Money Aside: M9 or M-X & Best Scanner

Money Aside: M9 or M-X & Best Scanner

  • Total voters
    500
hmm, this has crossed my mind. I just got a coolscan 8000, waiting for it too arrive:

Cost:
M4 - $850
Lightmeter - $100/$50 (SEI meter, luna pro)
Coolscan 8000 - $1200
SilverFast & extras's - $350
Total: 2500
M8 = ~2500

As such, for 35mm, M8 is cheaper, though with a crop factor.

I also shoot MF though....

I choose the film M and Coolscan, though I guess if money is not an issue I would get the Hassy scanner. I enjoy not having batteries to shoot. And the look of MF is just wonderful. I hate scanning, but it is a necessary evil for me. I also like handling film, I like loading it into the camera, I like how it smells, I like how it feels. I love projecting slides. And I haven't even started trying developing/printing on my own!!!
 
Given the choice between instant, clean, full-frame digital files and hours of processing, scanning, and dust spotting, I'd take the M9.

Unless, of course, I had my own personal slave to handle all the hassle of film for free.
 
I voted M9, simply because I do have some film M's and a Nikon Coolscan V and the maximum quality I could get out of this thing is just academic. With multiscan I get easily 60MB files from the scanner, not processed that is...
For the pure sake of convenience I'd rather go for the digital camera to start with. The IQ is likely to be fully sufficient for my demands. And I simply don't want to waste so much time in front of the PC scanning and photoshopping, downsizing for web, to show some of the images. I'm just too busy. The motif of your picture is more important than ultimate IQ .... heresy on this forum😀😀😀
 
digitalintrigue said:
Any film body (35mm or 120) and a good C41/E6 lab with a properly setup Noritsu QSS scanner. One such lab is ncps.
Click to expand...


I agree, and if you request higher level .tiff format, the files are usually 15-20 MB in size, and quite acceptable for Ink Jet printing. If you want a better image - isolate the image and take it to an Imacon or Drum based scanner.
 
I hate digital workflow especially when WB is off. Been there done that.

I'll stick to my MP and Coolscan V. Wouldn't mind a nice MF scanner though.

Robert, have you ever received scans from NCPS? I'm considering them when I have a few rolls of 120 to send out.
 
I voted for the M/Scanner set up. I have it already so that simplified it too.
My negative files go back 40+ years and it only takes me minutes to pull out a negative, scan it and, if needed, do some spotting and contrast correction.
Digital is still very much an unknown when it comes to storage and longevity. Yes, you can "re-format" every 3-5 years - but how many of us would truly do that. Hard drives,CD's and DVD's have a limited lifespan - bl/w film properly processed will last a long, long time without any reformat procedure.
I also find that I am more selective when it comes to edits and shooting with film. With digital one tends to "scatter shoot" in the hope that something will be good!
There is also, at least as far as I am concerned, the added technology and its inherent problems. A M2 acts up and in many cases you can pole at various parts with a screwdriver and get it going again. A digital acts up and you are now carrying a inert lump of metal (sometimes) and plastic with no idea how to revive it!
 
Yes, I have used NCPS quite a bit, the files are impressive. No dust! Great color.

There is a lab in Austin that now does these hi-res scans, so now I don't have to mail anything out. 😉

wjlapier said:
I hate digital workflow especially when WB is off. Been there done that.

I'll stick to my MP and Coolscan V. Wouldn't mind a nice MF scanner though.

Robert, have you ever received scans from NCPS? I'm considering them when I have a few rolls of 120 to send out.
Click to expand...
 
Film and a world-class scanner for me, thanks. I feel that if an image is worth making, it's worth getting on film. With a negative I can do whatever I want, in either process; and the hard, durable, archival nature of negatives trumps only having digi files. Besides- digi capture rules out half of the process- and the nicest (wet) prints!

About half of my professional shooting is done digitally, but none of my personal work is. For images I care about beyond the paycheck, I prefer the wonderful flexibility of getting both traditional and digital work flow from one capture medium. For product photos, I'll stick to digital- and I doubt an M9 would be ideal for that...
 
filmfan said:
I hope you don't really mean this, for the differences are dramatic.
Click to expand...

Each to his own I guess. The difference for me is neither dramatic nor traumatic. I shoot colour and do not make large prints to sell commercially. OTH I do have a Minolta 5400 for when I feel the need for huge files but that is not often these days.

Bob
 
Tom A said:
I
Digital is still very much an unknown when it comes to storage and longevity. Yes, you can "re-format" every 3-5 years - but how many of us would truly do that. Hard drives,CD's and DVD's have a limited lifespan - bl/w film properly processed will last a long, long time without any reformat procedure.
!
Click to expand...

Always makes me smile when I see a scanner selling used " no longer needed I've archived my negatives". I just hope they didn't get rid of the originals as I agree with Tom that they are more likely to last and be accessible in the future than the scans.
 
To put this in perspective: for the last 6 month I have been working with a group here in Vancouver, preparing a show on early swedish immigrants to British Columbia. Our cut off date was 1940, but a substantial amount of the photo selected and found have been from 1880-1920. OK, most of these have come from peoples photo album and as these people came to Canada for a "better" life - photography was not high on their list. Most used Kodak's box cameras with limited exposure and focus capability - but even after 90-120 years, these photos could be scanned and printed - in some case as big as 11"x17". The question begs, how many of the digital files shot today will be around in 2120? I am not talking about professional portraits or commercial photography - these are family snap-shots, settlements, some showing working the land or taking part of celebrations. At the time they were just documenting life - today they are historical artifacts! If you look at photography from days past, the glossy commercial stuff is of limited interest - the family snap shot truly tells you what life was like, with babies, weddings, funerals, birthdays etc.
I fear that we can loose a substantial amount of this material over time with the digital workflow. Manufacturers make sweeping statements about the longevity about their products "Will last for 200 years" (if it is put in a climate controlled vault!) - by the time we find out that they were wrong - it is too late.
I can see digital having a place, particularly in news and commercial applications. It is convinient, technologically amazing (Nikon D3s with 104 000 iso top speed!!!!!) - but what about the modest snap shot or family history? Doing a project like this is humbling - you see the work that went into clearing land, digging for gold, build roads and railways to open up the province or continent. We often take it for granted - but someone did the heavy lifting 100 years ago - and we have benefitted from all of it.
 
Tom, the number of family snaps folks were taking started its decline long before digital. Our cultural values have changed, and younger folks aren't so interested in the past these days. I know a number of folks in their 30's who have few photos of the kids, etc. They just aren't interested.

Will history be lost? Sure. Will most people care? Probably not.
 
Roger Hicks said:
B+W: Film + wet darkroom

Colour: M9

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, you may or may not have seen my WB comment above. How is the AWB of the M9? Under mixed lighting situations? Do you shoot primarily RAW? Custom WB?

I would love to have a M9 if I knew I wouldn't have to tinker around in software to get colors right.

Bill
 
Film camera + a reasonable film scanner like Minolta 5400 or equivalent Nikon. I wouldn't buy an Imacon. I'd scan a few images at home for web posting, and for images important enough for large prints or exhibition or a book, i'd send those frames to a real scanning service. If an Imacon costs $5000, how many frames can you scan by sending them to a qualified pro for that same amount of money? They'll do a better job and you won't spend the time.

But, that answer is because i prefer the look of film, in black and white or color.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom