I own two SL2 bodies. New SL3 just came out - so I bought an R9

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, trickness said:

It's a manual focus lens system - if you're looking to do things fast, that's not an inherent strength of this setup. Lens character and image quality are.

No dimming when you stop down on the SL in my experience. 

That I'm used to with my R9 I've had for years...I guess in the case of focusing; it wouldn't be much different.  

8 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

Same thing with R lenses adapted to my Sony A7 - finder is always bright even in dim light or stopped down., so you can see the image - but stopped down increases DOF so it's hard to judge exact plane of focus. Even so I agree I can focus better on an EVF than most SLRs.

That's really good to know.  Thank you!

[Advertisement]

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

[trickness]

Eclipse worshippers in Washington Square Park. R9 & 50 Cron, Portra 160. Really loving the R9!

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!

[farnz]

On 4/17/2024 at 6:27 PM, trickness said:

Eclipse worshippers in Washington Square Park. R9 & 50 Cron, Portra 160. Really loving the R9!

Should I start taking odds on how long it will be before you get interested in a Digital-Module-R (DMR) that can replace your R9's back door and turn your R9 into a bona fide 10 MPx digital camera? 😄  (The colours produced by the DMR are wonderful.)

Pete.

[trickness]

24 minutes ago, farnz said:

Should I start taking odds on how long it will be before you get interested in a Digital-Module-R (DMR) that can replace your R9's back door and turn your R9 into a bona fide 10 MPx digital camera? 😄  (The colours produced by the DMR are wonderful.)

Pete.

Funny you should say that, another one of my friends said the same thing. But honestly, I’m enjoying film so much I have zero interest in the DMR.

[Stuart Richardson]

I used to shoot with both the R9 on film and on the DMR. While it was useful at the time, I think the DMR is best left to the past, especially if you have an SL2. You get the full frame and image quality out of the R lenses on the SL2, more than you would on the DMR. If you want an SLR experience, your money is much better invested in an S camera, which will have much better integration, and is really the true R9 successor. But as a camera for 35mm film, the R9 is a great platform and really wonderful to use. I would suggest continuing to enjoy it that way. That is peak performance for it.

[thebarnman]

I was going to say something similar.  I thought a couple times it would be nice to get the digital back for my R9 but I keep remembering there's a crop factor.  Colors may be nice but is there a direct comparison as to what the differences are when compared to the SL3?

Also, I have read some or many of those old DMR units don't work anymore but I don't know percentage wise what we are talking about.      

Just wondering, what is the cost of a DMR today?  

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/7/2024 at 6:27 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I used to shoot with both the R9 on film and on the DMR. While it was useful at the time, I think the DMR is best left to the past, especially if you have an SL2. You get the full frame and image quality out of the R lenses on the SL2, more than you would on the DMR. If you want an SLR experience, your money is much better invested in an S camera, which will have much better integration, and is really the true R9 successor. But as a camera for 35mm film, the R9 is a great platform and really wonderful to use. I would suggest continuing to enjoy it that way. That is peak performance for it.

I absolutely love the R9, especially with the 100mm APO Macro Elmarit. The colors and rendering especially with Portra 160 are just staggering. Since getting this camera, I haven’t picked up my SL2 once - something I absolutely did not expect. And I have zero interest in shooting digital. I’ve been spending the last three years, trying to make my pictures look more analog, at least in part due to the high resolution of the SL2. Now my pictures look like that straight out of the camera and I do almost no post. I don’t feel I’m anywhere near as competent with film as shooting digital, I have so much to learn. I really didn’t know what I was doing when I was taking pictures 25 years ago with my M6. But I’m getting there with the R9 and I’m finding it incredibly rewarding.

Digital definitely has its place, especially when I need to know exactly what I’m getting like on a work shoot. But for the past month and the foreseeable future, I’m shooting film.

