M8 vs. film prints

[skimmel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I realize there aren't too many M8s in circulation right now, but wondering if anyone has had a chance to do some substantive comparisons of prints from an M8 vs. a film-based M. Someone mentioned this earlier (I apologize that I don't recall who this was) and felt that, at 160, he preferred film but at higher ISOs preferred the M8.

[grober]

My former environment was M7 + Nikon film scanner. I sold the M7 as part of my "make ready" for the long-expected M8. I have no plans to sell the film scanner as I also have a CV Bessa camera for continued film work.

 

As all this "camera stuff" was happening, my Canon S9000 printer decided to give up the ghost. I bought a new Canon i9900 printer and literally threw the S9000 away (it needed both a board AND a new print head making it unwise to repair.)

 

First results from the M8 on the screen, a ViewSonic 18" monitor, look very promising indeed but the prints from this brand new i9900 printer with Canon ink are less than spectacular. The prints are not as good as what I'm seeing on the screen, that's for sure. (One variable here: I ran out of Canon paper. I won't panic until I get some more Canon paper and print some more photos.)

 

I stayed with Canon because I had been impressed with the two prior Canon printers owned and the large hoard of Canon ink I built up over time. Since the ink for the S9000 and i9900 are the same this makes some sense. Whenever the i9900 decides to quit, I'll take a look at both HP and Epson printers at that time when a change in ink may make more sense.

 

Scratchin' my head and hoping for better.

 

-g

[skimmel]

Thanks g.

 

I agree, it's tough to have a new camera and printer at the same time.

 

Anyone else with printing experience to share?

[davidada]

check the thread for 30x40 prints on the M8 in mty tests the m* clearly outperforms any 35 mm stock by a large margin