - since I'm not using the entire sensor?  Or would I be better off using something like a 47MP camera instead?  Maybe the Zf's 16 frame pixel shift mode would do the trick.

Edited September 21, 2023 by logan2z

[250swb]

Well you could have looked this up instead of insisting I do it but the Zf can do pixel shift with either 4, 8, 16, or 32 RAW exposures, which should answer your question regarding resolution.

[logan2z]

19 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Well you could have looked this up instead of insisting I do it but the Zf can do pixel shift with either 4, 8, 16, or 32 RAW exposures, which should answer your question regarding resolution.

I did look it up (where did I insist that you do it?) which is why I mentioned the 16 exposure pixel shift mode in my previous post.  My comments were on the 4-shot mode which you claimed increased resolution to 96MP, which it apparently does not. 

Chill out Steve, this stuff isn't life or death.  

Edited September 21, 2023 by logan2z

[250swb]

8 minutes ago, logan2z said:

I did look it up (where did I insist that you do it?) which is why I mentioned the 16 exposure pixel shift mode in my previous post.  My comments were on the 4-shot mode which you claimed increased resolution to 96MP, which it apparently does not. 

Chill out Steve, this stuff isn't life or death.  

I said four pixel shifts ‘or whatever’ and you end up with 96mp. I apologise for not adding the word ‘can end up with 96mp’, I wasn’t anticipating a duel about it. 

[logan2z]

10 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I wasn’t anticipating a duel about it. 

Pixels at 16 paces 🙂

[250swb]

3 hours ago, logan2z said:

Pixels at 16 paces 🙂

It isn't untypical for people to ask for advice on the forum and then we discover it's a linguistic trap to be preyed upon in a petty way. Colloquially I think you could have worked it out, but if you have prior knowledge of the answer you want (as you say) just effing well say so, it often makes a reply so much more congenial by being on the same effing page. 

[logan2z]

52 minutes ago, 250swb said:

It isn't untypical for people to ask for advice on the forum and then we discover it's a linguistic trap to be preyed upon in a petty way. Colloquially I think you could have worked it out, but if you have prior knowledge of the answer you want (as you say) just effing well say so, it often makes a reply so much more congenial by being on the same effing page. 

I guess my attempt at a little levity didn't help smooth things over with you.  

Anyway, I assure you I have better things to do than invent linguistic traps to ensnare people on the forum.  I asked a legitimate question because you seemed to have the technical knowledge to answer it.  In parallel, I started to do my own research to better understand how pixel shift works.  During that research I learned some things that seemed at odds with what you were saying so I mentioned it.  It was certainly not a premeditated scheme to 'trap' you.   

[andybarton]

Ok, guys…

The bar’s open. Time for a cheeky one before dinner. 

No need to have a go at each other. 

Thanks. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Huss]

Took a quick snap w my 10r and Rollei 40 2.8.

 

 

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!