M3 vs. D40

[dave lackey]

One more reason why I love the M3. Now if I can only get a scanner or someone who knows how to scan.

These days, I am not so much into creative color work with the D40 as I have been in the past so I am spending more time with B+W in the M3. Recently, I happened to have both with me at the lake one early one morning and shot these back to back. Which is which?

Full frame image with 50mm lens:

Cropped image #1

Cropped Image #2

BTW, no postprocessing on either image. The local lab is not known for good black and white scans but it is what it is.

 

[Michael Markey]

Ok then...first two M3?
Better edit that with a question mark.

 

[nobbylon]

cropped image one m3 cropped image two d40

 

[Pablito]

not a fair question without knowing type of film in M3 and ISO you shot that D40 at

 

[Pablito]

"Cropped image #2" is smoother but given the limitations of computers, it's hard to tell whether #1 is grainy or noisy.

Also, the image shot on film could show jpg artifacts from scanning...

 

[GSNfan]

The 3rd one is D40.

 

[Keith]

The first two are definitely M3 IMO ... and that burn in the top left of the first image is nothing any D40 can do.

 

[dave lackey]

Okay, that's just what I wanted to show. Even with crappy scans, the film images are distinctly different than the D40. Some will like the sharp look of the D40 but the negatives show a very nice rendering of the overall image that is far better than the D40 IMO.

Retro is what comes to mind with the M3 + Summarit + Tri-X.

BTW, I used the D40 exposure information for the M3 images. They were within seconds of each other.

 

[dave lackey]

An image from last year at the same location:

A year apart, same results.

And then, we get this:

 

[alexnotalex]

Nice experiment. Now can anyone lightroom the D40 pic to make it look like the M3 pic? That would be really cool...

 

[dave lackey]

Nah, why bother, when the M3 will do the retro thing right out of the gate. The D40...I love it and use it professionally, believe it or not, with amazing results. I like the D40 for what it does just fine!

But, I am using the M3 with the only lens I have to produce retro images and all I have to do is shoot it, drop it off at the lab, pick it up later and enjoy. No computer work.,

 

[shadowfox]

Sorry, Dave.

I don't see any compelling difference between the two camera outputs.
The fact that they are not post-processed means little if anything.

Scanned images are meant to be post-processed. That applies when going through the film --> darkroom process.

Except for certain image types, I can make any D40 output to look like any M3 output in digital format. Especially in B&W.

One thing I can't do with D40 is produce a nice B&W darkroom print that I could do with film. And I'd rather take pictures with an M camera than a Canon

 

[dave lackey]

Sorry, Dave.

I don't see any compelling difference between the two camera outputs.
The fact that they are not post-processed means little if anything.

Scanned images are meant to be post-processed. That applies when going through the film --> darkroom process.

Except for certain image types, I can make any D40 output to look like any M3 output in digital format. Especially in B&W.

One thing I can't do with D40 is produce a nice B&W darkroom print that I could do with film. And I'd rather take pictures with an M camera than a Canon

This does not convince you?

The scans are only for showing images on the forum...otherwise I would never scan anything let alone use my crappy local lab.

I hate post-processing and prefer to get the image right the first time I hit the shutter release. Since I lost the use of my left arm for a couple of years due to nerve damage from using the computer keyboard, I stay away from PP as much as possible. I am happy spending my time as a photographer, not a computer nerd like I did for 15 years.

 

[nobbylon]

Dave I hope you don't mind but I had a play with the D40 image.

 

[Pirate]

I have pictures from this place too. I was there just last year.

 

[dave lackey]

No, I don't mind. But, the point is...I don't do post processing anymore than I have to...(see above). The M3 gives me what I want without it.



Nothing is better to me than to have a cool camera (Leica M3) with lenses, accessories, etc. that I need and have it produce the image I am looking for at the press of the shutter release button. I drop off the film. Pick up my negs. Tell my lab guy which enlargement of what I want. Pick it up when it is ready. All is right with the world.:angel:

No computer for me.

Even with the D40, I rarely use PP. No computer for me.

Professionally, using the larger DSLR bodies, I have never had to PP for sports photography, magazine coverage of races, shows, events or other. My mentors taught me to get the image right the first time and I guess it pays off now since I have to stay away from a keyboard. Even now, my left arm tingles and hurts after a few posts and I have to let it hang down straight for awhile. Forums take up way too much time as it is.

 

[dave lackey]

I have pictures from this place too. I was there just last year.

Cool! Small world isn't it? Shoulda been here in the mid 90's when the hurricane stalled over Georgia (forget which one) but the whole state was flooded and there is an image at the County offices that show the flooding just above the sill of the first floor window! How it held up is beyond me...

 

[nobbylon]

I agree with you on doing no or in my case as little post as necessary to achieve the look I want.
The fact is that I like using my DSLR and can achieve pretty much the look of my M cameras with it when I want them to look like that.
Does it matter what it's taken with if we enjoy the output?

 

[dave lackey]

Now, if we want to get really funky (and I doubt that Photoshop can do this but never tried it), take the lens characteristics of certain lenses and you get this...no post-processing again:

 

[hteasley]

The real question: what did you have at the Greasy V? Haven't been there in decades....