Some commentary from pros, please

[andalus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am 60 plus and have been using Leica rangefinders and even an SL2 (for a while) since the 1960s. Now, I have an MP, for the last four years, and an M9 on order. I have shot Kodachrome and Velvia slides exclusively. I am not a pro, but as a working reporter and journalist, particularly when I was younger, I often had my photos published to illustrate stories I was writing in the Mideast and elsewhere. I even was asst editor at Aramco World Magazine for a couple years -- notable for its exceptional photography and interesting stories about the Arab world. So, I may soon be spending 7k for the M9. I have just a few months ago bought CS4 and have had 1000 slides scanned via Scancafe, TIFFS and JPEGs. I am learning PS and working though these slides. Still, I am a neophyte with this. ANYWAY, here's my question: does a well scanned slide with a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 come close to matching the output from an M9? I mean, I love my physical transparencies, but they ARE digitized now and presumably the image is degraded in the process. So, net net, will I achieve better results, all else being equal, by taking my photos with an M9? Or is it simply a matter of what I LIKE to do -- either shooting film or not?

[Advertisement]

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

[mat_mcdermott]

Not having an M9, I will defer to Erwin Puts' assessment:

I got many queries from readers who are actively involved in AgX photography with M7, M6 and/or MP and are now wondering whether the moment has come to make the transition. I will devote a future part of this report to answer this question, but as a start I can say that the M9 pictures are very close to and may even surpass the quality of the best of the modern medium speed films of ISO 100 to 125.

 

Hope that helps.

[NB23]

Or is it simply a matter of what I LIKE to do -- either shooting film or not?

 

As simple as that.

[lars_bergquist]

Puts is an old film loyalist. I have burned many a roll of 120 film, and some cut film too, during my long career, so believe me: I could do things even with the M8 that I could not do on 6x6cm (2. 1/4" square) roll film. It took 6x9cm and good glass to do that. The M9 leaves even 6x9 behind -- must do it, because of the even higher resolution.

 

I do occasionally put a roll of 35mm film through my old M4-P, simply because it is such a lovely camera, but the quality I get is really nothing to write home about, compared to the M8. So I am shuffling my feet impatiently, waiting for my M9.

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica IIIa

[andybarton]

Lars,

 

I would love to see that comparison you have seen between an M9 print and a 6x9 print

[chris_tribble]

For colour, M8 or M9 beats any film I ever put through an M6 or 7, For black and white it's a tougher call - but I'd still go with my M9 + the B&W processing I can achieve with Lightroom. For my clients, the M8 or M9 gives them the results they want in the time frame they need and demand. Film + scanning just can't match the workflow. Just my 2 Cents

[tashley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This really is a two cents issue and mine are that the digital Ms win hands down. I have shot a lot of M8 and M9 and a fair amount of colour and B&W film on my now-sold MP and it is clear that from a workflow POV the digital answer is the best. However, if we ask the question, 'if you have infinite time and budget and resources to process and scan film in the most optimal way' I couldn't say for sure which would win, because these days it is almost impossible to trust the film workflow. However carefully it is done, you might always suspect that there is some last drop that could have been squeezed out. In the real world however (the world in which I had to buy and use a Paterson developing tank for the first time in many years because I can't find lab that is good enough) you will almost always get better results from a digi-M.

 

All that said, it is rare that people send me a PM on a forum to say that they woke up in the middle of the night thinking about a photo I'd posted, feeling that there was some intangible that they could not get out of their head and asking if I would mind emailing them a full res file of it. And that files was on film, from an MP, and badly processed too. I think the reason this chap liked it so much was that the rolloff into clipping on whites is more gentle on film and it particularly suited the subject matter of this shot, posted here again:

 

 

I could fake that look very convincingly with an M9 but it would not quite cut it 100%. However, there are a lot of other shots where it would win hands down.

 

Best

 

Tim

[andybarton]

Tim

 

You'll be telling us next that you are leaving the country and moving to France, so as to avoid paying 50% tax

 

[Jager]

I scan 35mm and medium format with a Nikon Coolscan 9000. Or at least I used to. It's more accurate now to say that I scan a roll every now and then. My opinion is that scanning film rarely if ever gives you the same IQ as images straight out of an M9, M8, D3, etc.

 

An entirely analog negative-to-print chemical workflow might be a different story. But IMHO digital scanning of film far lags behind the best digital cameras out there today.

[andalus]

THANKS MUCH GUYS. The comments here are making me salivate for the arrival of my M9. Headed to Mideast in November and I hope I get it by then. I imagine I just might sell the MP eventually, because at my age, and with an M9 handy, I doubt very much it's worth hanging on to as it is likely to languish in a drawer and see very little use. My son, who will inherit much from me, hasn't a clue about film photography and would not know what to do with the MP. He's been learning on a Canon G10 and can't imagine why anyone would shoot film, despite my occasional protests to the contrary.

