KM-25 Posted October 7, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If image quality is defined by measurements, pixels and or grain, then the M9 will win out over a scanned slide in most cases. But, if you are like me and think that there is more to "Image Quality" than just measurements, and unless you are on deadlines, pick what ever you want. I have used digital for over 16 years professionally, it is *still* not the second coming that many on here make it out to be. Content wins over measured "quality" any day so pick what ever you want and go make images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Hi KM-25, Take a look here Some commentary from pros, please. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fotografr Posted October 7, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 7, 2009 If image quality is defined by measurements, pixels and or grain, then the M9 will win out over a scanned slide in most cases. But, if you are like me and think that there is more to "Image Quality" than just measurements, and unless you are on deadlines, pick what ever you want. I have used digital for over 16 years professionally, it is *still* not the second coming that many on here make it out to be. Content wins over measured "quality" any day so pick what ever you want and go make images. I would echo these comments. I've been reading this thread and wondering exactly how some people define "better." If they mean sharper and smoother, yes the M8 or M9 are better than 35mm film, and perhaps MF. But in my opinion, no digital camera has yet matched the texture and color depth I see in film based images. I think the M8 comes closer than anything I've seen, but whenever I shoot and scan film I end up wishing I had the time to do a lot more of it. Of course if all comes down to personal preference, so there isn't a right or wrong answer to any of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted October 7, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 7, 2009 Thinking back to some of the exhibitions which have moved me over the last couple of years, I just don't see how you would capture the atmosphere and character of Ravilious or McCullin on digital. Could be wrong of course but somehow the bleakness of Sheffield or the beauty of the winter landscape in Devon may have lost something in translation if shot on digital. Or perhaps it is just a reflection of the times before the arrival of the age of digital? LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 7, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 7, 2009 Spot on about Ravilious, Louis. His work, with its perfect use of Tri-X and his expert printer colleague, could not be replicated by any digital process IMHO. I would love the opportunity to have the time to learn how to print like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smb Posted October 7, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 7, 2009 From the point of view of a Leica film user I have been following the introduction of the Leica M9 avidly. All other digitals, including the M8, did not appeal to me because of various problems and size & weight. But, for most of us who have not switched over the M9 with the full frame and the ability to use older Leica & Zeiss lenses is a major benefit and very attractive. But with that said image content is 90%. Now with the M9 the discussion may go to convenience and how to back up files and print at home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 9, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 9, 2009 Lars, I would love to see that comparison you have seen between an M9 print and a 6x9 print I have not the right tools for scannig prints or negs... otherwise I'd like to post some comparision color A4 print I made in spring 2008 with M8-Summicron 35 asph and my Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9 - Opton Tessar 105 3,5 (coated) : M8 clearly the winner (both at 160ASA - Fuij film on Zeiss). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 9, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would echo these comments. I've been reading this thread and wondering exactly how some people define "better." If they mean sharper and smoother, yes the M8 or M9 are better than 35mm film, and perhaps MF. But in my opinion, no digital camera has yet matched the texture and color depth I see in film based images. I think the M8 comes closer than anything I've seen, but whenever I shoot and scan film I end up wishing I had the time to do a lot more of it. Of course if all comes down to personal preference, so there isn't a right or wrong answer to any of this. HI Brent I think you hit the nail on the head here - how do you define 'better'. I really don't think any kind of comparison is terribly useful, but it's clear that the 'feel' of film is different. I spent a month going back to film exclusively just before the M8 appeared, just to get a handle on how I felt about it. The conclusion is that I like digital better, but I realise that it's pretty subjective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 9, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 9, 2009 Spot on about Ravilious, Louis. His work, with its perfect use of Tri-X and his expert printer colleague, could not be replicated by any digital process IMHO. I would love the opportunity to have the time to learn how to print like that. Without being 'smart', the time, opportunity and equipment is there, it's a matter of priorities. Fortunately, I put the effort in to learn to fine B&W silver printing before the years of the internet. Pull the plug on that and the cable TV and the time will suddenly be available. For the vast majority that will not happen. from ... The Old Man sitting on 45 boxes of Oriental Seagull. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neli Posted October 9, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 9, 2009 hi all this is actually my first post here, so please be gentle. the attraction of shooting film to me, is that different types of film are very much like different types of canvas and oils with which to paint the image. very much like a 35 cron or lux will exhibit their character. so with an m9, which i am waiting for, i have not only bought a camera, but the sensor, and inherently, the character of the canvas. the game has changed and digital post-processing allows a playfulness and spectrum that was lacking in the world of analog post-processing. however, with an MP, or my father's M3 using Tri-X or Velvia 50 made it a very different camera to me. something lost something gained. that said, when you run out of batteries, an mp might be just the right the tool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 9, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 9, 2009 hi all this is actually my first post here, so please be gentle. the attraction of shooting film to me, is that different types of film are very much like different types of canvas and oils with which to paint the image. very much like a 35 cron or lux will exhibit their character. so with an m9, which i am waiting for, i have not only bought a camera, but the sensor, and inherently, the character of the canvas. the game has changed and digital post-processing allows a playfulness and spectrum that was lacking in the world of analog post-processing. however, with an MP, or my father's M3 using Tri-X or Velvia 50 made it a very different camera to me. something lost something gained. that said, when you run out of batteries, an mp might be just the right the tool. Welcome to the forum ! Pleasant to read from a new member, and well equipped to join our community ; go on to partecipate, and be sure that most of us are gentle ... occasional hard-nosed or even insulting posts add just a bit of flavor... