M8 or Zeiss Ikon?

B

bene

Established
Local time
8:24 PM
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
162
Hi was considering a used m8 since a zeiss ikon and a scanner cost just as much.
I am still learning so digital is cheaper.
But the question is how accurate the M8? effective baseline?
and how much a problem is the frameline? 8.2 is out of my reach
 
My opinion is that with film you learn more, because you don't think every click is for free.

And with slide film, even if you shoot less, you learn more because there's no second (printing) process to change your originals. You also HAVE originals. You can check them as many times as you want: you'll see you learn more then... Like listening to good music, you can't get it all the first time...

Apart, if you insist and you want a digital camera, an M8 is not what you need for learning... Get a Nikon D40 and the new 35 1.8, but you'd better forget it and go film.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
My opinion is that with film you learn more, because you don't think every click is for free.

And with slide film, even if you shoot less, you learn more because there's no second (printing) process to change your originals. You also HAVE originals. You can check them as many times as you want: you'll see you learn more then... Like listening to good music, you can't get it all the first time...

Apart, if you insist and you want a digital camera, an M8 is not what you need for learning... Get a Nikon D40 and the new 35 1.8, but you'd better forget it and go film.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I think I have to disagree here. The learning curve with digital is far faster beacause you can see what your settings do for each shot. You can try, fail, try again and succeed all the time. With film, the time between trying and lesson learned is too long to get the same impact.
 
ulrikft said:
I think I have to disagree here. The learning curve with digital is far faster beacause you can see what your settings do for each shot. You can try, fail, try again and succeed all the time. With film, the time between trying and lesson learned is too long to get the same impact.
Click to expand...

That, precisely, is the trap.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Think of it this way: you want to learn 36 completely different things, you shoot a roll of slide film and pick it up the next day. From that day on, you can check and really learn, without depending on printing, monitor calibration or ridiculous and tiny camera screens.

With digital you shoot, delete, and try again, as you said. You just cannot have originals, I mean real ones, you get forever no more than representations...

I'm afraid you were not talking about learning curve really, but about shooting and trying again curve. As that curve is minimal with slide film, you learn.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Double Negative has both cameras and in general his advice is OK, although a bit expensive... Several thousands for GAS just before starting to learn... Apart, if the person is new to photography, the two systems at the same time may lead to some points of confusion...

Cheers,

Juan
 
The effective baseline and framing will not be a major obstacle anyway. You better ask yourself a question, if you want to shoot colour or B&W, in the second case digital is useless.
 
Back to the TO's question:
the M8's baseline is accurate enough for my 1.5/50 Nokton.
Frameline (in)accuracy has not bothered me, yet.

Cheers,
Uwe
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Think of it this way: you want to learn 36 completely different things, you shoot a roll of slide film and pick it up the next day. From that day on, you can check and really learn, without depending on printing, monitor calibration or ridiculous and tiny camera screens.

With digital you shoot, delete, and try again, as you said. You just cannot have originals, I mean real ones, you get forever no more than representations...

I'm afraid you were not talking about learning curve really, but about shooting and trying again curve. As that curve is minimal with slide film, you learn.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I just plainly disagree. I have been the leader of a student photoclub and a board member for quite some time, and I've seen several people trying both ways into photography. The playfulness and the ability to learn on the spot makes digital a far better tool to learn the intricacies of aperture, iso, shutterspeed and other features. The religious "I love film and digital is just representation, not originals"-speech is not really my cup of tea. A picture is a picture, wether or not you record it on glass plates, film or digital sensors and memory cards, the distinction between analogue and digital is artificial imo.

With a digital camera, you can see how light works right away, you don't have to try to remember how a scene looked, how you visualized it and how it actually turned out, weeks or months later. You can take a picture, look at it, take a new picture with other settings, and realize how those changes made the picture look.
 
ulrikft said:
I just plainly disagree. I have been the leader of a student photoclub and a board member for quite some time, and I've seen several people trying both ways into photography. The playfulness and the ability to learn on the spot makes digital a far better tool to learn the intricacies of aperture, iso, shutterspeed and other features. The religious "I love film and digital is just representation, not originals"-speech is not really my cup of tea. A picture is a picture, wether or not you record it on glass plates, film or digital sensors and memory cards, the distinction between analogue and digital is artificial imo.

With a digital camera, you can see how light works right away, you don't have to try to remember how a scene looked, how you visualized it and how it actually turned out, weeks or months later. You can take a picture, look at it, take a new picture with other settings, and realize how those changes made the picture look.
Click to expand...

