shawn
Veteran
Thought this could be fun.
1932 Leica III (updated) with pre-war nickel Elmar of basically the same vintage. No serial number but it has the 7 oclock infinity position. TriX in HC110 1:63 for 9 minutes. Scanned on a Pakon.
2013ish Leica M240 with a 50mm Elmar-M 2.8 lens. Shot raw and converted to B&W at default in Lightroom.
Both shot at same aperture. All hand held so framing is slightly different. No great art, just interesting to see how they compare.
Differences in brightness could be accounted for in post.
Shawn
1932 Leica III (updated) with pre-war nickel Elmar of basically the same vintage. No serial number but it has the 7 oclock infinity position. TriX in HC110 1:63 for 9 minutes. Scanned on a Pakon.
2013ish Leica M240 with a 50mm Elmar-M 2.8 lens. Shot raw and converted to B&W at default in Lightroom.
Both shot at same aperture. All hand held so framing is slightly different. No great art, just interesting to see how they compare.
Differences in brightness could be accounted for in post.
Shawn
shawn
Veteran
Few more....
Ccoppola82
Well-known
I would be curious to see what they looked like if you matched the contrast in the M240 shots to the film. I’m partial to the film shots in these examples. Seems like much richer tonality, though the M240 is no slouch. I know I love mine!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Big job was done!
Everything, except last one, shows no significant difference.
Everything, except last one, shows no significant difference.
shawn
Veteran
I think that is mostly brightness really. If I boost the m240 up a little they are pretty close. That was a rabbit hole I didn't really want to go down though as there are so many different processing options. Might do a couple using a 'TriX' preset just for fun though.....
Shawn
benmacphoto
Well-known
Huge difference in tone/contrast gives the m240 away.
But sharpness and resolution are great on both.
Nice comparison.
But sharpness and resolution are great on both.
Nice comparison.
shawn
Veteran
Big job was done!
Everything, except last one, shows no significant difference.
Last one the old Elmar was flaring. The dock shot has a little of that too.
At that size I agree the shots are more alike than not if the differences in brightness are ignored. The old Elmar does well. When looking at higher resolution there are more differences.
For example:
That is with the TriX at 100% and the m240 at 50% view. I can't say if that is lens/film or scanner related though. The Pakon is only scanning at 6 megapixels vs 24 for the m240. I could fit it through my LS-8000 at some point to check that but I'm not really worried about it.
Shawn
shawn
Veteran
m240 DNG in Iridient using the monochrome RAW process. Contrast turned down.
m240 DNG in DXO Filmpack5 using TriX preset. Exposure boosted .5 and contrast turned down.
Black level is still a bit to strong.
Shawn
m240 DNG in DXO Filmpack5 using TriX preset. Exposure boosted .5 and contrast turned down.
Black level is still a bit to strong.
Shawn
Huss
Veteran
If you compared your 1932 Leica vs a 2019 M-A... (no difference if using the same lens)
Also, couldn't you adapt the lens on the old Leica onto your digi one?
Also, couldn't you adapt the lens on the old Leica onto your digi one?
shawn
Veteran
Yes, the old Elmar is usable on the digital Leica as lenses went to the standard flange distance in 1932. Was more interested in what the combo of old body and old lens looked like to the newer body and lens.
Shawn
Shawn
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
m240 DNG in Iridient using the monochrome RAW process. Contrast turned down.
m240 DNG in DXO Filmpack5 using TriX preset. Exposure boosted .5 and contrast turned down.
Black level is still a bit to strong.
Shawn
I don't think I could process film this good. Makes me want 262
.Steve M.
Veteran
This is an excellent illustration of why I could never shoot digital
The deck was stacked from the start though.... Tri-X shot through a vintage camera is as good as it gets. Thank you for the test. I've done these, and know how time consuming they are to put together.
The deck was stacked from the start though.... Tri-X shot through a vintage camera is as good as it gets. Thank you for the test. I've done these, and know how time consuming they are to put together.
shawn
Veteran
Thanks, one more take of that same shot. This time through DXO PhotoLab II using the ADOX CHS 100 II look along with a little bit of DXO Clearview.
Shawn
Shawn
jarski
Veteran
nice comparison and thanks for sharing. before reaching to replies, kinda guessed half of RFF rushing to comment that shots from older camera&lens look better
markjwyatt
Well-known
In the sailboat pictures I suspected the first one was digital, because you lost some of the clouds to pure white- though this can happen in scanning also. Overall, both look great.
DanskDynamit
Well-known
so Leica didnt improve at all in 80 years?
shawn
Veteran
shawn
Veteran
DanskDynamit
Well-known
not really, Kodachrome is from 1935 and Afgacolor Neu from 1936, but anyways, a color film of any brand) has nothing to do with Leica film cameras.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Great comparison, Shawn, thanks for posting this. Yes, Even though the differences are in reality fairly subtle, I am one of those who generally prefers looking at the results from the film body. And it’s not due to something as over simplified as “it’s what you are used to”.
The Elmar-M is one of the sharper modern lenses, and yes the modern combo is detectably sharper and contrastier, an itty bit, which matters to those who think sharper and contrastier is inherently more esthetically pleasing. I am not one of those. Sometimes those qualities are a plus, sometimes they are not, advertising claims aside.
Digital has one advantage, the same advantage it has always had, it’s faster, it’s easier. Resulting images, considered purely on esthetic terms, that’s a bit of a tossup. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias combine to determine most people’s weapon of choice.
Again, thanks for posting this. And I should add: nice job on the film processing. A lot of film isn’t processed this well, which leads many to believe that digital is “far” better, if indiscriminately processed film is all they have ever been exposed (argh) to.
The Elmar-M is one of the sharper modern lenses, and yes the modern combo is detectably sharper and contrastier, an itty bit, which matters to those who think sharper and contrastier is inherently more esthetically pleasing. I am not one of those. Sometimes those qualities are a plus, sometimes they are not, advertising claims aside.
Digital has one advantage, the same advantage it has always had, it’s faster, it’s easier. Resulting images, considered purely on esthetic terms, that’s a bit of a tossup. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias combine to determine most people’s weapon of choice.
Again, thanks for posting this. And I should add: nice job on the film processing. A lot of film isn’t processed this well, which leads many to believe that digital is “far” better, if indiscriminately processed film is all they have ever been exposed (argh) to.