M9 - Is It Time To Migrate To Digital...

[P. Lynn Miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First let me say, I DO NOT want this thread to turn into a film vs. digital debate instead I am asking for advice from photographers that use both digital and film Leica M's to help me decide the future of my photography...

 

As a bit of history, I have been an amateur photographer for nearly 30 years, shooting Kodachrome film almost exclusively for the first 15 years. Then I switched to B&W and have been shooting a roll of color film to about every 30 rolls of B&W film until recently I started shooting Kodachrome again... sort of a tribute to the legendary film before it goes away. These wonderful transparencies have hypnotised me once again and now I am shooting more color than B&W. Sadly, Kodachrome is dead and while there are other wonderful transparency films out there, the Kodachrome colors are unique, at least to me.

 

As long as I was shooting B&W film, there was no incentive for me to switch to digital... B&W film is cheap, even cheaper to develop myself... and exceeded the dynamic range of any digital sensor yet made. And printing B&W negatives is simple and straight forward, either in the darkroom or digitally.

 

But the cost of shooting color transparency film has really hit hard. In Australia it costs me in the vicinity of $40 per roll, and printing requires digitisation on a high-end scanner, which adds another layer of cost to achieve that final output of a print on the wall. Since printing color transparency seems to invariably involve making a digital file unlike printing B&W negatives coupled with the unsustainable cost of shooting transparency film, not too mention that the only transparency film I really want to shoot is now out of production, I am thinking that it is time to migrate to digital.

 

I do own and have used the better DSLR's available today, but have never been able to enjoy using a DSLR with all the automation and interfaces, so I have always preferred to shoot my Leica M's. I toyed with getting an M8, but at the time, I was shooting mostly B&W and there was no advantage to switching to a digital M, especially that was not full-frame.

 

The arrival of the M9 and my increased use of color transparency film has me rethinking my position.

 

So the whole purpose of this post is ask the advice of photographers that have used or using both a film M with color transparency film and the M9... can the M9 deliver results that are comparable to shooting Kodachrome 64... when you have the final print on the wall.

 

Again... please do not turn this thread into a film vs. digital debate... but rather a discussion can the M9 produce prints comparable to prints made from Kodachrome film to justify me selling most of my photography inventory to fund the purchase of an M9.

 

Sort of a modern interpretation of the one camera, one lens, one film scenario as I am looking to simplify and streamline my life at the moment... so one very capable camera that will replace chemicals, darkroom, scanners and etc. will be welcomed change.

 

Thanks for your time and consideration,

[Advertisement]

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

[danyves]

"Sort of a modern interpretation of the one camera, one lens, one film scenario as I am looking to simplify and streamline my life at the moment... so one very capable camera that will replace chemicals, darkroom, scanners and etc. will be welcomed change."

 

The Leica M9 could be that welcome change, in the M Tradition.

[jerryharwood]

I too had this debate with myself; I have used Leica digital together with my film cameras, mainly Nikon, Hasselblad and Leica M6's. I have always used Fujichrome 50, and before that, Agfa. But after using digital, I became somewhat disenchanted, so much that I have almost universally returned to film, Fuji 50, and my Leica M6ttl, and my Hasselblad. Why? Because it is so much more satisfying.

Much as I like to digitise and print my work, I find the constant need to upgrade equipment takes a lot of the fun out of things; also, the need to continually check on batteries, media cards, cables & software, and of course, that indefinable question of WEIGHT.

My bag was getting heavier and heavier, and became a royal pain in the butt.

Now I take just one camera, one lens, and a couple of rolls of film. It is very liberating, believe me.

And, I don't have to worry about cameras switching themselves on mysteriously in the bag, and being completely flat, just at the start of a job.

After 50 odd years, I think I know what I want ! reliability,and not having to switch on a computer.

There is no doubt that the M9 is a tasty bit of kit- it should be at that price! But whether you will find it entirely to your taste or work flow, only you can decide. Hope you make the right decision for you.

[Jager]

I'd say, emphatically, yes. The M9 will continue to give you the rich color output you've grown accustomed to with Kodachrome (RIP). If you make the leap, you'll probably also find that B&W out of the M9 is better than you expected. Maybe not quite as nice as film, but much better than many of us expected.

 

If at all possible, I'd recommend holding on to a film M body to shoot that occasional roll of B&W. I find my M6 and M7 complement my M8 (soon to be M9) quite well. Though, honestly, the digital M is so accomplished that I don't use the film bodies very much. But it's a cherished pleasure when I do.

[pascal_meheut]

I'd say, emphatically, yes. The M9 will continue to give you the rich color output you've grown accustomed to with Kodachrome (RIP). If you make the leap, you'll probably also find that B&W out of the M9 is better than you expected. Maybe not quite as nice as film, but much better than many of us expected.

