andalus Posted May 16, 2009 Share #1 Posted May 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just back to US from two weeks in Malaysia. I took my MP and a 50 Lux ASPH, and the DL4. Now, granted, it was a business trip and not a lot of thought to taking pictures, but I did have 8 rolls of Velvia and planned to shoot up Kuala Lumpur with that. Turns out I shot only a single roll of film and recorded some 300 shots with the DL 4 in both JPG and Raw. I must say that as much as I have loved the MP, it's mechanical perfection, its iconic status, I was literally seduced by the DL4 in use on this journey. It is my first digital camera, and the ease of not having to fiddle with film, wait to have it processed, etc., was really shocking. Almost to the point of thinking maybe the MP will become an afterthought from now on, and that maybe I ought to look into adding a Canon D5 Mk II and selling the MP but keeping my three M lenses for later (possible) use on a digital camera with appropriate adapter. I am beginning to wonder if in five years anyone will be shooting 35mm film. I am wondering if anyone else has been carrying a film M plus a DL4 or similar on trips and had the same experience. Of essentially realizing that "maybe" the film M is mostly going to reside in a drawer from now on? In a way, I am really sad about this experience. Any thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 Hi andalus, Take a look here DL 4 crushes MP usage. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wizard Posted May 16, 2009 Share #2 Posted May 16, 2009 I don't want to be seduced by the evil of digital:), and therefore always take a film camera with me, even on business trips. Think about it, a two week business trip and you shot 300+ pics on the DL4! Extrapolate that a little and you will get an idea of how many thousands and thousands of shots you will end up with in just a few years. What on earth will you do with that many shots? Granted, you could delete many of them, but everyone I know never does. Instead, those shots keep filling up hard drives or whatever other medium until it gets to the point where people don't even find the pictures they search for anymore. And don't you ever think that it is fun for other people to watch (or mostly having to watch) that many pictures on your return. I'd wait for the results on the film taken with your MP and decide then. Just my 2 cents. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobbslane Posted May 16, 2009 Share #3 Posted May 16, 2009 I understand exactly where you're coming from on this. For some time I also tried to fight off the inevitable and is so doing upgraded from an M6 to an M7 to R9 whilst trying to convince myself that film was better. I had invested in an exceptional scanner and even 'worked my way backwards' by buying a pristine Hassleblad and suitable lenses at one point via E-whotsit. Nevertheless, my job increasingly called for digital output to client within the day of the shoot and this just wasn't possible with film. When I sat down and realised how much of a financial disadvantage there was too for film, processing, travel to collect etc I thought I was mad and had to swallow a bit of pride. I offloaded the film gear and bought a Canon 5D DSLR and suitable lenses, over time. This made me realise just what I had been putting up with to make my stand on film. I even found myself researching scientific comparisons of grain size vs pixel size in the hunt for resolution to justify my move But let me warn you that it doesn't stop there...last year out went the DSLR's and those L class lenses and in came a D Lux 3 and now a D Lux4. Having experienced the sheer simplicity (or complexity if you so choose) of these cameras I am hooked. I no longer pixel peep, I care little about the pixel size or density or whether the tonal rendition is as wide as a DSLR. I just get on and shoot - and you know what, I've rediscovered that after all, that is what I enjoy. And with the D Lux 4 I rarely now use RAW either. Maybe this was the feeling that Cartier Breeson experienced day after day. Can't remember him complaining about the size of film grain - there again I wasn't around him at the time either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mym6is12 Posted May 16, 2009 Share #4 Posted May 16, 2009 I did a 3 week trip to New Zealand at the beginning of the year. I took a GRD-II digital and a Leica M6 +18/28/50. I'm certainly glad I took both. Yes I took 10x more shots with the GRD-II than the Leica M, but at the end of the day I think the number of keepers was equal. The digital was great for stitching panoramas and as a notepad for recording tourist maps etc. , but I think I was a better photographer with the film camera. I've also got a Olympus E-3 DSLR + 7-14/14-35/25/50 top quality lenses, but it stayed at home as it was simply too large, bulky and heavy to carry. The µ4/3 plus LeicaM adapter might be the way to go (replacing the Ricoh) until the M9 appears. One problem with the filmM is trying to reach highest possible quality by using a slow film - these days I think this is the wrong target. I find I'm more likely to use it more if I have a more flexible film, so I now normally use fuji 400pro neg film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 16, 2009 Share #5 Posted May 16, 2009 There are people taking the opposite view too http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/86131-surprised-film-after-years-digital.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjfischer Posted May 16, 2009 Share #6 Posted May 16, 2009 Whenever I go on a long trip, I take 2 cameras, one for backup. On my next one, to Scandinavia, I will have my Nikon N 70 film SLR and a new D-Lux 4. I think the Leica will be primary but we'll see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberts2424 Posted May 16, 2009 Share #7 Posted May 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) As a result of the M8.2 and D-Lux 4 I've found myself retiring the M4s and M3s. In fact, the D-Lux 4 is so much better in low light/image noise that I probably shoot the DL4 75% over the M8.