Absolute Gain in Quality - Recent M experience

[Benjamin Marks]

The following is an admittedly jumbled set of recent impressions.

I recently photographed my brother's wedding with a Nikon D3, an M8 and an M6/M3 loaded with Neopan 400 bw film. I have not used much film of late, maybe 20 rolls in the last year or so, of various types. I have to say, I am just amazed at what the M8 is capable of compared to a 400 speed black and white film. For instance, the cover of the wedding album is a photograph of my brother's and sister-in-law's hands, shot with a 50 Summicron at ISO 160 on the M8. Actually, it is a crop of the frame, comprising about a 1/2 of the useful image. After conversion in Photoshop, the resulting whole image would have been larger than the largest I ever printed in 35mm b&w: 11x14; the cover of the book is 11x13 itself and the cropped image bleeds to the edge of the frame. The image is grainless/noiseless and the technical quality of the picture, the skin tones and so on, are easily equal to what I could have achieved with a medium format camera ten years ago.

I realize that it is not fair to compare absolute IQ of an ISO 160 digital image with an ISO 400 scanned film image, but in general the digital files were easier to work with, less time consuming to adjust (remember spotting prints? -- I now do this with negative scans). Where the film scans have an edge is in something I'll call "tone" -- there is a classic quality to the images that I have never been able to imitate with conversion programs (currently Alien Skin 2). Some of the wedding-preparation pictures were made with an old goggled 35 Summaron and the way that lens renders is very evocative. (Work that flare, baby.) I chose to record the wedding both digitally and on film because I want to be able to check in on the images in 30 years and cannot imagine what our digital future holds: the rate of change is too great.

Bottom line: if someone had told me ten years ago that I would be working with a digital rangefinder that could produce medium-format quality images using my existing Leica glass I would have asked them to wager a large sum that it would never happen. How wonderful to have been so wrong. BUT: I am not ready to say goodbye to film just yet. And I am sure there is room in the chest freezer for some more ISO 400 film stock.

Ben Marks

 

[Praxis Unitas]

I use an M3 for B&W, M7 for Slides and an M8 for quick sharing. I agree with your assessment of the M8 v. 400 speed film. In order for me to get superior image quality on film, I need to shoot below ISO 100 and develop carefully. At best, I can squeeze about 20MP out of low speed B&W film developed slowly in rodinal.

Can't wait to see what the M9 can produce!

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I am hoping that there is an M9 and that its advent forces down the used price of the M8 so that I can get one in silver. The thing that I want I am sure will not be offered, which is to get a Nikon D3 chip in front of some M-glass. The D3's full frame low-light capability coupled with M-quality fast glass? Yow. That is really all I would need.

And you know what? The rate of progress in digital is such that I think there is a good chance that we will get there in the next 10 years -- not that specific combo, of course, but the IQ I think that combo would allow.

Ben Marks

 

[ferider]

I am hoping that there is an M9 and that its advent forces down the used price of the M8 so that I can get one in silver. The thing that I want I am sure will not be offered, which is to get a Nikon D3 chip in front of some M-glass. The D3's full frame low-light capability coupled with M-quality fast glass? Yow. That is really all I would need.

Be assured, IF there will be a FF M9 it will have dynamic range equivalent to the D3, at least usable for normal and longer focal lengths. It has to, for wide angle vignetting correction.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I have only been paying half-attention to the M9 rumors. In fact, I took a one week vacation from the Internet and my normal surroundings right when the rumor mill started to churn -- I was surprised when the rumors still persisted when I got back. If an M9 exists, its release will be the first time that a new digi-RF product was offered while I was in I-have-everything-I-need mode. The M8 and the D3 really are a great combo for me and their capabilities compliment one another nicely. You get the high-ISO/long lens possibilities of the D3 and the low-profile stealthiness of the M8.

Now while I was away, I used my M8 and an R5, a 90 Elmarit-R and about 10 rolls of Fuji Acros 100. I am trying to decide between XTol, Beutler's and Defender 777 for the Across and I can't wait to see what I've got.

Ben Marks

 

[giellaleafapmu]

To make a fair comparison you should develop yourself the film and wet print on good fiber paper, I am not sure that after that if you do things right you still see such a great difference (I in fact prefer almost always the wet print over a digital picture).

GLF

 

[Benjamin Marks]

In my case, the point was not to make a fair comparison between technologies but to produce wedding pictures and a book for my brother. I recognize that there is a tendency to scrutinize generalizations for flaws in the process. But I think you have to judge a creative process by what it is, rather than what it could be under some different set of circumstances. In this case, please take as a given that all the media had to get converted into 10101010 (ones and zeros) in order for the gift to my brother to work as promised.

Now, I do have a wet darkroom, but other than film development this project all passed through a digital workflow. It is neither fair nor scientific, but it does reflect the necessary limitations for this project. And I will say that producing a book (actual off-set, ink on premium quality paper, hard bound, 120 pages with a slip jacket) 10 years ago would have been an impossibility for me, regardless of how the images were captured.