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted October 9, 2009 Share #31 Posted October 9, 2009 ...Or is it simply a matter of what I LIKE to do -- either shooting film or not? Assuming you're photographing for yourself and not for clients, then it definitely comes down to what you like. I have two M9s on order and have been using the M8 for all of my professional documentary work for the last year. With the introduction of the M9 I figured it was time to commit either to film or digital...since I believe with the M9 we've reached a point where any improvement will be incremental. Over the last few days though I've been having second thoughts...maybe I should go back to film for all but my deadline work... If I was doing this as a hobby, or solely for the sheer passion of photography, I'd be shooting only film. I love the process and the tactile nature of it, and being a B&W shooter I really prefer working in the darkroom to sitting behind a computer. Digital makes sense if you're on deadline. And if you shoot a lot, it can be cheaper in the long run (but really you need to shoot A LOT to make the numbers work). And if you're a hobbyist without the time or space for a darkroom, then digital can also make sense. Quality is a difficult issue. KM-25 is right, there are many more measures of quality than sharpness and smoothness. And he also has it right that content is more important than what camera you use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam.meier Posted October 9, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 9, 2009 I shoot 98% digital, both my commercial and personal images, but I restarted using film only a few weeks ago, because I feel film will eventually survive most of my digital files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 9, 2009 Share #33 Posted October 9, 2009 Over the last few days though I've been having second thoughts...maybe I should go back to film for all but my deadline work... KM-25 is right, Stay steady Noah ! Your two M9 purchases encouraged me consider Twice M9 as well. What's causing the second thoughts ? The £10,000 invoice ? Ha. As for KM-25. Last I read, he was going M9 as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyejockey Posted October 9, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 9, 2009 Yesterday I scanned a Kodak 400 ASA color negative that I made some 5 years ago on assignment with a Leica MP using a 21mm 2.8 ASPH. (Summilux?). It quickly reminded me what an amazing advance the output of my M8 was compared to a 35mm medium speed color negative. Now I've sold the MP and the M8 and I am impatiently waiting for an M9 to arrive, Best, Stephen Goldblatt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted October 9, 2009 Share #35 Posted October 9, 2009 Unless you are a professional with paying clients and deadlines, you can do whatever you want. So you should choose based on what is right for you, not on what "everyone" else says or does. I've been photographing with film Leicas for nearly 40 years. All types of film--slide, color neg, B&W. I tried several good digital cameras, but none really satisfied me until the M8. Since I got the M8, I have only shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X, and that because I was shooting a classical music concert where the M8 shutter would have been too loud. I personally don't see much reason for shooting color film any more, unless you are going to project slides on a big screen optically. I still prefer the look of B&W film to digital, but I can get some very nice B&W work out of the M8 by using the channel mixer to adjust the tonality in the B&W conversion, and by printing with pure carbon ink using a RIP (Paul Roark's "3MK" method with the Epson R1800). In a world where I didn't have to work for a living, I'd probably still shoot Tri-X a lot, and develop it and scan it myself, perhaps get my best shots wet-printed. But since I don't live in that world, the M8 has become my camera. It isn't the same as film, but it can be just as nice in its own way. Film has better tonality and dynamic range, and real grain looks better than digital noise. Digital is convenient and more versatile. --Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted October 9, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 9, 2009 Stay steady Noah ! Your two M9 purchases encouraged me consider Twice M9 as well. What's causing the second thoughts ? The £10,000 invoice ? Ha. As for KM-25. Last I read, he was going M9 as well. Probably just nostalgia. And the fact that I've sold my M8s already and am still waiting for the M9's. I get a little tired of the constant advances in digital cameras and the constant need to stay current, at least for pro work. However I realize I've contradicted my last post...I honestly think that even though it may not remain the state-of-the-art in digital technology, the M9 will be good enough to use for quite a number of years. I keep saying that I want to go back and shoot more film. But, especially since I got the M8s, it just hasn't happened. And as we speak my 4880 is spitting out some 17x22 prints from the M8 and they look amazing. I may have come to my senses:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 9, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 9, 2009 Without being 'smart', the time, opportunity and equipment is there, it's a matter of priorities. Unfortunately, the time isn't there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 9, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 9, 2009 Unfortunately, the time isn't there. Sorry Andy. Just trying to be your little ray of sunshine for the day. Lowry this weekend ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 9, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 9, 2009 S-Qs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 9, 2009 Share #40 Posted October 9, 2009 Probably just nostalgia. And the fact that I've sold my M8s already and am still waiting for the M9's. the M9 will be good enough to use for quite a number of years. I keep saying that I want to go back and shoot more film. But, especially since I got the M8s, it just hasn't happened. And as we speak my 4880 is spitting out some 17x22 prints from the M8 and they look amazing. I may have come to my senses:D Noah, I've been persuading myself to replace existing gear to bring M digital photography to the centre of my professional kit, on the basis of simplicity and economy. Get rid of all the other stuff ... well not the film M's and the Rolleiflex and .......... etc, after all it's self funding. :rolleyes: I'm now No 3 on a dealer list and the confirmation of my intent is getting very near and the clear out of high quality gear is imminent. So, I'm feeling nostalgic as well and wondering whether I want to push 30,000 images a year through an M9, or two. Your "Quite a number of years" is encouraging, but one thing we know little about is durability of the digital M's and the inevitable maintenance costs. I'm sailing blind on this with digital, whereas with film M's there is zero concern for a repair bill of any size. A member here has an M8 just outside of warranty and fears that his camera is beyond economic repair - possibly £1,500 in his case for replacement sensor. Now, it may not be that, but there's no track record for this yet. Wonder if there's a Price List for repairs ?Maybe a Repair costs thread is needed. I'm sure your 17x22" prints look wonderful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.