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes. I began photography in earnest when I did a Fulbright to Vladivostok in 2001. My dad offered me to take his old Canon, and I knew better, so I bought a fancy 3mp point and shoot with some of my grant money. I figured I did not know how the film situation would be in Russia at the time (totally fine), and I thought unlimited pictures straight to the computer sounded good. Unfortunately the images were really poor compared to film. After being raised on slide shows, I realized very quickly how wrong I had been. So once I was back in the US I started learning film, and since my dad had shot slides, I did too. So I was lucky to learn on slides, which were the most demanding, and since you can immediately see your errors, the quickest way to improve. I have continued to use film that entire time, though these days I shoot almost exclusively 6x7, 4x5 and 8x10. The SL2 is the camera I use for color when E6 is too impractical (it is insanely expensive in larger formats now), or for my work. I also find it great for longer telephotos, and just any situation where film would be a hassle. But I still find that most of my best photos are shot on film. I really can't find anything in the way of deficiencies with the SL2 but usually the film comes out a bit better, all else being equal. For my art though, it is irrelevant. It is easy enough for me to get everything playing well together, so I tend not to both much about trying to segregate the work. In my experience, by the time they are printed and on the wall, few if any can tell what made what, with a few exceptions.

Edited May 10, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[trickness]

No way I'd ever get tonality like this from digital. This is with the 100mm APO Macro and Portra 160. The SL2 would be a lot sharper, more contrast, more saturated colors. But it wouldn't be this gentle and organic, not even close.

There is this emotional thing about the film shots that is easier to get than digital.

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!

[thebarnman]

OK, let's talk about tonality.  Above I see shadow in much of the image and bright sunlight hitting parts of the dress yet there's not much difference between shadow and bright light.  I take it that's the film creating that effect and you probably didn't have to do much to get that look (just like you said.)    

Currently I shoot with my Leica R9 using transparency film so I really don't get a lot of low level (or even) tonality as slide film naturally is pretty contrasty.  That is unless a image is fully in shade or fully in sun (where everything is bright and within a certain tone.)    

I'm thinking about getting the SL3 (first time buyer of digital) and never gave tonality much thought maybe because I shoot with slides.  Not being much of a digital shooter, I'm guessing to get even tonality (if that's what someone is going for) one would need to pay attention to the histogram to make sure all areas from dark to bright are all about equal.  I'm guessing that would be one way of getting that effect in camera.  Yes, that would create more work while trying to capture a certain look within a image.   

However, if a subject is contrasty (as I imagine the above image may have been in real life) with the use of the Portra 160 that takes a lot of the work out of it when trying to get a desired final result. 

So if you start out with a digitally captured image that's contrasty, I guess reducing the contrast later would be one of the steps needed to help give the final look your looking for but I'm guessing there would be much more to that.   

I wonder if shooting at a much higher ISO would help?  In other words, a ISO that's so high that it starts to introduce noise.  Would that be a bad thing?  Film has grain, digital has noise but I've seen some digital noise that kind of looks or looks like grain...makes it more film like.  So when noise is introduced, I wonder if that will help provide a more even tone to the image?  

I don't know because like I said, I shoot film so I don't know much about how to get a certain look with digital except of course to capture that way in the camera.  I do know when it comes to the SL3, it has 15 stops of dynamic range (about the same or more than 35mm color negative film.  (But I don't know how much exposure latitude it has) which I'm guessing is about the same or less than transparency film.    

The first few images here https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/390472-the-leica-sl3-a-review-by-jonathan-slack/ has some nice tonality.  Maybe there's a secret on how to get that effect in post?  If not, then it might be possible that was the intention to capture it that way in camera.  

 

[AZN]

18 hours ago, thebarnman said:

OK, let's talk about tonality

Now that the term has been discredited, is that a different way of saying "Colour Science" ?…

BTW, I did a little fine-adjustment for the supplied wedding photo.  Interesting what a bit of colour balancing, cropping and sharpening can do.

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!

[trickness]

1 hour ago, AZN said:

Now that the term has been discredited, is that a different way of saying "Colour Science" ?…

BTW, I did a little fine-adjustment for the supplied wedding photo.  Interesting what a bit of colour balancing, cropping and sharpening can do.

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!