I have been a photographer shooting with Nikon and developing since I was 12. I have a seven year career in photography and specialized in fashion, architecture and interiors, and product. I work professionally in several fields with all formats of my own, including LF, MF, 35mm and digital. I have also been a photography teacher. Understanding aperture and those things takes a few minutes. Understanding light, composition, tonal range, etc, is a lot more important. Digital photography is making a lot of bad shooters, and that is not precisely a problem for film-learned shooters.

You have your opinion, OK.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I have been a photographer shooting with Nikon and developing since I was 12. I have a seven year career in photography and specialized in fashion, architecture and interiors, and product. I work professionally in several fields with all formats of my own, including LF, MF, 35mm and digital. I have also been a photography teacher. Understanding aperture and those things takes a few minutes. Understanding light, composition, tonal range, etc, is a lot more important. Digital photography is making a lot of bad shooters, and that is not precisely a problem for film-learned shooters.

You have your opinion, OK.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

No, just no. Anyone that truly and really wants to learn anything is going to learn it no matter what system they choose to start with. Starting with film is not going to force someone to learn anything. The option is there, but they must take the step on their own. I feel that starting out with digital will allow people to be less discouraged and give them the possible encouragement to learn more, but once again, they must take that step on their own. The medium is not going to force them to do a darn thing.

This backwards stubborn idea of film being the only way to learn is so old and tiresome.

There were plenty of horrible film shooters back in the film day, and there are plenty of horrible digital shooters now. Hell many of each frequent these very boards. Simply put no matter the medium if somebody is set on mastering their craft and tecnique they are going to.

Edit: Some of the best shooters on this board are from the Digital Generation and are producing images leaps and bounds beyond the "technical engineery type" that hold onto this absurd film ideal and lack the ability to create breathtaking images. But by God that shot of a lightpost sure does have a good tonal range doesn't it!!?


Please.
 
Last edited:
@Bene: Why M8? There are a lot cheaper tools for learning. You have too much money and don't know where to spend to?

@Juan & Ulrikft: Here's not for another war of 'to film or not to film', right? The idea of using film just like listening the music is very interesting. I agreed that we need time (lot of time) and works to LOVE film.
 
tcline said:
No, just no. Anyone that truly and really wants to learn anything is going to learn it no matter what system they choose to start with. Starting with film is not going to force someone to learn anything. The option is there, but they must take the step on their own. I feel that starting out with digital will allow people to be less discouraged and give them the possible encouragement to learn more, but once again, they must take that step on their own. The medium is not going to force them to do a darn thing.

This backwards stubborn idea of film being the only way to learn is so old and tiresome.

There were plenty of horrible film shooters back in the film day, and there are plenty of horrible digital shooters now. Hell many of each frequent these very boards. Simply put no matter the medium if somebody is set on mastering their craft and tecnique they are going to.

Edit: Some of the best shooters on this board are from the Digital Generation and are producing images leaps and bounds beyond the "technical engineery type" that hold onto this absurd film ideal and lack the ability to create breathtaking images. But by God that shot of a lightpost sure does have a good tonal range doesn't it!!?


Please.
Click to expand...

I'll just ask you for one thing, please: don't write on a public place like this, that I have said things I haven't. I never said digital cameras "lack the ability to create breathtaking images"... That's your little personal story and you are the only one who needed to take that out from inside your personal worries. I respect your opinion and everyone's, but first read again what I said, or learn to read,,, Looks like you learned to read, well... digitally. :)

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
With digital you shoot, delete, and try again, as you said.
Click to expand...

Why do you do that? I don't. I prefer to think first, then shoot. Just because there's an LCD on the camera, you don't HAVE to use it. On the other hand, I'd never been the photographer I am today if I'd started out with film.

Chimping with an M8 is just an awful pain, since it takes several seconds for writing to the card and several more seconds to zoom in for confirming sharpness or such. So it forces you to use it like it was loaded with film, but you still have the possibility to confirm critical shots. But you'll have to wait quite a while.
 
Makten said:
Why do you do that? I don't. I prefer to think first, then shoot. Just because there's an LCD on the camera, you don't HAVE to use it. On the other hand, I'd never been the photographer I am today if I'd started out with film.

Chimping with an M8 is just an awful pain, since it takes several seconds for writing to the card and several more seconds to zoom in for confirming sharpness or such. So it forces you to use it like it was loaded with film, but you still have the possibility to confirm critical shots. But you'll have to wait quite a while.
Click to expand...

Another one,,, I don't do that, of course. I wrote "you..." That doesn't mean "myself"... But really, this discussion won't go on and on, at least from me... Bye :p
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Another one,,, I don't do that, of course. I wrote "you..." That doesn't mean "myself"... But really, this discussion won't go on and on, at least from me... Bye :p
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. If you don't, why do you think everyone else would? :rolleyes:

Uwe_Nds said:
Proof, please.

Cheers,
Uwe
Click to expand...

Probably impossible since it was all about prints.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom