A Kind of Agony

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andalus:

 

"I feel your pain". After shooting with two M6s for years, and scanning with an Imacon FlexTight and printing on an Epson 9800 with ImagePrint, I bought the Ricoh GRD a little over two years ago and never looked back, not having shot another frame of film since then. My current small sensor camera is the Ricoh GRD2, which I would recommend much more than a G9 for someone using a Leica-M camera. This camera has an excellent 28mm EFOV lens and very good 21mm and 40mm converter lenses. Sean Reid, who writes the best reviews available either on the net or in print has reviews of both cameras on his (pay) site:

 

Welcome to ReidReviews

 

He is currently testing the Sigma DP1, which you should also consider, and will be testing the Olympus E3 and Nikon D3.

 

Here are two Ricoh RGD2 pictures:

 

 

Ricoh GR-Digital II + 40mm Tele-converter | ISO 800

 

 

 

Ricoh GR-Digital II | ISO 400

 

 

 

But there's more to my story: three weeks ago, before leaving for Namibia, I went to look at the Nikon D300 and found it to be a dazzling camera: responsive, incredibly fast, with accurate autofocus and a well-dampened, rapid and relatively quiet mirror: it's not the mirror slap and blackout of your father's Nikon F, which itself was a great camera. I bought it with the 17-35mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lenses, which give EFOV of 25.5-52.5mm and 105-300mm, respectively. They are both excellent lenses and the latter is outstanding. And the vibration reduction really works.

 

My experience with the D300 has made me re-evaluate my thoughts about a full-frame digital camera like the D3. Like most people I thought that full frame would be better than the smaller 1.5x factor sensor of the D300, but I was thinking in terms of using all my Leica-M lenses at their "real focal lenght".

 

With these excellent Nikon zooms, my thinking now is different. Firstly, for street photography my experience with small sensor cameras is that I like the huge depth of field. Indeed, when I started shooting on the street with the D300 I found myself shooting at f/8 to get the DOF that I wanted; and the excellent high-ISO capability of this camera made this easy. Secondly, even for portraits, I find that I prefer just a "touch of bokeh" to complete blurred-out backgrounds that so many people want "to isolate the subject" — and approach that I find to be overdone to the point of triteness.

 

Now that I have the D300 I am not at all certain that I would like a full-frame version of this camera, about which there is speculation: I would not want to give up the greater DOF of the current D300 for a full-frame version or for he D3, which, simply, is too big for my taste.

 

Here a few such with my recently-acquired D300:

 

 

Nikon D300 | 17-35mm f/2.8 lens | ISO 800 | 32mm [48mm EFOV] f/2.8

 

 

 

 

Nikon 300D 70-200mm f/2.8 lens | ISO 800 | 200mm [300mm EFOV] f/2.8

 

 

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

[Guest malland]

...and I can't resist posting the B&W version of the last picture because of beauty of its gray tones:

 

 

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

[ddp]

In 10 years, the D3 will have been replaced by something far more advanced and exotic. What I’m getting from the D3 now is beyond what I could have hoped for 8 years when I started using the D1. But your MP will still be quite useful, assuming film is still around. I can’t argue that the D3 is a revolutionary camera in Nikon’s lineup – it is truly a formidable tool in the right hands….and that’s really the key here. The high ISO ability along with some very nice lenses gives the user a nice array of weapons, but honestly, the MP is also an impressive tool paired with the right lenses and ability. As a user of both systems, they both have their place and are both fantastic machines.

 

Honestly – I don’t see a D3 as a replacement to my film M’s though. In certain applications, I know the D3 will get the nod as the camera of choice. The M’s will still be important for my personal work and certain things I want to capture with film. For me, film still has a certain subtlety that digital lacks. I also prefer the workflow of using film and an M body as opposed to the Nikons. Tends to slow me down into a more thoughtful mode. Not always a bad thing in today’s society.

[andalus]

Thanks again, all responders. Much to ponder here. Will certainly take a look at that Ricoh...

 

Andalus (M Love)

[KM-25]

I own and use the D3, M8 and MP-3 professionally.

 

The D3 is no Leica, it is big-ish, the zooms are large...but it really is prefect as far as pro digital cameras go. I have put nearly 24,000 frames through mine since getting it in late December and it has been flawless.

 

The M8 is another story. While it does put out some nice files and is small, you really pay for it. For example, I shoot a lot of slide film in three film M's, so I can't really use the M8 along side of the film M's if using color film due to the lousy IR cut filters. And the shutter and wind mechanism sounds like a large rubber band being shot across the room.

