advertisement


Does anyone here still shoot film?

I understand you perfectly. Digital is fast, cheap, convenient and the image quality is astounding. What I was objecting to is the hype, the "selling the legend" aspect. The digital Leicas are designed by the styling/marketing department to look like mechanical film Leicas, they are, mostly, bought by people who are more interested in status symbols than photography. It has become one of those magic marketing words, like "Bose" or "Tiffany" or "Cartier" or "Rolex." I doubt, but I am not sure, so I may be talking through my hat, that not many people who earn a living from photographs buys a Leica today. I'm just imagining the girlfriend of an oligarch expressing a desire for a camera. What would she get?
 
Rockmeister said:
I've not done a return yet but am thinking about it.
Film latitude if quite limited.
Click to expand...

Hey Rockmeister, I agree with you in that film latitude is quite limited IF you shoot positives (Velvia, Ektachrome etc). I'm only really able to get well exposed slides on overcast days, when everything can fit in 3-4 stops, or in low dynamic range scenes, so I agree with you there.

On the other hand, if you shoot negatives, latitude can be spectacular. Do a search for 'Portra 400' on Flickr - people are doing incredible things with it. Speaking about B&W, once you start getting into a pull processing and 'meter for shadow/develop for highlights' mindset you can squeeze in incredible tonal ranges - Edward Weston and his son Brett were masters of this as everyone here probably knows. Essentially you get HDR images without the tacky (IMO) results of digital HDR.

Interestingly, there's still R&D in film technology. I'm currently testing a film stock that claims to be able to capture 14 zones if processed in its own dedicated developer

http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/adox-silvermax/

though IME many film stocks can work well for pull processing.
 
PaulMB said:
I understand you perfectly. Digital is fast, cheap, convenient and the image quality is astounding. What I was objecting to is the hype, the "selling the legend" aspect. The digital Leicas are designed by the styling/marketing department to look like mechanical film Leicas, they are, mostly, bought by people who are more interested in status symbols than photography. It has become one of those magic marketing words, like "Bose" or "Tiffany" or "Cartier" or "Rolex." I doubt, but I am not sure, so I may be talking through my hat, that not many people who earn a living from photographs buys a Leica today. I'm just imagining the girlfriend of an oligarch expressing a desire for a camera. What would she get?
Click to expand...

Yep, I hear you about the 'legend aspect but the glass is still 2nd to none and where else you gonna get a true rangefinder experience. Even if you went film you'd still pay a LOT for the glass even if the body is not a lot. Though a lot of 'posers' may buy it the kit is still incredibly well made. I will likely always be out of my reach but if I ever won lotto I'd have one :D.
 
M lenses are nice but not worth what they are selling for now (used and new). I use Zeiss glass on my M3.
The most accessible way to use Leica glass is on the R cameras.
 
boneman said:
Yep, I hear you about the 'legend aspect but the glass is still 2nd to none and where else you gonna get a true rangefinder experience. Even if you went film you'd still pay a LOT for the glass even if the body is not a lot. Though a lot of 'posers' may buy it the kit is still incredibly well made. I will likely always be out of my reach but if I ever won lotto I'd have one :D.
Click to expand...

In those circumstances, probably I would too!
 
boneman said:
Yep, I hear you about the 'legend aspect but the glass is still 2nd to none and where else you gonna get a true rangefinder experience. Even if you went film you'd still pay a LOT for the glass even if the body is not a lot. Though a lot of 'posers' may buy it the kit is still incredibly well made. I will likely always be out of my reach but if I ever won lotto I'd have one :D.
Click to expand...

For true rangefinder, you've got heaps of options. For cheap and a good fixed lens (with 40mm which is a great 35/50 compromise) , the Olympus 35 RD is a great choice.

If you want interchangeable lenses, then the voitglander bessa options are great. I've got an older leica screw thread mount one with their 25/4 lens, but you can get m mount versions too depending on your taste (probably a better option as you can use a thread mount adapter in the bayonet and get compatibility with both lens ranges).

Don't forget the old canon rangefinders (like the 7), lots of these, lots of interesting lenses...

The other rangefinder options i'd consider would be stepping up to medium format, and looking at the Fuji options, from 6*7 through 6*9 there are just heaps are they are all great. I've got a 'texas leica', a Fuji 690 with a great 90mm lens
 
I've on recently (in the last few months) started shooting digitally, and that's only because my next project is colour, and medium format colour film is too expensive for me to use it. I'm using a Mamiya 645 with a Phase One P30 back, but the usual tools are a Hasselblad 500CM, a Pentax 67 or a Chamonix 8x10.
 
sideshowbob said:
I've on recently (in the last few months) started shooting digitally, and that's only because my next project is colour, and medium format colour film is too expensive for me to use it. I'm using a Mamiya 645 with a Phase One P30 back, but the usual tools are a Hasselblad 500CM, a Pentax 67 or a Chamonix 8x10.
Click to expand...

When I read "Chamonix 8x10" I had a vision of you in Alpine hat and plus-fours, aided by a robust mule, clambering over Swiss crags and valleys in search of the perfect exposure. Sounds delightful.
 