[Steve Ash]

I would recommend to give it some time until you sell your MP. Its value will not drop too much and you might miss it very soon even if for sentimental reasons only. I like to use my M7 from time to time as it helps to slow my photography down and concentrate more.

 

Regards

Steve

[tashley]

Tim

 

You'll be telling us next that you are leaving the country and moving to France, so as to avoid paying 50% tax

 

 

Nope, they have wealth tax there and if they ever caught on to my camera collection they'd screw me :D:D

[johnalex141r]

THANKS MUCH GUYS. I imagine I just might sell the MP eventually, because at my age, and with an M9 handy, I doubt very much it's worth hanging on to as it is likely to languish in a drawer and see very little use. My son, who will inherit much from me, hasn't a clue about film photography and would not know what to do with the MP. He's been learning on a Canon G10 and can't imagine why anyone would shoot film, despite my occasional protests to the contrary.

 

Your decision, but hang on to the MP. I'm putting a darkroom back in (B&W only), because, sometimes, I get computered out, and just want to do things like throw coal into steam locomotives, or cycle through the rain, or feel the feel and smell the smell of film.

 

I love my M8; I really do, but I'm getting a blast with an Olympus Trip-35, light seal replaced last weekend, and seeing what surprises turn out.

 

It is nice to have that choice, although I can totally understand not using film because of the convenience of digital.

 

JohnS.

busy writing open source 3D rendering software...

[charlesphoto99]

Try scanning with an Imacon or better yet a top end Heidelberg and then we can talk about film vs M8/9 comparison. The Nikon is great I'm sure for getting images to web and smaller prints but in no way is considered premium for repro or fine art printing.

[orni100]

Try scanning with an Imacon or better yet a top end Heidelberg and then we can talk about film vs M8/9 comparison. The Nikon is great I'm sure for getting images to web and smaller prints but in no way is considered premium for repro or fine art printing.

 

Hello Charles,

 

I do process my b&w films both ways - analog in the darkroom and digital by scanning with Nikon Coolscan VED. I cannot understand your comment, when looking at the results I have in front of me. Besides the fact, that I prefer darkroom-work, I cannot underline, that scanning would not be good enough for fine art printing. I do up to 40x60 cm mostly and the prints on Hahnemühle Baryt paper look great to me.

 

Regards

 

Dieter

[ulrikft]

I just ordered some Harman Fiber Based Baryta paper, semigloss, I cant wait to push out both scans and digital files on that paper

[lars_bergquist]

Lars,

 

I would love to see that comparison you have seen between an M9 print and a 6x9 print

Me too, but I sold my wonderful old Mamiya 23 nearly twenty years ago, so I can't do a comparison on the same subject. And that is what we should do (dear old ceteris paribus, and all that).

 

The old man from the Age of Roll Film

[piero]

andalus:

in order to get the most out of your chromes, for digital printing, you would have to have them drum scanned.

Digital sensor is another way of writing colors, different from chromes but no 'better or worse'. Is another language.

That said, nowadays it make more sense to shoot digitally if you plan printing or exhibiting. Scanning via Drum scanners is a pain in the butt, and selecting the right scanner brand for a certain output is laborious and not always easy to do. And a drum scanner in sot easy to use in a home.

 

I have scanned for years my 4x5"s via drum scanner, to tell you the truth after testing the M9 with a bunch of lenses the files are so nice I get the feeling I am looking at 4x5"s again.

 

If that can help you...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

ANYWAY, here's my question: does a well scanned slide with a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 come close to matching the output from an M9?

 

IMHO not even an M8! Bluntly I can get significantly better prints out of my M8 than I can from Velvia 50 slides shot on a Contax 645 (a very good camera indeed) scanned on a Cooscan 8000). I have just had some 24" x 16" prints made and the scanned 645 simply don't look as good. If you want to compare a fully 'analogue' (yes, I know some people don't like this description but read on) workflow then there will be differences - and whether you consider one 'better' than the other is up to your taste. A mixed workflow would IMHO require an extremely good scanner, such as an Imacon or better, to really do justice to the original transparencies.e Coolscans, whilst they may be quite acceptable on many occasions, are a week link for high quality output..

[Frank Sprow]

There are obviously a good many opinions here and I'll admit I don't have an M9 yet, though one is on order. Comparing my M7 and M8.2 in commercial use, the quality of prints made from the M7 (using Velvia or Provia), having them scanned by a local commercial lab (vastly better results than my Nikon 5000 scanner which is now gone) -- is substantially better than the M8.2 in resolution and perceived (at least by me) image quality and impact. But this gap may well have been largely closed by the M9; we'll see.