With respect, it wasn't my goal to make the image look more digital, sharpen it, change the color from what Kodak intended. That's not why I bought a film camera. I'm quite capable of doing this myself on my SL2 images. Or doing the edits you made here.

 

What you did was make this photo look more digital, which I deliberately avoid when shooting film. And to be honest I think it's a bit of an intrusion to edit someone else's image to your own tastes and suggest that they are somehow better, or instructional. All they really are are your personal taste applied to someone else's work. Not sure what your goal was here but I'd appreciate if you use your own images to illustrate your points. Apologies if this comes across as precious.

Edited May 12, 2024 by trickness

[trickness]

20 hours ago, thebarnman said:

OK, let's talk about tonality.  Above I see shadow in much of the image and bright sunlight hitting parts of the dress yet there's not much difference between shadow and bright light.  I take it that's the film creating that effect and you probably didn't have to do much to get that look (just like you said.)    

Currently I shoot with my Leica R9 using transparency film so I really don't get a lot of low level (or even) tonality as slide film naturally is pretty contrasty.  That is unless a image is fully in shade or fully in sun (where everything is bright and within a certain tone.)    

I'm thinking about getting the SL3 (first time buyer of digital) and never gave tonality much thought maybe because I shoot with slides.  Not being much of a digital shooter, I'm guessing to get even tonality (if that's what someone is going for) one would need to pay attention to the histogram to make sure all areas from dark to bright are all about equal.  I'm guessing that would be one way of getting that effect in camera.  Yes, that would create more work while trying to capture a certain look within a image.   

However, if a subject is contrasty (as I imagine the above image may have been in real life) with the use of the Portra 160 that takes a lot of the work out of it when trying to get a desired final result. 

So if you start out with a digitally captured image that's contrasty, I guess reducing the contrast later would be one of the steps needed to help give the final look your looking for but I'm guessing there would be much more to that.   

I wonder if shooting at a much higher ISO would help?  In other words, a ISO that's so high that it starts to introduce noise.  Would that be a bad thing?  Film has grain, digital has noise but I've seen some digital noise that kind of looks or looks like grain...makes it more film like.  So when noise is introduced, I wonder if that will help provide a more even tone to the image?  

I don't know because like I said, I shoot film so I don't know much about how to get a certain look with digital except of course to capture that way in the camera.  I do know when it comes to the SL3, it has 15 stops of dynamic range (about the same or more than 35mm color negative film.  (But I don't know how much exposure latitude it has) which I'm guessing is about the same or less than transparency film.    

The first few images here https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/390472-the-leica-sl3-a-review-by-jonathan-slack/ has some nice tonality.  Maybe there's a secret on how to get that effect in post?  If not, then it might be possible that was the intention to capture it that way in camera.  

 

Again, the reason I purchased a film camera was not to make the images look digital in post. And ultimately I found that trying to make digital images look more film-like can only get you so far - you've got greatly increased resolution and sharpness (at least with the glass I use on my SL), the way digital handles highlights is totally different, the out of focus areas look totally different, the color is totally different. I have zero interest in making my film images look sharper, more saturated, or have more "pop". I'm still learning how best to use film, but ultimately I am very happy with how it looks out of the camera (or pretty close anyway). I've intentionally not goosed the contrast in this image, or bumped up the color or clarity. I do all of those things when I shoot digital. Don't want to do it in film, don't want to make my film images look the same as my digital, which I think would be kind of dumb as I could just save a lot of cash by skipping film entirely if that was my goal.

Digital grain is not grain, it's noise, and it never looks as good as film grain to my eyes. I have DXO FilmPack 7 and though the emulations it does are quite good, the emulations don't really look like the real thing at all, and I say this because I've shot using the same stock and compared. I will shoot at high ISOs when my intent is to degrade an image in camera - I'll also over or underexpose to get certain effects. It's nice having an EVF to see how this works as you're doing it. And I love my SL2 to bits - but have zero interest in the SL3.