 

The shutter release feel on the M8 is by far the worst I have ever felt on any camera, ever. But for ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS you can have the shutter put in your M8 that Leica should have put in it in the first place.

 

And for low light work? The M8 at 640 is equal to the D3 at 6,400. I would much rather fire off two frames on the D3 at ISO 6,400 with a 50 1.2 than hold my breath for a much lower shutter speed with the M8 and have it sound like...you guessed it...a large rubber band being shot across the room. You see, in candid work, the D3 may be loud, but it is fast, so it gets the noise over with pretty quickly. But the M8 prolongs it with the most toy sounding wind mechanism in the industry.

 

But for medium to bright light, the M8 with a 28 cron is an outstanding travel and all around rig. It really is small and with the exception of the lousy shutter release, it handles well.

 

So honestly, keep your MP and go with the little G9 you are planning on.

 

The D3 is incredible, I could not imagine not having it and if I had to make a choice, I would go with the D3 over the M8 in the blink of an eye.

 

But for now, I use the M8 when I can or need to.

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

Thanks all for all the very thoughtful replies to my "agony". It is very helpful and much appreciated. This week I think I stumbled across a solution: Keep the MP and lenses and to get a feel for digital, buy for 500 bucks or so the Canon G 9, which shoots "raw", too! This seems to be a nice little camera, sizewise like the MP.... If any out there have tried the G9, let me know what you think. Or tried the G9 in combo with retaining Leica film gear.

 

Andalus,

I am glad that you have - for the time being - shelved the idea of selling your film Leicas and going straight for a D3.

Why? I am just paying a heavy price for a decision I made too quickly without checking out many points. I sold a Canon 5D + good lenses + flash etc. and purchased the D3 and 3 zooms, i.3. 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 + flash + 1.7 tele extender. It is an excellent camera for high ISO speeds, no other camera I have tried comes up to it, however, I found that at high enlargements of, say 80x120cm, the details are not satisfactory to me. I stress that this is my subjective view. I will now take a serious loss and switch back to another camera.

Glad that I did not sell my 2 M8's or the other MP etc. Various posters have given what I believe are very valid suggestions. The ones like best are the ones that suggest a consumer grade digital SLR so that you have a chance to learn the differences of film to digital AND the differences of rangefinder use to SLR practice. To decide after that will be the safest and most sensible route for you to go IMHO.

Teddy

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found that at high enlargements of, say 80x120cm, the details are not satisfactory to me.

 

Coming from a pair of 5D's my self, I found that to be the case initially. Now I work the files differently and get equal results at base ISO from the D3 as I did from the 5D.

[roguewave]

Keep your Leica analog stuff. It will always work & remain a strong value. Get a used & fixed Digilux 2 for the best entry point. About $600-700 for a great Leica lens and simple to use digital camera that provides superb images. You get both worlds for a low cost. The D2 is light, handsome & one of my favorite cameras. Ask the Forum members that own them. I think there's more loyality to this camera than any Leica digital product. Setting aside the issue with the sensor, if the senor is replaced or doesn't need t be (as is the case with mine, a very later camera) you shoot your heart out in raw mode and it even has a black & white setting in the viewfinder that is way cool for street work. You won't be disappointed in this little gem. I think it's insane to pay 5K + for a camera with so many compromises in your case.

[jlancasterd]

I know how you feel. I have an M8, a Canon 5D and an old M3 and M6, and I have just ordered a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to replace my old Minolta 5400 which has stopped working, I use the 5D for family photos, parties, etc and its digital files are excellent, but I much prefer taking slides or occasionally negatives with my M3 or M6. I really don't enjoy using the M8. Whilst the ability to change ISO at will and the virtually WYSIWYG viewfinder of the DSLR are very convenient, the film Ms are much handier, less conspicuous and much more enjoyable to use, in my view. I think you may regret it if you trade in your MP.

Philip

 

Philip

 

How is a film M (an M7 or MP, say) less conspicuous than an M8? Most people, if they notice I'm using my M8 at all, ask why I'm 'using an old film camera'.

 

IMHO a black M8 is much less conspicuous than a chrome M7 or MP.

[chris_livsey]

Now I work the files differently and get equal results at base ISO from the D3 as I did from the 5D.

 

Equal results ? From a camera costing 3x as much, are you happy ?

This not a troll I am looking at a D3/D300 or waiting for the 5d replacement (which may be as disappointing as the 1DsIII against the II). No SLR investment in lenses (not counting Hasselblad where the backs are somewhat pricey).

 

From my reading the D3/ 1dsIII/II/ 5d /M8 are all much of a muchness in final IQ when processed by the mythical "expert". I might just go and get an MP instead.

