noimmunity
scratch my niche
Ummm, I'd give that a second thought. I've lived and backpacked (we're talking high alpine country, right?) in Taiwan for 27 years, and you definitely have to be prepared for massive downpours and extremely wet conditions. I wouldn't suggest taking the M8 into the backcountry in Taiwan.
Good luck with your photos, and have fun in Taiwan!
Merkin
For the Weekend
Old film cameras are better to learn on, but it is not because of the film, in my opinion. It is because you have no choice but to use manual controls. Learning manual control of any camera, be it film or digital, is, in my opinion, the best way to rapidly improve as a photographer. Granted, once that rapid stage of improvement is past, it takes longer to develop a good eye, but this discussion is about learning with equipment, not learning with the eye. If a person has the discipline to put a digital camera in full manual mode and keep it there at all times, a digital camera is a just as good, if not better, tool for learning. I am a bit fuzzy on bene's level of experience, but spending 500 bucks on a D40 and a 35mm f1.8, as previously mentioned, would be a good starting place IF bene can manage to keep it on full manual all the time, even manual ISO. I would think that, starting out, auto white balance would be ok though. The important thing is getting an intuitive grasp of apertures, shutter speeds, isos, the relationships between them, as well as things like reading light meters, manual focus, etc. Bene, good pictures can be made with nearly any camera, and bad pictures can be made with any camera, bar none. Before you go shelling out significant loot on an m camera and m lenses, regardless of manufacturer, pick up something like a d40, or a pentax k1000, or a fixed lens rangefinder. Something with a reasonably fast normal prime lens, like 35mm on a crop sensor digital, or something between 35mm and 50 mm on a film camera. Until you can get the best out of a camera like that, you won't be getting your money's worth out of an M8 or ZI.
As to digital black and white, it is making leaps and bounds. All of the black and white on the first 8 or so pages of my flickr page linked in my sig is digital, processed with silver efex pro. I am thrilled with the results. I have a couple issues with some stairstepping in a few of them, but that is because aperture 2 doesn't play nicely with compressed .nef raw files.
Arguments for film can certainly still be made, and they are still certainly quite valid, but the arguments are getting steadily weaker. On the other hand, I think the M8 is a pretty lousy camera. My answer to the question of M8 vs. ZI is neither. Get something more basic and inexpensive, keep it in full manual for every shot every day for a couple years, and then score an M9 when you have saved up the money, if you feel you still want an M camera.
As to digital black and white, it is making leaps and bounds. All of the black and white on the first 8 or so pages of my flickr page linked in my sig is digital, processed with silver efex pro. I am thrilled with the results. I have a couple issues with some stairstepping in a few of them, but that is because aperture 2 doesn't play nicely with compressed .nef raw files.
Arguments for film can certainly still be made, and they are still certainly quite valid, but the arguments are getting steadily weaker. On the other hand, I think the M8 is a pretty lousy camera. My answer to the question of M8 vs. ZI is neither. Get something more basic and inexpensive, keep it in full manual for every shot every day for a couple years, and then score an M9 when you have saved up the money, if you feel you still want an M camera.
Roger Warren
AddlepatedWight
Skip out on the Zeiss and get an M6ttl. You will not regret having a superior machine.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
fleetwoodjazz
Established
Ultimately it is the process and the look that should be the deciding factor. For the look, I have never use a scientific approach to taking photos and I prefer to be free with ideas or results. Obviously I don't like over doing that end up in a far in-natural results. It's true that digital is more accurate but it is also strictly true with digital that we are seeing a lot of weirdo looking photographs due to over-processing.
As for the process, one should decide on either a contemplative or a selection approach. For film you contemplate more, for digital you simply shoot and select the photos you would like to keep. Of course, you could always think before shooting your digital camera, but please agree that only a minority of us is doing that.
For the OP, it maybe a difficult choice but for me, the choice is rather obvious.
Last edited:
ashrafazlan
Established
How is it superior? From the specs i've seen the ikon seems to be better?
sojournerphoto
Veteran
1. Oh yes, there's some wild coloured digitally originated stuff out there
And I agree that accurate colour is not encessarily what we want. The point was simply that to say that film is more accurate is inaccurate. If you have time, patience and the necessary skills digital can be made to render colour in all sorts of ways - some even looking like your favourite film. There are other reasons to use film of course, that a perfectly valid (and I have shot more film than digital in the last year).2. I don't shoot much more with my digital camera than with film. It helps that I've learnt that a full hard drive takes a lot of sorting out and making selectiions form large numbers of pictures is not my preferred activity.
3. The choice is individual. The key, as you said, is to think about what you're doing and look at what you've done. The latter is harder if you take hundereds of pictures in a day, whatever medium.
Mike
sojournerphoto
Veteran
It's standard bait. I tried an M6 the other week and it's a very nice camera. I could happily live with one. The viewfinder isn't as good as the Ikon's. It's just a choice and we all choose what we believe is better for us.
Mike