Buying a Leica M7

[rrobinson]

After 5 years of shooting digital only, I am buying a Leica M7. I previously owed a Leica M3 and Minolta CLE back in the early 1980's and have been missing both film and rangefinder focusing. My question, which I am sure has been asked a million times already, is can I get similiar (hopefully better) image quality using my newly purchased M7 and 3 lenses (35mm, 50mm 90mm) and a high quality film scanner (either Minolta 5400 or Nikon Coolscan 5000) as I got from my Canon digital (30D and Canon L lenses)? I know that scanning can be a pain, but I look forward to shooting slides and b&w again.

This is my first post here and I apologize if I am asking a question that has already been asked and answered many times before.🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I have the feeling this is one of those questions that will give open a can of worms... but I'll tackle it.

The answer is Yes. Now, if by image quality you mean sharpness, yes. If you mean quality... that, only if you're a good photographer.

 

[venchka]

Unless you own one already or know where you can get a good one, the Minolta 5400 may not be a good choice. Konica-Minolta dropped cameras and related gear about a year ago. Service and support may be difficult at best.

 

[MCTuomey]

Assuming printing is done on the same equipment in either case, it will depend entirely on the quality of your scanned 35mm film files, which in turn will depend on three things:

1. quality of the negative
2. native capability of the scanner and its software
3. your scanning technique

Welcome back to adventuring in film!

 

[peter_n]

Welcome to the forum rrobinson! 🙂 What is your output media? Print? Web? If print, you need a really good scanner. If low resoltion like the web an inexpensive film scanner will be more than enough. I will stick my neck out with Francisco but for a different reason. Film will show you the imperfections and it looks real. Digital is very clean and devoid of imperfections and (to my eyes) it look false. Kind of like the difference between leather and plastic: The irregularity of leather and the cookie-cutter sameness of a plastic fabric.

 

[CJP6008]

I try to avoid scanning - if shooting analogue keep it analogue all the way. It will look better. Scanning introduces artefacts, grain aliasing and all sorts of digital related problems. A proper B&W wet print wil always beat a pritn from a scan.

Just as hi-fi cognescenti will only use vinyl on their £100k systems so it is with film. I have a friend whose speaker cables cost over GBP 5k. For him CDs are okay for the car but not for serious listening. A CD containsonly 1/1000 the information that is on the vinyl. The world is analogue, digitising it it to try to force a continuum into discrete boxes. Bits get missed out.

 

[hth]

(It is late, just some quick notes..)

Hmm.. Trying to capture the analog world with something analog that is not perfect, is not going to be a perfect reproduction either, just as trying to digitize it won't be perfect.

I have limited experience on a full digital workflow, but an example I did from the Leica M8 was really impressive. It was sort of clean and had detail I have only seen from MF scans before.

On the other hand, 35mm scans can be quite nice on their own, being less smooth and show more grain closeup. What can be an issue is dithering that might be less ideal when examined closeup (has happened at least in some situations for me).

Grain aliasing I think is mostly happening on lesser resolution scanners and probably also depends a bit on the film used.

To try to answer your question... If you are afraid of grain I think you might be disappointed. The film prints will be a bit more rough and less perfect, but that might just be what makes them look more real and genuine. Others will just think they are not as good, just as some people cannot understand the point of using B&W when there is color. It is a matter of taste and what look you want.

/Håkan

 

[MCTuomey]

I try to avoid scanning - if shooting analogue keep it analogue all the way. It will look better. Scanning introduces artefacts, grain aliasing and all sorts of digital related problems. A proper B&W wet print wil always beat a pritn from a scan.

Just as hi-fi cognescenti will only use vinyl on their £100k systems so it is with film. I have a friend whose speaker cables cost over GBP 5k. For him CDs are okay for the car but not for serious listening. A CD containsonly 1/1000 the information that is on the vinyl. The world is analogue, digitising it it to try to force a continuum into discrete boxes. Bits get missed out.

Either way, digi files or analogue methods, and the kind of preferences Peter mentions aside for the moment, I think the variables are similar: capability of the photographer to shoot well and to "process" well, whether in photoshop or wet-printing in a darkroom.

But the point about the adaptation (some would say perversion) of an analogue process to a digital workflow is excellent. Although there are plenty of stunning examples of film-to-digi prints (obviously), they depend upon a combination of very competent scanning skills and equally capable scanners. It's very easy, unhappily, to scan badly and not so easy to scan well enough to capture what's in the negative and to avoid introduction of scanner artifacts, error, etc.

 

[FilteredLight]

Talent trumps technology--it doesn't matter what you use. Agonizing over the dichotomy of digital versus analog is a fool's game. Just make good art!

I like analog, too. I have a digital front end feeding tube gear, and the amplified signal comes out of full-range horn drivers. Yummy. But the music stills sounds like crap if it was crap to begin with.

Rangefinders, DSLRs, MF, LF; they are all capable of greatness. Shoot more, type less?

 

[schmoozit]

My question... is can I get similiar (hopefully better) image quality using my newly purchased M7 and 3 lenses (35mm, 50mm 90mm) and a high quality film scanner (either Minolta 5400 or Nikon Coolscan 5000) as I got from my Canon digital (30D and Canon L lenses)?

Yes.
.

 

[CraigK]

Just my $0.02....

I have come to the conclusion after 25 years of film shooting and 10 years of digi shooting that it is no longer a question of which is better. Both are to the point that the weakest link in the chain is the wetware between your ears.

A good image created by analogue means requires a good eye, good technique and good luck.

A good image created by digital means also requires a good eye, good technique and good luck.

Choose your poison.

 

[Turtle]

Yes, No, Yes, No. OK:

Yes and No: A 30D will produce super fine, smoothie images a 35mm bit of film will struggle to beat. BUT, the 35mm film has grain and soul and does not have that sterility of digital images. Will scans be as fine grained as digital - probably not. Will great scans fo 35mm film developed with scanning in mind look great - you bet.

Sounds like tghe other factors you mentioned are more important. I prefer wet prints, but I am sure you will be able to produce great mone digital prints if you research it and practice. For colour, I hate to say it, but think a 8MP camer will give 35mm film a good run for its money and trump it on cleanliness and smoothness if not detail.

Still cannot beat a wet print from B&W film for magic. And no its not in my head.

 

[Avotius]

ok, ive been shooting 35mm and digital on a 20d for a good while and made a lot of 30 inch prints so ill try my hand at this.

The digital files all look smoother but have a lot less feeling.

The file files have better colors and tones but are a royal pain in the ass to deal with compared to digital, what you gain from your work though is more emotional photos with feeling and life rather then plastic smooth faces.

As for absolute image sharpness, at 30 inches I have to say my 20D outdoes the same lenses on a canon film body with velvia or reala but at say....15 or 20 inches there is no difference.

If you can afford to shoot good film (none of the era, lucky crap) and spend a good amount ot time learning how to scan well as well as print then I say do it, its good stuff that film...I will shoot film untill its cold and dead in the ground but I will always have a digital on hand just because thats the way shmit happens these days.