 

If at all possible, I'd recommend holding on to a film M body to shoot that occasional roll of B&W. I find my M6 and M7 complement my M8 (soon to be M9) quite well. Though, honestly, the digital M is so accomplished that I don't use the film bodies very much. But it's a cherished pleasure when I do.

 

I cannot agree more.

[dpattinson]

I've been more than happy with the colour results from my M8, so from my point of view you should find the M9 an excellent replacement for shooting transparency film for printing. I think this is especially true if you are already digitizing your film images for printing.

You may need to play with the RAW conversion a bit in order to get the colours you want, as of course the M9 profiles don't have quite the number of years of fine tuning that is inherent in Kodachrome

 

I would second the recommendation to keep a film body for shooting black and white. While the M8 (and by all accounts the M9) do very well with black and white - I sometimes need the extra detail in highlights that so far only film seems to deliver. Also it's just a lovely thing to shoot a film M and print B+W in the darkroom

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd say, emphatically, yes. The M9 will continue to give you the rich color output you've grown accustomed to with Kodachrome (RIP). If you make the leap, you'll probably also find that B&W out of the M9 is better than you expected. Maybe not quite as nice as film, but much better than many of us expected.

 

If at all possible, I'd recommend holding on to a film M body to shoot that occasional roll of B&W. I find my M6 and M7 complement my M8 (soon to be M9) quite well. Though, honestly, the digital M is so accomplished that I don't use the film bodies very much. But it's a cherished pleasure when I do.

 

I would also endorse this but from the perspective of an M8 (and M8.2) user. My M8.2, my MP and my M2 are all essential members of my arsenal. I'm lucky in that I can still get E6 film developed here for reasonable cost but my M8 shots are usually left as colour and my film cameras mostly eat B & W. I will get an M9 at some stage and if I was in your position I would certainly go straight to the M9.

[andalus]

I will probably buy the M9 but will hold on to my MP and still shoot Velvia 100 and and scan it with my Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 occasionally. Then post process in CS4. I too am put off by the costs of film, and will be inspired to shoot more with the M9. As long as the M9 holds its value, does not depreciate too much over time, then I feel like the costs of actually buying this camera will not be too much of a burden. After all, I could always sell the M9 in a pinch. But I will never sell the MP -- it's the bedrock of my photography even though it may languish in a drawer once I can get an M9. I bought CS 4 a year ago and have scanned my best slides, and frankly, even while I still have very much to learn about digital imagery and post processing, I find the incremental learning steps a great pleasure, once as I did, decades ago, working in a darkroom and printing BW negatives, which I do no longer.

[rick_dykstra]

Hello Lynn.

 

I was strangely reluctant when jumping into digital photography recently, upon buying a DMR. I had similar thoughts to you - why should I go digital when I enjoy using film so much? For me, it was the joy of projecting transparencies - family slide nights - and the quality of the prints I could get after high res scanning. And I'd calculated that the cost of a digital R or M would pay for hundreds of films, processing and mounting.

 

The DMR has been the revelation I thought it would be and I'm sure an M9 would be even more so.

 

If you were to buy an M9 I think you would enjoy it greatly, in ways that differ from how you enjoy your film photography. Therefore, as others have said, try to keep the film gear so you use it from time to time. A friend recently dug out his black and white things - his teenage daughter asked him to teach her all about it.

 

Re your printing question - I've found that A4 prints from the DMR are somewhat cleaner or more clinical than prints from scanned trannies. The film's grain is characteristic and curiously tolerable. Funny, that. B&W would be even more-so, surely.

 

BTW, good transparency film can be bought online in Oz for around $12 a roll and a lab in Adelaide develops for $12.50. PM me for further info if you like.

[Overgaard]

You will cry yourself to sleep every night for the first weeks using digital, coming from slide film. It just looks awfull. But then you start to get the hang of it, though in the beginning you were wondering why nobody had thought of making a software that just made it look right in an instant. Why allt hat adjustment?

 

But digital can be as good or better than slide film (and by the way, if you remember back, scanning the first slides yourself hat was equally disappointing till you got the hang of adjusting the scans). It's different in several ways. You will enjoy the speed of looking at your digital files till you can adjust or correct your photogaphy (on the other hand there's good things about shooting rolls of film because you keep the vision of what could be; not disturbed by the files you saw of what you did yesterday ;-)

 

But the really great thing about digital in my view - when one has overcome the learning courve and gotten the resultas one is used to - is the high production and complete archiving one can do. There's not one week where I'm not thinking "wow, this is great" when I realize that the stuff I did Saturday is behind me and finalized, deliverede, archive, backed up and does'nt collect dust in a pile that awaits scanning ad cleaning and photoshopping and archiving.

