Geo Toreno
Well-known
Both are great!!, thank you for comparison, Shawn.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Precisely so! So much character in each set, they are almost* persuading me of the merits of a digital Leica.
(*but not yet!)
Geo Toreno
Well-known
Hard to do this in 1932....
Shawn
Agfa color did it!!
Here from Dr. Paul Wolff photobook from his works 1924-1934.
Agfa Color film, Elmar 9cm f4. 1/4s at F6.3
Second edition 1939.
leicapixie
Well-known
Comparison tests are useless if one makes scans of film..
OK Imacon might be way better..
but Film made for projection printing and then be sick at result!
It may not be digital winner..
OK Imacon might be way better..
but Film made for projection printing and then be sick at result!
It may not be digital winner..
Huss
Veteran
shawn
Veteran
Agfa color did it!!
Here from Dr. Paul Wolff photobook from his works 1924-1934.
Agfa Color film, Elmar 9cm f4. 1/4s at F6.3
Second edition 1939.
Cool, I knew Kodachrome wasn’t out in 35mm till 1936ish. What speed was Agfa color film. Based on that shot it must have been very slow, single digit iso maybe? That would have made these shots tougher hand held.
Shawn
David Hughes
David Hughes
Everything I have seen suggests film was about 8, 10 or 12 ASA or ISO as we say these days. Tripack colour and three negative colour have been around a lot longer than people think.
Look here for samples:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky
Regards, David
Look here for samples:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky
Regards, David
Huss
Veteran
Good info. So using Sunny 16 that would be 1/125 @ 5.6
shawn
Veteran
This site is saying around ASA 2.
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Colour_Darkroom/Early_Agfa.html#anchorfilm
So that sailboat shot above would have been around 1/3 of a second. (Original DNG is ISO200, f4, 1/350)
Shawn
shawn
Veteran
Apparently they got worse.
Look through the viewfinder(s) of the III and then the M240.....
Shawn
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
What a creatively Fun endeavour...Thanks for that Shawn !
My favorite shots were a mix of film and digital:
My favorite shots were a mix of film and digital:
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
The Leica III holds up incredibly well compared to the M240! I would have expected an obvious difference. But, on the contrary, in some of these you can't immediately tell which is which.
David Hughes
David Hughes
The acid test, imo, would be a print 3ft by 2ft or something as large. We are looking at very small* pictures on a screen and there's nothing like a small version of text or image to hide the flaws.
It would be interesting to get hold of a later (meaning coated) f/3.5 Elmar and repeat the tests with just the digital body...
Having said that the results are fascinating, so thanks for showing us.
Regards, David
* The winch was easiest to measure and is not even a half megapixel picture (800 by 533 pixels).
It would be interesting to get hold of a later (meaning coated) f/3.5 Elmar and repeat the tests with just the digital body...
Having said that the results are fascinating, so thanks for showing us.
Regards, David
* The winch was easiest to measure and is not even a half megapixel picture (800 by 533 pixels).
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Interesting! I enjoyed the photos. Thanks very much for doing this.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Fantastic. Made my day!
shawn
Veteran
Album with larger versions here:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/39387871@N06/Lb2Gg9
Winch in full size (click it I think to view full size and then click again to see at 100%)
Full size on the M240 has 4x the resolution of the Pakon scan. (6mp vs 24)
Shawn
shawn
Veteran
Yes, I was very impressed with it too. I'll probably try another just Elmar and Elmar on the M240 in color to see how they compare.
Shawn