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted May 17, 2009 Share #8 Posted May 17, 2009 I am sure quite a few Aston Martin owners use a small runabout for casual town trips and shopping too Horses for courses, as always. If you want to snap, use a snapper which makes life easy and the experience enjoyable! Sometimes I use my digicams because they suit, but use the Ms for more deliberate work where I am investing time with specific goals of making photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo035 Posted May 17, 2009 Share #9 Posted May 17, 2009 all very well for those among us who can afford an M8 and/or an M8.2 with a plethora of lenses (often it seems spoilt for choice between, for example, lenses of the same focal length) as well as a D-Lux4. Such extravagance is beyond my limited budget, and some may be incredulous that my D-Lux4 serves me very well indeed for "snapping" and deliberate work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted May 17, 2009 Share #10 Posted May 17, 2009 While I NEVER would sell an MP (I actually bought one although I do not use it very frequently) I only can back all your findings about the ease of use with digital photography. The Dlux3 and Dlux4 (I own both) are the most outstanding compact cameras and I use them very often. As I am now going onto the digital MF path, I guess that these tiny cameras will become my kind of backup and always there cameras, as not for all shoots I will use an MF camera plus MFDB. BTW - 5D2 is the best DSLR you can get for this amount of money today! And L glass is great - better than Nikon glass and lot of other competition! And you can stop pixel counting as you are already in the area of MFDBs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andalus Posted May 17, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted May 17, 2009 Thanks for all the comments. Yes, my impression has been that the 5D2 is tops for the money. Now, given, I don't know much about digital photography (yet), but darn it, I wish Leica would make a bullet proof camera at a reasonable price that will take M glass. A camera with the latest sensor, or whatever reasonable size, even if not fullframe, whose sole aim is to bring out the best that Leica glass does on film, but on a sensor. And that does not cost over 4k. And that does not go noisy above ASA 800. From the beginning, I felt the M8 was a flawed product: too many problems, horror stories really, about owners having to send dead cameras back to Solms, etc. I perhaps would have bought an M8 IF I had not read these tales of woe. Why anyone would buy an M8.2 today for 6k vs a DL4 for less than 1k is beyond my comprehension. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted May 17, 2009 Share #12 Posted May 17, 2009 I am wondering if anyone else has been carrying a film M plus a DL4 or similar on trips and had the same experience. Of essentially realizing that "maybe" the film M is mostly going to reside in a drawer from now on? In a way, I am really sad about this experience. Any thoughts? I shoot both digital and film, but way more digital. It is just the nature of instant gratification I would check the number of keepers though, not the total number of shots. I find my film shots keeping quite a high standard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 17, 2009 Share #13 Posted May 17, 2009 Thanks for all the comments. Yes, my impression has been that the 5D2 is tops for the money. Having just added a 5D2, I consider it a small MF camera (Big pixel count, BIG camera). It's bigger and heavier than, say, the Fuji/Bronica 645 RF cameras. Bronica 645 body - 810g Fuji GA645Zi w/lens - 884g Canon 5D body - 897g Image quality about 25% better than the M8, net, counting pixels, lenses, AA filter effects, etc. Takes a lot more work to get good color out of it, RAW or JPG. Hassle to convert every file to DNG. But, D--N, it's nice to be able to shoot a 20mm FoV with f/2.8 again. The Canon 20 has its issues in the corners, but I got a demo close-out at Wolf Camera for $187, and if I crop for 6x6/6x7 (like I said, for me the 5D is for "medium-format" things), the corners aren't an issue. The 5D is going to be my "things the M8 can't do" camera - macro, long lenses, cropping to 6x6 while staying above 12 Mpixels, or when f/2.8-iso 3200 is more important than image quality. Since that's about 20% of my work, it's more expensive - per picture - than the M8. But definitely the best deal among the SLRs for FoV (full-frame), pixel count, and breadth of system (T/S lenses, etc.) I wish Leica would make a bullet proof camera at a reasonable price that will take M glass. A camera with the latest sensor, or whatever reasonable size, even if not fullframe, whose sole aim is to bring out the best that Leica glass does on film, but on a sensor. And that does not cost over 4k. And that does not go noisy above ASA 800. Agreed. I'm always willing to pay less for more quality. From the beginning, I felt the M8 was a flawed product: too many problems, horror stories really, about owners having to send dead cameras back to Solms, etc. I perhaps would have bought an M8 IF I had not read these tales of woe. I've had two M8s, one for 31 months and one for 25 months. I have had zero tales of woe with either. You have to remember that when it comes to the Web, "Good news is no news". Most performance posts are from people with problems to solve - the 98% of people with no problems don't log on to say "Geez, I'm disappointed! My M8 performed perfectly today without a single problem!" Total up the number of individuals with problem cameras, as posted to this site or others, and divide that into the roughly 25,000 M8s produced to date.... BTW (speaking of tales of woe) - My new 5D won't consistently fire a studio flash with a cord longer than 3 feet. I'm gonna have to figure out what that's all about. Add in the cost of a wireless sync, I guess. Also the sync is only 1/200 compared to my original M8's 1/250. And I can't even see the moment the flash captures (mirror's up), unlike the M8. Why anyone would buy an M8.2 today for 6k vs a DL4 for less than 1k is beyond my comprehension. 21mm field of view (15 c/v), telephotos longer than 60mm equivalent (up to 180 with a 135), separation of foreground/background using DOF, not having to strike the Monster pose when framing the picture, big bright "MP" like viewfinder, option for f/1.4 lenses. If you can't comprehend those, I'd say your empathy for how others work is sub-par. By the same token, I CAN comprehend that not everyone needs those features - in which case, sure, the DL4 appears to perform very well within its limitations. Attached pix: 5D with 2 lenses (20, 85) compared to M8 with 4 lenses (15, 35, 50, 90 = 21, 50, 70, 120) The M8 and lenses would practically fit inside the 5D and lenses. The Frankenfotographer pose with a D-lux 4 or other small finderless digicam. Bronica RF645 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/85080-dl-4-crushes-mp-usage/?do=findComment&comment=902976'>More sharing options...