Ben Marks

 

[giellaleafapmu]

In my case, the point was not to make a fair comparison between technologies but to produce wedding pictures and a book for my brother.

Ben Marks

Sorry, I had misunderstood you point. Sure, I easily believe that if you need a digital file a digital camera is most of the time a better way to obtain it than passing through film.

GLF

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I most often have a 50mm lens on my M8. The 50 was my favorite lens in 35mm film days and it remains a favorite now. I am actually one of the weirdos who is not overly influenced by the so-called crop factor. As an example, I found a 50 to be unflattering as a close-up portrait lens in 35mm (didn't like the way it rendered noses in a frontal portrait) and that quality has not changed at all, even though the 50 on the M8 "sees" the same angle of view as a 75 on a 35mm camera. Ditto the relationship between near and far elements in a picture. Wides are, well, wides -- and for portraits, I want a short telephoto. I know there is fancy math that proves that DOF changes somewhat when you trim your negatives down -- these other lens qualities don't though. When my 50 is not wide enough on the M8, until recently I just took 2 steps back.

Recently though, I have recently been using a 35 and 28 on the M8 more often. And for my brother's recent wedding I used a 24/2 and an 85/1.4 on the Nikon D3 -- not a "normal" lens to be found anywhere. The M8 had a 24/2.8 on it most of the weekend and the M6s had 50's and 35s. The cover of the wedding book, however was a close-up of the bride and groom's hands -- a crop of an image made on the M8 with the 50/2. I'll post a link to blurb.com when the book project is up next week.

Ben Marks

 

[Ted Witcher]

Ben, can you post some finished work from the wedding?

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Ben, can you post some finished work from the wedding?

Ted: I'll give it a try this weekend. At work I don't have the tools to resize the images as required by RFF.

Ben Marks

 

[Jeff S]

I most often have a 50mm lens on my M8. The 50 was my favorite lens in 35mm film days and it remains a favorite now. I am actually one of the weirdos who is not overly influenced by the so-called crop factor. Ben Marks

+1...count me as another weirdo. I shot with film Ms for over 20 years (and did my own darkroom work)...now use M8.2 with all-digital workflow. My focal lengths have always been some combination of 28, 35, 50 and 75. Crop frame didn't change this, and even if I eventually get a FF M (if it comes), I don't anticipate any focal length changes.

The only thing that might at some point cause a change in my habits would be a different system of framelines, if that could assist with my aging eyes and glasses.

I have, however, changed specific lenses within these focal lengths (love the recent asph...50 Lux and 28 cron)...so, unfortunately, I still give many $ to Leica.

Jeff

 

[Ted Witcher]

Ted: I'll give it a try this weekend. At work I don't have the tools to resize the images as required by RFF.

Ben Marks

Thanks. hjihjp

 

[Fraser]

thats a lot of cameras to be carrying, an M8, M3, M6 and a D3.

 

[Turtle]

I agree digital has amazingly fine detail now and enlarges very well, btu I shoot film for the reasons you state: tonality and the look of a fine silver print. I find it mpore organic and less sterile than digital, but thats very personal. Certainly I will be interested to see what the M9 is like!

 

[Benjamin Marks]

To be fair, I wasn't actually wearing all these cameras at once. It was a family affair, so I brought a big bag, which served as "home base" and then roved with one or another camera, maximum 2. And yeah, I have kicked myself for bringing too much gear from time to time. Now, I only carry small bags -- this was the only way to avoid overdoing it.

Ben

 

[Benjamin Marks]

As promised, a couple of snapshots with the film-M's. Lenses: 35 goggled Summaron and 24/2.8 Asph. There were some pictures I took with the Noctilux during the dance portion of the program, but they are extremely impressionistic and taken at very low shutter speeds on an M8. I can post one or two if there is interest, but they are not a technical tour-de-force.

Ben

 

[Ted Witcher]

Excellent. Now we must see the converted digital stuff for comparison's sake.

 

[Ben Z]

^ I hear ya, and definitely - when you go wide, every millimeter DOES count. But since we're talking about a "35mm" here... The difference isn't quite as dramatic as say, between a 21 and 24/25..

Even in the very wide range, it's a weak argument. Other than in terms of people contriving a reason why to dislike crop factors I don't recall such nitpicking. In the film days, I never heard anyone argue that 20mm (like Nikon) vs 21mm (like Olympus) or 24mm (Nikon) vs 25mm (Contax) was a compelling reason to prefer one lensmaker over another. And 32/33mm vs 35mm represents a much less noticeable difference in coverage angle. Especially given the rough approximation of Leica framelines.

 

[peterm1]

One the subject of crop factors, whilst I certainly understand that there are many shooters who prefer wide angles, fortunately (given the reality of digital shooting) I am not really one of them. I have always found that 35mm is quite wide enough for 90% of my WA shooting and my style of shooting actually lends itself to longer lenses (short to medium tele) for the most part so I am actually quite well served by today's crop (no pun intended) of digital sensors.