Film v Digital
- Thread starter Mick P
- Start date
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Your body or the camera body?
in my case me, in your case, hmm ;-)
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
thanks Mick
if you ever want a personal opinion on the merits of Leica digital rangefinders, I dont mind answering provided it doesnt end with a bland I will keep my M6 regardless
Did you actually read my notes on the pros and cons or do you use this forum without due deference to the people spending time replying?
this is the genuinely helpful room here
cheers
Cliff
if you ever want a personal opinion on the merits of Leica digital rangefinders, I dont mind answering provided it doesnt end with a bland I will keep my M6 regardless
Did you actually read my notes on the pros and cons or do you use this forum without due deference to the people spending time replying?
this is the genuinely helpful room here
cheers
Cliff
organgrinder
Member
Both formats have their pros and cons. Personally I use digital more than film, primarily this is a time issue. However I do think that shooting film forces one to concentrate a little more than using digital and I find that quite often my film shots can be better composed and have more impact than digital.
Film also provides me with what I would call a lightweight travel option. My aged Nikon FA with a 50mm f1.8 is much smaller and lighter than my DSLR, and after all these years still surprises me with its abilities.
A freshly developed roll of Velvia is still a joy to behold
Film also provides me with what I would call a lightweight travel option. My aged Nikon FA with a 50mm f1.8 is much smaller and lighter than my DSLR, and after all these years still surprises me with its abilities.
A freshly developed roll of Velvia is still a joy to behold
The way people seem to change their digital cameras on 'the upgrade cycle', I don't believe using film is any more expensive for the 'average' user, and if you manage to score a good price on a used film camera, it would take a hell of a lot of film rolls to get close to the price of new digi SLRs.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
one more thing (if anyone is still reading ;-))
Where the sensor is the same size as the equivalent film (FX sensor on Nikon and 35mm film for instance) there is no doubt that the higher pixel count sensors from Nikon and Canon create a more detailed image than the equivalent efforts from film. Digital sensors designed for low noise at high ISO settings also produce much better images in low light than the equivalent film, However, if you compare medium format film to APS-C DSLR results, then I would concur that MF film can be a whole lot more rewarding in terms of results than 35mm digital. And MF digital is ridiculously priced.
Where the sensor is the same size as the equivalent film (FX sensor on Nikon and 35mm film for instance) there is no doubt that the higher pixel count sensors from Nikon and Canon create a more detailed image than the equivalent efforts from film. Digital sensors designed for low noise at high ISO settings also produce much better images in low light than the equivalent film, However, if you compare medium format film to APS-C DSLR results, then I would concur that MF film can be a whole lot more rewarding in terms of results than 35mm digital. And MF digital is ridiculously priced.
Paul L
coffee lounge for me
and you could go through every generation of DSLR minus one for the price of the Leica set up with change to buy a vehicle to take you everywhere. 15 all.
My point wasn't to focus on the cost per se but the different approach. For most people modest kit is more than enough and instant results plus ease of transfer have been sensational, no?,For the skilled it's a different question. I have never seen any shots by Mr Mick, might be mobile phone equivalents of Mrs Mick in Sunday hat and riding a Pashley for all I know.
People who buy new Leicas have too much money, we all know that.
Yes sure, but Mick already has a camera which works so there doesn't seem any reason to change based on level of skill with the camera, only if getting some money back was the reason and as he's looking at a digital Leica I'm guessing that isn't the case.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Take up on the Leica M9 has been from a mix of Amateur and Professional purchasers. A lot of pro's have bought the camera because it is similarly priced to the Full Frame 20mp+ cameras from Canon and Nikon, but is more suited to available light work when discretion is more important than frame rate.
Take up on the Leica S2 has been at the expense of Hasselblad and Mamiya/Phase One.
Very few people buy new Leica digital cameras purely because they have excess cash.
You clearly have to have excess cash to have that amount going spare in first place. It's hardly an investment is it, it'll be out of date in a few years.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Anex, I think, although I am not so sure, that you're missing the point. The majority of Leica M9 and S2 purchasers are professionals, and they are buying a tool from which to make money. Only camera collectors would view any camera as an "investment". The kind of camera that you would be likely to see a return on would be something rare that will have increasing demand over time. In the case of the M9, initial supply was somewhat lower than demand, so you could have bought one as an investment and ebayed it for a profit - is that what you mean?