Why? Because I think the higher the resolution gets in these cameras, the more it starts to look like some kind of virtual reality. Edges are too well defined, even in out of focus areas. It starts looking fake to me. I'm not interested in a more perfect version of something. I am interested in MY version of something, developing that more. I don't need more dynamic range, sharpness, megapixels, tilt screens, PDAF, yada yadda. I think the answer for me anyway is to shoot more, take risks, learn, look closely at the results and keep moving forward. Not knowing exactly WTF I'm doing is actually helping me get there. I'm sure in a year I'll look at these images that I've taken upon my return to film and see where I'd do things differently. But for now, I'm enjoying the surprises, enjoying the discovery of how different stocks, lenses and bodies see the light. I'm making mistakes - which is a wonderful thing.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2024 by trickness

[thebarnman]

4 hours ago, trickness said:

Again, the reason I purchased a film camera was not to make the images look digital in post. And ultimately I found that trying to make digital images look more film-like can only get you so far - you've got greatly increased resolution and sharpness (at least with the glass I use on my SL), the way digital handles highlights is totally different, the out of focus areas look totally different, the color is totally different. I have zero interest in making my film images look sharper, more saturated, or have more "pop". I'm still learning how best to use film, but ultimately I am very happy with how it looks out of the camera (or pretty close anyway). I've intentionally not goosed the contrast in this image, or bumped up the color or clarity. I do all of those things when I shoot digital. Don't want to do it in film, don't want to make my film images look the same as my digital, which I think would be kind of dumb as I could just save a lot of cash by skipping film entirely if that was my goal.

Digital grain is not grain, it's noise, and it never looks as good as film grain to my eyes. I have DXO FilmPack 7 and though the emulations it does are quite good, the emulations don't really look like the real thing at all, and I say this because I've shot using the same stock and compared. I will shoot at high ISOs when my intent is to degrade an image in camera - I'll also over or underexpose to get certain effects. It's nice having an EVF to see how this works as you're doing it. And I love my SL2 to bits - but have zero interest in the SL3.

Why? Because I think the higher the resolution gets in these cameras, the more it starts to look like some kind of virtual reality. Edges are too well defined, even in out of focus areas. It starts looking fake to me. I'm not interested in a more perfect version of something. I am interested in MY version of something, developing that more. I don't need more dynamic range, sharpness, megapixels, tilt screens, PDAF, yada yadda. I think the answer for me anyway is to shoot more, take risks, learn, look closely at the results and keep moving forward. Not knowing exactly WTF I'm doing is actually helping me get there. I'm sure in a year I'll look at these images that I've taken upon my return to film and see where I'd do things differently. But for now, I'm enjoying the surprises, enjoying the discovery of how different stocks, lenses and bodies see the light. I'm making mistakes - which is a wonderful thing.

 

 

I get it.  There's a look and feel easily found with film that I really don't see with digital but to me there has to be a way to shoot with digital for satisfactory results.  Maybe that's all the post processing you're talking about.  I think film hides all the incredible detail one might see in real life or in fact from a high end digital image of the same.  Maybe at least for me it's the same reason why movies shown at 24fps helps give the viewer an easy way to get the suspension of disbelief (since the brain has to fill in all the gaps) where as movies shot at 60fps (or more) takes all that away and throws a look of reality in front of the viewer's eyes.  

Maybe that's why film gives a dream quality that's harder to achieve than the same thing shot digitally.  Less detail vs greater detail. 

About tonality, Portra 160 does provide an easy way to capture that look.  Can be done with digital but evidently more work has to be done to achieve the same look/effect.  What have you had to do to get the tonality you like with your SL2 images?    

[thebarnman]

6 hours ago, AZN said:

Now that the term has been discredited, is that a different way of saying "Colour Science" ?…

I don't know if I discredited the term tonality; I was simply making the case the same effect could be captured digitally but as mentioned earlier has to be done with much more thought beforehand digitally (if that's the effect going for.)  No arguments it's easier to get that look while shooting with certain types of film.      