 

I have a handful of Leica film cameras and an Imacon scanner - and haven't done a slide film in a year or so. It's simply not worth it. There's nothing in film that I can't produce with digital - at least I feel so.

 

I started out witht he DMR about 1,5 years ago which took over slide film for me. Before that I had used Digilux 2 for a while, and just now I added the digital workflow with the M9.

 

Lovely portfolio by the way ;-)

[Dan States]

Digital can replace your Kodachrome in look and feel, but don't expect too much from your images in the first year or two. The learning curve is deceptive in digital. You can get pretty good results from any camera right away, but truly great results will only come with lots of experience.

 

After 4 years hopping back and forth from film to digital I think I'm finally starting to get familiar enough to say I'll be staying with digital.

 

Three bits of advice:

Use RAW and a good convertor.

Turn off Luminance noise reduction always

Don't sharpen Leica digital files, they don't need it.

 

Best wishes and enjoy your journey!

[stevme]

. . . I find the incremental learning steps a great pleasure, once as I did, decades ago, working in a darkroom and printing BW negatives, which I do no longer.

 

Andalus --

 

I know one of the problems with Photoshop is the very steep learning curve; Lightroom is a lot easier BTW. I looked all over the place to find something to help. I hope this is not out of order on the board, but I found the CS training on lynda dot com (note the "y") to be really, really good. You proceed at your own pace and the graphics technology they use for their videos is crystal clear; you don't have trouble seeing what their doing on the program. I have NO economic interest in that company, just a user experience. During the lessons I would take notes on my computer as the teacher explained things and do an occasional screen capture to imbed the screen images in my text file to help make the point being discussed. Works great.

[ulrikft]

A quick "trying to emulate kodachrome"-attempt:

 

 

detail (for grain... )

 

 

I have never shot Kodachrome (I only shoot BW films and velvia ), so, how good is that? hard to tell maybe? Anyway, I agree with most of the people here. Digital can give you great results, when you get into the workflow. When you do, it is really nice to have the diversity that you do with digital.

[Overgaard]

I don't agree it will take a lot of time to get there, but I do agree it will take a lot of files to get there.

 

Problem is that the digital workflow opens thousands or millions of possible answers as to how "reality" could and should look. So the turning point is when so many of the open questions settle to answers leaving only few adjustments possible. Then you get somewhere. It has a lot to do with decisions.

 

With a film, and we tend to prefer one or a handful of films, you have a great deal of the look and workflow nailed in the way the film render colors and handle light. So we know that when we're in the field shooting. We shoot to accomendate that look because we can predict the workflow till final slide. And after the scan there is not that many possible adjustments: And in any case the original slide on the light table is the reference we usually work towards nailing in the scanning.

 

In any case I will recommend John Thawleys great writeup on workflow that applies to Aperture, Lightroom and any other RAW development software used:

Wrapping Your Head AroundWorkflow - Journal - Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge

[pgk]

I ... haven't done a slide film in a year or so. It's simply not worth it. There's nothing in film that I can't produce with digital - at least I feel so.

 

This mirrors my view too. Although the idea of a mecnical film camera still has an appeal, the reality is that I could not return to film from digital. FWIW I find that I can get suprisingly "Kodachrome-like" results from my M8 if I try and from all accounts it looks like the M9 should produce similar files too.

[jamriman]

I've been more than happy with the colour results from my M8, so from my point of view you should find the M9 an excellent replacement for shooting transparency film for printing. I think this is especially true if you are already digitizing your film images for printing.

You may need to play with the RAW conversion a bit in order to get the colours you want, as of course the M9 profiles don't have quite the number of years of fine tuning that is inherent in Kodachrome

 

I would second the recommendation to keep a film body for shooting black and white. While the M8 (and by all accounts the M9) do very well with black and white - I sometimes need the extra detail in highlights that so far only film seems to deliver. Also it's just a lovely thing to shoot a film M and print B+W in the darkroom

 

Forgive my lack of knowledge with B&W digital. Would silver efex pro solve the digital drawbacks of B&W? Thanks.

[myoldog]

Call me a Luddite, if you wish. Yet, I have never found a single digital camera that can possibly replace the three film formats I continue to use. I love my two Leicas and use them almost exclusively for certain types of imagery, but a medium format camera continues to be my primary choice in addition to occasional use of a 4x5.

 

I must qualify my statements, though. Having worked professionally for decades, my personal work remains black and white, exclusively. Silver gelatin prints seem to have a beauty of their own that I've not yet found in ink jet digital prints.

 

Someone correct me, please! I would cherish even more simplicity and a streamlined work flow, if I were convinced by the prints I have seen thus far. However, I'm speaking only about black and white. If I were working in color, the story would be quite different.