andalus Posted May 17, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted May 17, 2009 Andy, Thanks much for your post. It really "frames" the issue well, and good description of the 5D2, which I don't own, but fondled last week in a Canon store in a mall in Kuala Lumpur. I almost bought the beast, but then I was having such fun with the new DL4...and another 4k out the door seemed a bit much for a non-pro (even though I very occasionally still do journalism with accompanying photos). Really, there are SO MANY good cameras available today that it's hard to choose, and then, once chosen, one gets that craving for the latest. I should be very content with the MP, the 50 Lux 1.4 ASPH, the 135 Telyt and the latest 24mm Elmar ASPH. That plus the DL4. Also, I have been accustomed to scanning my slides from the MP in a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000, using Vuescan, and then doing some additional processing in CS4. The next item probably ought to be a good printer. For many years I simply used a Leica, shots slides and took the best of those into Cibachrome prints, many of which hang framed on my walls. BUT this latter, as you can well imagine, has become -- relatively speaking -- very costly! One question: With an M8 and given firmware upgrades, can one use a Mac? I have never owned a PC, only Macs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauledell Posted May 18, 2009 Share #15 Posted May 18, 2009 I have recently (last December) purchased a D Lux 4. I also have an M6 with three lenses. While I love the DL4 and have used it exclusively,I am amazed at the quality of pictures coming out of the little gem, I believe I have lost some of the deliberate approach with it compared to the M6. I tend to rattle off taking images. I don't know if that is good or not, but it seems good to slow down and carefully plan each capture. I must try to do better. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andalus Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted May 18, 2009 Must agree. DL4 must be used judiciously. Too easy just to snap away. Shooting film one is much more deliberate, thoughtful. Have to be so because it IS a pain, relatively speaking, to get film developed, plus the cost... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 18, 2009 Share #17 Posted May 18, 2009 I've never used anything but Macs, from the Mac Plus on. The M8 has worked seamlessly from the beginning (which really was the beginning - from the first, streaky, green-blob production run) thanks to the .dng file format. I use Photoshop CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw on a 4-year-old iMac. If Leicasonic had been able to squeak the D-Lux 4 up to a 24-90 lens range, and made the accessory finder zoom, or change frame lines, with detents for 24/35/50/90, I'd consider it the true and improved successor to the Digilux 2, and in some ways a digital reincarnation of Barnack's camera. Maybe there'll be a D-Lux 5 or Digilux 4 that gets there - although then it might really cut into M8 sales... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
antistatic Posted May 18, 2009 Share #18 Posted May 18, 2009 The biggest threat to my MP is my almost 50 year old M2. YMMV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
analogisch Posted May 18, 2009 Share #19 Posted May 18, 2009 I own a M6 and the LX3 (to start with digital photography) and I must say, honestly, I found the LX3 to be a pain, though I really desperately try to treat her with love. It starts with the monitor, rsp. the missing viewfinder; I just cannot get used to shoot with monitor - and especially not in sunny weather. And next is the quality, to be honest. I don´t understand how one can compare MP/velvia chrome shots with a DLux4 photo. and when it comes to available ligth photography: In my experience, decent quality photos can be achieved with this compact camera at 80,100 and max. 200 Iso anyway. That´s my opinion on this - but maybe I am just not good enough in Photoshop?! Patty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 18, 2009 Share #20 Posted May 18, 2009 I am beginning to wonder if in five years anyone will be shooting 35mm film. I for one will be. I'm sure everyone was saying that 10 years ago too, and long before that about MF film........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.