Color science to me is more about how much visible color film or a digital sensor can capture vs what the human eye can detect.  It's also about how color is perceived, produced and measured.  There are standards for display screens (computers/smart phones) such as sRGB which is the most limiting of all the color spaces available.  For printing or displaying on higher end displays, something like ProPhoto RGB or P3 might be used for a better or more desirable result.  Different ink sets also effect what colors are reproduced.  Color is also effected by the type of light we view objects, time of day, weather and right down to the light bulbs we use for a light source.  All of that to me is color science and it gets much more complicated than that.  It's amazing to me there are those who understand it and can take full advantage of all that knowledge and apply it to professional and consumer grade equipment. 

Tonality to me is simply the difference between light and dark objects in a photograph (or something we might see in real life.  The bigger the difference, the higher the contrast.  

[trickness]

10 hours ago, thebarnman said:

I get it.  There's a look and feel easily found with film that I really don't see with digital but to me there has to be a way to shoot with digital for satisfactory results.  Maybe that's all the post processing you're talking about.  I think film hides all the incredible detail one might see in real life or in fact from a high end digital image of the same.  Maybe at least for me it's the same reason why movies shown at 24fps helps give the viewer an easy way to get the suspension of disbelief (since the brain has to fill in all the gaps) where as movies shot at 60fps (or more) takes all that away and throws a look of reality in front of the viewer's eyes.  

Maybe that's why film gives a dream quality that's harder to achieve than the same thing shot digitally.  Less detail vs greater detail. 

About tonality, Portra 160 does provide an easy way to capture that look.  Can be done with digital but evidently more work has to be done to achieve the same look/effect.  What have you had to do to get the tonality you like with your SL2 images?    

Most of the post processing I do with digital images is just really dodging and burning, adjusting contrast, dehazing, tweaking curves, and adjusting saturation or vibrancy. I’ve also used DXO plug-ins to soften the images, add “grain”.

But honestly, I think we’re getting a bit out into the weeds with this discussion. Digital has its strengths and weaknesses, just like film. I use both to achieve a different result - but of far more important to me is making a connection with the subject, and developing a personal visual signature. I think way too much time is spent here on the technicalities of various iterations of cameras and way too little time spent on the question of image composition, balancing what’s in the frame. That to me is probably the most important thing - choosing what to put inside the frame, what to exclude, and where everything should be inside that frame.

The photo of the girl sitting in the car above was taken on the street. It was actually some kind of street photo class and they were about a dozen photographers hovering around her. I was not participating in this class, I just came across them in the street and actually shot over somebody’s shoulder. I would say this is an example of great composition that I’ve posted here. It was a quick snap, taking advantage of an opportunity. I really only put it in the thread because I thought it was a good example of how provides a more gentle “look” than digital. Everything just seems softer - the colors, the resolution, the transition to the out of focus areas, the highlights. I of course know how to soften all of these things in Lightroom. But it’s a pleasurable thing to just get this kind of look straight out of the camera and only minimally post process an image to get here.

I think now that I am what I guess is called a “hybrid shooter”, I am going to lean into the strength of digital and film and not try to get them to look like each other. When I scan my film negatives and bring them into Lightroom, the last thing on my mind is trying to make them look punchier, more saturated, sharper. I think that’s a fool’s errand.

Edited May 13, 2024 by trickness

[trickness]

2 hours ago, trickness said:

Most of the post processing I do with digital images is just really dodging and burning, adjusting contrast, dehazing, tweaking curves, and adjusting saturation or vibrancy. I’ve also used DXO plug-ins to soften the images, add “grain”.

But honestly, I think we’re getting a bit out into the weeds with this discussion. Digital has its strengths and weaknesses, just like film. I use both to achieve a different result - but of far more important to me is making a connection with the subject, and developing a personal visual signature. I think way too much time is spent here on the technicalities of various iterations of cameras and way too little time spent on the question of image composition, balancing what’s in the frame. That to me is probably the most important thing - choosing what to put inside the frame, what to exclude, and where everything should be inside that frame.