Cliff
Cliff
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
I agree that anyone using a Leica M6, MP, M7, M8 or M9 purely for holiday snaps isn't making the best of the gear. When I'm out and about using my M9, I am mostly trying to get images which will look nice at A3 size for mounting on the wall. Hopefully, one day, I will also sell a few. Talking to a guy the other day who covers all the Sky Darts league games, he uses a brand new EOS 1DS (Mark iv ?) for all his shots of punters with the pros (etc) and charges a few 10s of quids for each dye sublimated print produced on the night. Doing the maths, it strikes me that it wouldn't take long in events with 10,000 possible punters to make any £5K camera pay for itself. He did laugh at my puny little M9, but then again, I got a lot more candids than he did ;-)
dan m
pfm Member
Seconded. If Mick want's digital, why not drop the film off somewhere they can develop it and stick it on a CD in an hour or overnight? Full frame digital images taken with fantastic ("Churman") glass. Costco do it here for $7-. I know Boots sell film - do they do processing as well? I'm guessing for family shots, the next day would provide quick enough gratification. Order a set of prints as well - you'll likely never print them if they're stuck on a computer.
Dan
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Dan, boots do indeed do processing to CD. I think the 1hour option with prints and CD is about £8 (Canary Wharf branch). I use a small lab in Wandsworth and they charge £1.99 per colour film (35mm and 120) for processing only. I haven't tried their scanning services yet, as I don't mind the process of sticking the film through the scanner after reviewing on a lightbox.
Cliff
Cliff
ultrawomble
Sith Lord
I've used the both Boots and Jessops D&P + CD services. I think that Jessops charge £2 for a CD and the files are JPGs good enough for a 6x4 or 7x5 print, though I've paid £5 for a similar service from a pro lab using the same equipment. They're scanned on a Fuji Frontier as I recall.
topoxforddoc
pfm Member
Is the question posed by Mick. THE advantage of Leica over any other camera make is the quality of the glass, in particular the M lenses (although the R lenses were no slouches).
I was a non-believer in Leica until I bought one 15 years ago with a small inheritance from my late Mother. My first Leica was a M6TTL and 50/2 summicron. I could not believe the image quality I saw in the negatives and prints. I routinely enlarge to 12 x 16 in my darkroom (both full frame and crop) and the print quality is astonishing, noticeably better than my venerable Pentax MX with prime M/A series lenses.
It is quite funny on this forum to see people discussing the merits/faults of one camera make versus another, implying that you must be insane to spend that much money on a light tight box with a piece of glass. Yet others will think we're insane talking about which £1000 phono cartridge is better than another, when the damn thing needs re-tipping after 1000-2000 hours.
I have 2 Leica M bodies, 2 Leica R bodies with Digital Modul R backs and a host of very expensive glass - not cheap. Yet that's cost me less than LP collection of 2000 records, let alone the cost of my hi-fi.
On a final note, darkroom printing silver images is cheaper than the inkjet equivalent, but that's for another day.
Best wishes,
Charlie
www.charlie-chan.co.uk
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Well said Charlie
Mick implicitly asked for the advantages of his M6 over all other digital cameras, including Leica. Given that the main difference between his M6 and your module R backs is between the film and the sensor, it's worth asking him what film he is using. Boots 200 ASA standard colour film is hardly going to do the same thing as Tri-X in your camera(s)
I've seen the results that a pro got with my MP (which he owned before me) with Tri-X and I love it.
See here
Room At The Top
Tony McGee
125 tri-tones HB
Splendor Editions
ISBN: 978-0-9558314
(warning, also contains images taken with Tri-X on a Rollei
Cliff
Mick implicitly asked for the advantages of his M6 over all other digital cameras, including Leica. Given that the main difference between his M6 and your module R backs is between the film and the sensor, it's worth asking him what film he is using. Boots 200 ASA standard colour film is hardly going to do the same thing as Tri-X in your camera(s)
I've seen the results that a pro got with my MP (which he owned before me) with Tri-X and I love it.
See here
Room At The Top
Tony McGee
125 tri-tones HB
Splendor Editions
ISBN: 978-0-9558314
(warning, also contains images taken with Tri-X on a Rollei
Cliff