[Philip Freedman]

John : I simply meant that my film Ms were less conspicuous etc than a DSLR. I don't enjoy using my M8 even though it is of course similarly inconspicuous. I am a keen amateur and for my usage enjoyment of the way something handles is important whether it is a car, a camera or some other hobby tool (others may feel the same about a golfclub, violin, fountain pen, etc).

[semrich]

I think if you poke enough around this and other forums without getting mired down in the details you my spot the bigger picture of a movement by the folks who post their experiences from digital back to B&W film and then to developing their own film.

 

You might end up deeply regretting the day you sold your Leica gear.

[andybarton]

I think if you poke enough around this and other forums without getting mired down in the details you my spot the bigger picture of a movement by the folks who post their experiences from digital back to B&W film and then to developing their own film.

 

I have always processed my own B&W (and now E6), but it must be a couple of months since I used my DMR...

[NZDavid]

Hmm. Try the D3 but don't sell the Leica. Or do, but you'll be back in a month or two. I think all of us get used to Leica and take the quality for granted. Perhaps trying another camera for a while will help you realize what you like about Leica. Digital does have its pluses, though. A secondary digicam?

 

 

Line from Monty Python: "We're all individuals."

Troublemaker in the crowd: "I'm not!"

[Guest malland]

...Try the D3 but don't sell the Leica. Or do, but you'll be back in a month or two. I think all of us get used to Leica and take the quality for granted. Perhaps trying another camera for a while will help you realize what you like about Leica...

Certainly not true about "all" of us. There are a lot more people that have stopped shooting film, even with Leicas, and, like me, have never looked back. Not to pick particularly on the posting I've quoted here, I find all these types of statements of how people will miss shooting film with a Leica to be rather empty and not particularly useful when no pictures are posted that show what the writer means. I'm all for the photographer liking the camera he or she shoots with, but the pictures produced are a lot more important — and, obviously, one can get there shooting either film or digital. I must say I never drank Rodinal for breakfast. <g>

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

[styx]

Certainly not true about "all" of us. There are a lot more people that have stopped shooting film, even with Leicas, and, like me, have never looked back. Not to pick particularly on the posting I've quoted here, I find all these types of statements of how people will miss shooting film with a Leica to be rather empty and not particularly useful when no pictures are posted that show what the writer means. I'm all for the photographer liking the camera he or she shoots with, but the pictures produced are a lot more important — and, obviously, one can get there shooting either film or digital. I must say I never drank Rodinal for breakfast. <g>

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

 

Mitch,

 

posting pictures is irrelevant. The differences are in the physical print. You can not see it on computer screens.

 

Of course you don't drink Rodinal for breakfast. For breakfast you should drink Xtol. Rodinal is meant for dinner.

 

Rudy

[Guest malland]

Rudy, while a print always looks better than the image on the monitor my feeling is that for someone used to soft-proofing the latter gives a pretty good indication of what the print will look like. In my experience the differences between a good picture and one that is less good is much more visible on the monitor than the difference between a monitor image and a print, if you know what I mean. And I decided to skip dinner: perhaps I should drink some monitor cleaning fluid tonight.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

[styx]

Rudy, while a print always looks better than the image on the monitor my feeling is that for someone used to soft-proofing the latter gives a pretty good indication of what the print will look like. In my experience the differences between a good picture and one that is less good is much more visible on the monitor than the difference between a monitor image and a print, if you know what I mean. And I decided to skip dinner: perhaps I should drink some monitor cleaning fluid tonight.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

 

 

As long as you stay in the digital realm, I agree. And calibrating your monitor/camera/printer is imperative. But what I meant is the 3 dimensional look from a 'silver' print. You just can not replicate this on a computer monitor. After the conversion from analog to digital, the 3 dimensional look is kaputt. It is just 2 dimensional. That is why for me digital is not better than analog and vice versa. They are just different. And I try to stay in each realm. When I use digital I do not poor any Rodinal in my computer. And when I use analog I don't scan my images. Ok, only the final print. But they already look awful on the computer.

 

Rudy

[wildlightphoto]

Instead you will be buying;

Memory Cards,

Portable storage,

External Hard Drives,

Software,

White Balance gizmos,

Printer Ink,

Paper,

and,

and,

......................................

 

 

Peter

 

... RAM, faster processors ...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

Mitch, no disrespect intended, but I don't see that the photos you've posted from the D300 are an adequate demonstration of how well it performs. The little antelope, for example, looks soft to me. In this photo I don't see the combination of crisp detail, tonal range and tonal/color gradation that I've come to expect with the DMR.