Reading this, and a few other threads, has made me dust off my OM2n that I bought in 1982. I still have a Nikon F70 (yep, "that" one) but my M6 and RB67 Pro are long gone as is all my darkroom kit. I binned that when I bought my Nikon D200 but with my OM2 dusted off I now wish I'd kept it, have you seen the price of a Jobo CPE2 with lift on ebay.... Jeez.....
 
scotty38 said:
Reading this, and a few other threads, has made me dust off my OM2n that I bought in 1982. I still have a Nikon F70 (yep, "that" one) but my M6 and RB67 Pro are long gone as is all my darkroom kit. I binned that when I bought my Nikon D200 but with my OM2 dusted off I now wish I'd kept it, have you seen the price of a Jobo CPE2 with lift on ebay.... Jeez.....
Click to expand...

Love my Om2n. One of the brightest, biggest viewfinders ever made. Using my Nikon DX DSLR in comparison felt like peeping through a keyhole.

Anyhow, Scotty, this kind of post always feels bittersweet. So much experience, so many fascinating techniques 'shelved' or forgotten when an entire generation moved to digital. Would be good if new film shooters could learn from the 'real' film users like you, rather than from a bunch of film kids who run a 'blog' or an instagram profile. I particularly loathe those who shoot 1 roll of film and make a 'review'. I shoot about 10 rolls of Fomapan 100 every month and I still don't feel I know it inside out.

Nothing wrong with your F70 btw! A friend bought it new, when we were teenagers in the 90s. It's the one with the big colourful display isn't it. I myself bought a F90x for £40 the other day. Good as new, fast autofocus, all my old AF-D primes work on it, no menus, few buttons. Great fun.
 
albireo said:
Love my Om2n. One of the brightest, biggest viewfinders ever made. Using my Nikon DX DSLR in comparison felt like peeping through a keyhole.

Anyhow, Scotty, this kind of post always feels bittersweet. So much experience, so many fascinating techniques 'shelved' or forgotten when an entire generation moved to digital. Would be good if new film shooters could learn from the 'real' film users like you, rather than from a bunch of film kids who run a 'blog' or an instagram profile. I particularly loathe those who shoot 1 roll of film and make a 'review'. I shoot about 10 rolls of Fomapan 100 every month and I still don't feel I know it inside out.

Nothing wrong with your F70 btw! A friend bought it new, when we were teenagers in the 90s. It's the one with the big colourful display isn't it. I myself bought a F90x for £40 the other day. Good as new, fast autofocus, all my old AF-D primes work on it, no menus, few buttons. Great fun.
Click to expand...

I've been taking pictures on and off since I was 14 so over 40 years but I still cannot take a decent picture to save my life so there is nothing to learn from me :)

I think my first camera that was "mine" was a Polaroid Land camera and I moved from that to a Carena Micro RSD then to the OM2. I made a photo album when I was about 15, pictures of my family, pretty mundane stuff but to look back at it now is fascinating. I trot it out on a regular basis and it never fails to generate "Wow, look at me in that one" type comments.

Oh and yes the F70 is the one with the weird display :)
 
PaulMB said:
Interesting that the Leica ad says "A digital body, but an analogue soul." The implication seems to be that you buy an M10, and pay a fortune, but really really, you would like to have an M2. A bit like modern cars that are supposed to have the "soul" of some great iconic car from the 1960s, but of course don't. If you want digital, fine! If you want to use film, that's fine, too! Why pay a fortune to buy a camera that sort-of-pretends to be something it isn't? A camera is just a tool, after all. Not a fashion accessory or a toy. It is sad because, in all fields, the "retro" thing simply reveals a lack of new ideas. There, I've had by rant!
Click to expand...

I've got an M3 and M10 and often take them out at the same time, like last Sunday. I use them inter-changeably, they work the same and it's second nature, and they also happen to take the same lenses. The fact that they were made 60 years apart is irrelevant.

I also use a III, M6TTL and Q2, but that's beside the point.
 
sls4321 said:
I've got an M3 and M10 and often take them out at the same time, like last Sunday. I use them inter-changeably, they work the same and it's second nature, and they also happen to take the same lenses. The fact that they were made 60 years apart is irrelevant.

I also use a III, M6TTL and Q2, but that's beside the point.
Click to expand...

I had no idea! So, having an old M2 with 35 and 90, I could buy just a digital Leica body and use those lenses? Just like that?
 
PaulMB said:
I had no idea! So, having an old M2 with 35 and 90, I could buy just a digital Leica body and use those lenses? Just like that?
Click to expand...

The M3 introduced the bayonet lenses in 1954 and all bayonet lenses fit all M bodies since then. The M2 was a cheaper version of the M3 released a few years later.

Prior bodies were Leica I, II and III in various versions using a screw lens, finally discontinued in 1960.

I have an M3 and 50/f2 Rigid NR from 1957 and often use that lens on an M10. I also have the reissue of the 1955 28/f5.6.

Most of the screw mount lenses were collapsible as Leica I, II and III was intended to be very small. The M is significantly bigger. Some early M lenses were collapsible, but that soon largely ended and most were rigid. Some remain, like the 90/f4 Elmar. I don't know if the early collapsible M are OK on the digital M or not. I do have a 1935 Leica III 50/f3.5 and it works very well.

These are my analogue Leica, use them all, all shown with 50mm lenses.
https://flic.kr/p/2jAgL3K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top