Richard G
Veteran
I used the M6 a bit in the last few weeks. The first surprise is how far the baseplate key has to be turned in comparison to the M9. Other than that, business as usual. The next surprise related not so much to the need to advance the film, but to how loud my M6 1/250s was. Made the M9 seem not such a clunker after all.
This afternoon I loaded up the M2 with some Rollei Retro 25 and took 4 well considered shots and I was feeling pretty happy. Put the Zeiss C Sonnar on and opened up wide. But, I forgot to remove the lenscap. The M9 gives a savage rebuke for this: a 32 second exposure plus another 32 second noise reduction exposure. What an anticlimax that is. The M6 would have the little LED screaming underexposure. But the M2? Diplomacy itself. Let him find out in his own good time.
Any other surprise people have had? That's quite enough for me.
This afternoon I loaded up the M2 with some Rollei Retro 25 and took 4 well considered shots and I was feeling pretty happy. Put the Zeiss C Sonnar on and opened up wide. But, I forgot to remove the lenscap. The M9 gives a savage rebuke for this: a 32 second exposure plus another 32 second noise reduction exposure. What an anticlimax that is. The M6 would have the little LED screaming underexposure. But the M2? Diplomacy itself. Let him find out in his own good time.
Any other surprise people have had? That's quite enough for me.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sounds like you had a time of it. ;-)
My film M is an M4-2. When I take it out for a session, it just fits nicely in my hands and feels normal to me. My other film M-mount is a CL. When I take that one out, I feel like I've returned home ... and rant about the awkward film loading. Beyond that, a CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses just does everything right. Then I pick up the M9 again, or the GXR, and see the outstanding quality of the images they are capable of.
And marvel that we can have such amazing things to make photographs with.
G
My film M is an M4-2. When I take it out for a session, it just fits nicely in my hands and feels normal to me. My other film M-mount is a CL. When I take that one out, I feel like I've returned home ... and rant about the awkward film loading. Beyond that, a CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses just does everything right. Then I pick up the M9 again, or the GXR, and see the outstanding quality of the images they are capable of.
And marvel that we can have such amazing things to make photographs with.
G
Austerby
Well-known
I've never really got on with my M8 so returning to my M3 was a delight. There's definitely something about the delayed feedback that makes the photographs more satisfying for me, particularly when developing and scanning/printing the results for myself. That's why I'm not going for a Monochrom - I just like the film-based workflow.
IEDEI
Well-known
i use my M5 on occasion and find the opposite that it is MUCH quieter than my M8. I like the 'delayed' gratification' of shooting film, but digital is definitely the more efficient, dynamic, and forward-thinking process. Film is good on accasion as a guilty pleasure, but digital is a better process overall.
Vickko
Veteran
I love the delayed gratification of seeing the photos from the lab.
Rooting through a bunch of downloads, while faster and more convenient, doesn't offer the same appeal.
But it is nice also to switch between digital and film.
Especially on difficult shoots, like very odd light, night shots; with digital,I don't have a fear that I've wasted a bunch of film on a "bad shoot".
Rooting through a bunch of downloads, while faster and more convenient, doesn't offer the same appeal.
But it is nice also to switch between digital and film.
Especially on difficult shoots, like very odd light, night shots; with digital,I don't have a fear that I've wasted a bunch of film on a "bad shoot".
icebear
Veteran
So far I didn't feel the urge to return to my film M's. Although I can make the final cut and sell them off ... yet.
The instant gratification (at least very short delay until download from the SD card at home) and just the high amount of keepers simply by varying and experimenting much more than with film, this makes shooting the M9 and the MM a rewarding experience. Also critical focus analysis and matching lenses to the digital M's which I didn't waste any film exposures for, this has optimized the IQ of my system. And yes the shutter noises are different, am I anal about this , no. It doesn't keep me away from taking pictures e.g. during a concert in a Jazz club. Nobody so far cared or gave me any looks, so I'm enjoying the digital M's for now.
The instant gratification (at least very short delay until download from the SD card at home) and just the high amount of keepers simply by varying and experimenting much more than with film, this makes shooting the M9 and the MM a rewarding experience. Also critical focus analysis and matching lenses to the digital M's which I didn't waste any film exposures for, this has optimized the IQ of my system. And yes the shutter noises are different, am I anal about this , no. It doesn't keep me away from taking pictures e.g. during a concert in a Jazz club. Nobody so far cared or gave me any looks, so I'm enjoying the digital M's for now.
douglasf13
Well-known
I agree. That's why I don't use the LCD on my M9, other than to check battery power or format my SD card.
I also only shoot the M9 at ISO 160, and push exposure in LR4, if need be, so my photos are often too dark to review on the camera's LCD screen, anyways. Shooting at only ISO 160 works great, and the results are as good or better than raising the camera's ISO. It's just like pushing film, but you can do it every exposure, rather than every roll. I rarely blow highlights, which is great.