Denton
Established
Has anyone done the comparison directly? I've yet to compare identical scenes for M9 at, say, 1600 and above to either high-speed film or pushed film. Wondering whether I should bother with film at these ISO's. Recently shot a wedding with Canon 5D (24-105)and M9 (35 summicron and 75 color-skopar) and would have like to have had two rangefinders, one with film and a different lens. The exposures were in the range of 1/60f2.8-4 at ISO 800.
Denton
Denton
Richard G
Veteran
I've struggled to get what I like with 3200 film exposed at 1600 and have been very pleased with the M9 at 1600. This is an M9 jpeg:
And this:
And this:
Denton
Established
Those look very nice Richard, thanks.
I spent part of today on Yale campus shooting Tri-x at 1600 with identical shots on M9 at 1600. Will be interesting to compare directly once I develop and scan. Heavy gray today so contrast will be low, that should help.
Denton
I spent part of today on Yale campus shooting Tri-x at 1600 with identical shots on M9 at 1600. Will be interesting to compare directly once I develop and scan. Heavy gray today so contrast will be low, that should help.
Denton
thegman
Veteran
For B&W film, from what I've seen about the web, the M9, though not considered a high-ISO performer, is likely to blow away B&W 35mm film in terms of pure resolution. Whether you prefer the look is up to you.
If you don't mind colour film, Portra 400 can show remarkable performance at higher ISOs:
http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/in-bleak-midwinter-new-kodak-portra400.html
Portra 800 probably pretty decent too with a one-stop push to 1600.
If you don't mind colour film, Portra 400 can show remarkable performance at higher ISOs:
http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/in-bleak-midwinter-new-kodak-portra400.html
Portra 800 probably pretty decent too with a one-stop push to 1600.
Denton
Established
Interesting blog about Portra. I've shot it once or twice and felt it needed to be shot at ISO200, not 400, but then it wasn't pushed.
I'd prefer something I can develop myself, so I'm going to push Tri-X in DDX to 1600. I suspect a better candidate would have been Delta 400 pushed in DDX. Should be able finish the 24 roll tomorrow with the rest of the film tests.
Denton
I'd prefer something I can develop myself, so I'm going to push Tri-X in DDX to 1600. I suspect a better candidate would have been Delta 400 pushed in DDX. Should be able finish the 24 roll tomorrow with the rest of the film tests.
Denton
edge100
Well-known
I agree. I've shot Portra 400 (in 35mm) and found that it doesn't handle underexposure very well at all, while it handles 3+ stops of overexposure (i.e. ISO 50) with ease. These tests suggest that maybe I'm doing something wrong, perhaps in the scanning.
Denton
Established
M9 edges out Tri-X at 1600
M9 edges out Tri-X at 1600
I finished the roll of Tri-x shot at EI1600 and developed 14 minutes/68F/DDX/1+4. Negatives were thin. Some shots were nearly comparable, particularly architectural shots with course texture. Overall, however, the M9 converted to BW was clearly better than pushed Tri-X. Detail was superior and dynamic range equal or perhaps better, but quite close. I'd be happy to use an M9 at ISO 1600 or 2000. I believe 2500 would be acceptable for clients for many shots, particularly if little cropping was necessary.
Denton
M9 edges out Tri-X at 1600
I finished the roll of Tri-x shot at EI1600 and developed 14 minutes/68F/DDX/1+4. Negatives were thin. Some shots were nearly comparable, particularly architectural shots with course texture. Overall, however, the M9 converted to BW was clearly better than pushed Tri-X. Detail was superior and dynamic range equal or perhaps better, but quite close. I'd be happy to use an M9 at ISO 1600 or 2000. I believe 2500 would be acceptable for clients for many shots, particularly if little cropping was necessary.
Denton
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Yeah, well, shadows drop off pretty quick with Tri-X at 1600. This is medium format Tri-X at 1600:
umcelinho
Marcelo
beautiful shot, by the way.
alexnotalex
Well-known
Most of my flickr stream is pretty low light.... not really more than 1600 though. Would I like an M9 more? I'm certainly liking your M9 shots.
Alex
Alex
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Thanks! I don't usually hang about outside the ladies toilet, in case anybody wanted to know.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
High ISO B&W film has been limited by the recent deletion of both Neopan 1600 and Kodak 3200, Ilford Delta or pushed T Max 400 are the two easy options.
This is the now gone Kodak at EI3200
This is the current Ilford Delta 3200 in Medium Format
This is the now gone Kodak at EI3200
This is the current Ilford Delta 3200 in Medium Format
Denton
Established
TX and D400 pushed in DDX
TX and D400 pushed in DDX
Just compared TX and D400 pushed to EI-1600. Still prefer the M9 but it's nice to know it can be done well enough for clients if care is taken to expose well.
This is Tri-X pushed in DDX 1+4. Would like to minimize grain. Zeiss Planar 50mm
This is D400 pushed in DDX, EV 3 and 1/8s at f2 35mm Summicron:
TX and D400 pushed in DDX
Just compared TX and D400 pushed to EI-1600. Still prefer the M9 but it's nice to know it can be done well enough for clients if care is taken to expose well.
This is Tri-X pushed in DDX 1+4. Would like to minimize grain. Zeiss Planar 50mm
This is D400 pushed in DDX, EV 3 and 1/8s at f2 35mm Summicron:
kokoshawnuff
Alex
Of all the Tri-X I've shot, I've only shot one roll at 1600, but was quite happy with the results in F76+ (I had to guess on the development time since there was no info, but it worked out)
Snowbuzz
Well-known
^ That looks great!
flash
Member
I quite like a bit of grain. One of the attractions, to me, of the M9 is that it has some compared to the sterile perfection of many digital cameras. And it looks quite nice once the colour noise is under control. In fact I'm far more likely to add some in post than remove it.
Gordon
Gordon
kokoshawnuff
Alex
Thanks. I need to make an effort to shoot more of it at 1600