The photo of the girl sitting in the car above was taken on the street. It was actually some kind of street photo class and they were about a dozen photographers hovering around her. I was not participating in this class, I just came across them in the street and actually shot over somebody’s shoulder. I would say this is an example of great composition that I’ve posted here. It was a quick snap, taking advantage of an opportunity. I really only put it in the thread because I thought it was a good example of how provides a more gentle “look” than digital. Everything just seems softer - the colors, the resolution, the transition to the out of focus areas, the highlights. I of course know how to soften all of these things in Lightroom. But it’s a pleasurable thing to just get this kind of look straight out of the camera and only minimally post process an image to get here.

I think now that I am what I guess is called a “hybrid shooter”, I am going to lean into the strength of digital and film and not try to get them to look like each other. When I scan my film negatives and bring them into Lightroom, the last thing on my mind is trying to make them look punchier, more saturated, sharper. I think that’s a fool’s errand.

GAH! This "I would say this is an example of great composition that I’ve posted here" was OF COURSE meant to be WOULDN'T SAY - this image is a total throwaway! Sorry for the typo above.

[farnz]

30 minutes ago, trickness said:

GAH! This "I would say this is an example of great composition that I’ve posted here" was OF COURSE meant to be WOULDN'T SAY - this image is a total throwaway! Sorry for the typo above.

  Been there ... done that.

When I read it it didn't sound quite right and I thought you probably meant to say "wouldn't".

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[trickness]

15 minutes ago, farnz said:

  Been there ... done that.

When I read it it didn't sound quite right and I thought you probably meant to say "wouldn't".

Pete.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt Pete! 😂

[hansvons]

On 5/10/2024 at 6:45 PM, trickness said:

There is this emotional thing about the film shots that is easier to get than digital.

I haven't monitored this thread for half a year or so. I clearly missed out a lot! Great to see your talent here in the R forums.

I myself own an R4. It’s a reminder of the 90ies when I spent some time in NYC with it and the kit 50mm Summicron as a young lad. I was a proud freshman cameraman (newsgatheringing back then) and figured that a Leica would fit me well in my new profession. I still have the slides from that time somewhere. 

It took me 29 years to pick up a proper stills camera again (I got a few digital point-and-shoots on the way for family snaps, later substituted with phones), as my desire to create images was satisfied by my job. Before Covid hit, I left advertising and became an environmentalist. At that time, I sold my cine kit and figured I had left image-making for good. Or so I thought. 
 

A year later I purchased an SL2-S. It’s probably the best digital camera money can buy in terms of image fidelity (not resolution). Then the stills photography bug hit me as bad as I was hit by the cinematography bug in my youth, if not worse. I added to the SL2-S a Canon 44“ printer, two film Ms, and an R6 because my R4‘s electronics died and I have an R primes set that I originally purchased for video shoots on the SL2-S. 
 

Despite the brilliant sensor and colour science I never bonded with the SL2-S, the Arri Alexa, Red, any digital cine cameras for that matter because they are digital, dead-eyed Polyphemi. Add to that the lost thrill of not knowing what I'll be getting (it‘s all in one‘s anticipation when visualising the shot), reverting back to my beloved cine stocks was a natural move. Today, I shoot 95% my work on film, even large parts of my little assignments (mostly editorial stuff).
 

I‘m now 57. I don’t know if I will ever be able to be in the stills world as successful as I was with moving images. Probably not. But that doesn’t matter. I use my camera for exploring humanity‘s influence on the environment, basically shooting landscapes. But I snap them if I were shooting on the streets. I don’t care about light, composition, and the rest of it. I care about the subject, the moment, me. I don’t use a tripod, never wait for the right light, the mist, the sweetness of a motif. I just snap reality.

I do this now in the third year and I somewhat developed my voice. Film is a huge part of that voice, as is my 35mm lens. And yes, it can’t be stressed enough: 

On 5/10/2024 at 6:45 PM, trickness said:

There is this emotional thing about the film shots that is easier to get than digital.

I’d even go further and argue that it’s impossible to reach that emotional level with digital. From Spielberg to Nolan to Gursky and many more: film is their preferred medium for a reason. And that's not nostalgia. 

Edited June 6, 2024 by hansvons