 

Having worked with several digital SLRs, I find them cumbersome and cluttered with unnecessary features. On the other hand, Leica cameras have all the features I want and need, while the lenses can produce a quality of space and dimensionality that other manufacturers don't attempt to build into their optics.

 

If any camera will capture the attention of the digital neurons that are close to mutiny in my small brain, it will be the Leica M9. I hesitate to mortgage my house to get one, though. Yet, the improvements that Leica has made to the M9 are most certainly an enticement to break the bank, so I can continue to use my small arsenal of Leica lenses.

 

One quick question, though for those who photograph in black and white with a digital camera, Leica or otherwise: Is it possible to use the full, uncompressed file for black and white? My digital SLRs leave me with no other choice than to work with jpegs, since the capture of color comprises such a large portion of a digital file.

 

Again, I would buy an M9 in a heartbeat, if I could produce black and white images that have the quality of silver gelatin prints. Someone, please help me make this transition!

[pascal_meheut]

 

Silver gelatin prints seem to have a beauty of their own that I've not yet found in ink jet digital prints.

 

Someone correct me, please! I would cherish even more simplicity and a streamlined work flow, if I were convinced by the prints I have seen thus far. However, I'm speaking only about black and white. If I were working in color, the story would be quite different.

 

I've seen very beautiful prints done with digital capture and special inks however I must say that for many pictures, I'm also having a hard time getting the same tonal gradations I have on film.

For instance, I'm rarely happy with skins...

 

I've used many techniques and plugins and I have not mastered this yet. Maybe some people are better than me but I'm keeping my M7 aside the awaited M9 for this reason.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ulrikft]

Call me a Luddite, if you wish. Yet, I have never found a single digital camera that can possibly replace the three film formats I continue to use. I love my two Leicas and use them almost exclusively for certain types of imagery, but a medium format camera continues to be my primary choice in addition to occasional use of a 4x5.

 

I must qualify my statements, though. Having worked professionally for decades, my personal work remains black and white, exclusively. Silver gelatin prints seem to have a beauty of their own that I've not yet found in ink jet digital prints.

 

Someone correct me, please! I would cherish even more simplicity and a streamlined work flow, if I were convinced by the prints I have seen thus far. However, I'm speaking only about black and white. If I were working in color, the story would be quite different.

 

Having worked with several digital SLRs, I find them cumbersome and cluttered with unnecessary features. On the other hand, Leica cameras have all the features I want and need, while the lenses can produce a quality of space and dimensionality that other manufacturers don't attempt to build into their optics.

 

If any camera will capture the attention of the digital neurons that are close to mutiny in my small brain, it will be the Leica M9. I hesitate to mortgage my house to get one, though. Yet, the improvements that Leica has made to the M9 are most certainly an enticement to break the bank, so I can continue to use my small arsenal of Leica lenses.

 

One quick question, though for those who photograph in black and white with a digital camera, Leica or otherwise: Is it possible to use the full, uncompressed file for black and white? My digital SLRs leave me with no other choice than to work with jpegs, since the capture of color comprises such a large portion of a digital file.

 

Again, I would buy an M9 in a heartbeat, if I could produce black and white images that have the quality of silver gelatin prints. Someone, please help me make this transition!

 

I'm not sure I understand your question completely right, but I always shoot raw and convert to BW using lightroom, silver efex in photoshop or other digital tools.

[eronald]

Let's try and give you an honest response.

 

I am a color consultant who supplied M8 profiles to many users of this forum, and as such am familiar with the M8. The M9 is supposed to be very close to the M8.

 

Color is the hardest part of digital photography. I suggest you shoot an M8 or M9 and look at the out of the box Jpeg files. If you like them then the M9 is the camera for you, and your results will improve over time. If you have issues with the look of the files, then you may find it better to shop around for a dSLR which makes files you like.

 

Of course, real Photoshop experts are able to give mostly any file any "look"; but that is why they are then called experts. Normal human beings will find that it is easiest to choose a camera that has a pleasing starting point.

 

As an indication, I personally quite like the color of my Nikon with the active Dlight system, and tend to print postcards directly from that camera with a small printer. However I tend to modify the Leica and Canon color when I use those brands. This is purely a matter of taste.

 

Edmund

 

So the whole purpose of this post is ask the advice of photographers that have used or using both a film M with color transparency film and the M9... can the M9 deliver results that are comparable to shooting Kodachrome 64... when you have the final print on the wall.

 

Again... please do not turn this thread into a film vs. digital debate... but rather a discussion can the M9 produce prints comparable to prints made from Kodachrome film to justify me selling most of my photography inventory to fund the purchase of an M9.

 

Sort of a modern interpretation of the one camera, one lens, one film scenario as I am looking to simplify and streamline my life at the moment... so one very capable camera that will replace chemicals, darkroom, scanners and etc. will be welcomed change.

 

Thanks for your time and consideration,