M9 and Fujica GSW690III compared

[C_R]

Guys, you got me. I forgot the sensor dirt...

 

[divewizard]

I think the bottom one is the Fuji/Velvia because of the redder reds and higher detail resolution.

 

[Steve_F]

I think the top one is Velvia. A far comparison would be for both to be printed at 36" x 24", but the Velvia to go through an enlarger, as it should be - a Cibachrome as opposed to it being synthesized via a scanner. That way you would see its true potential.
I feel if you had a print of this size from Velvia you would be able to tell if the person on the horse was a man or woman.

Steve.

 

[C_R]

Steve, you are right, it is apples and oranges. Just a comparison what I would get with my usual workflow. The limit is possibly the scanning, but a 3200 dpi Imacon scan is not bad.

Original size crop of No 1

and of No 2 (upsized. Yes, the No 2 is the M9 file) for comparison

 

[Ian Humphrey]

I agree with Steve but i think the person on the horse is a man because a woman would be wearing a head scarf

 

[250swb]

It seems to me that if you put an overly colour saturated mushy grain filter over the M9 shot you would have something that looks very similar to the Velvia result. I'm not sure what 'natural' has to do with Velvia, but scanning film grain has never struck me as an aspect of reality, grain is an aspect of the film, not the reality of the landscape.

Steve

 

[filmfan]

#2 is digital. It is easy when you look at the outline of the mountain ridge against the sky.

 

[sevo]

It is easy when you look at the outline of the mountain ridge against the sky.

I only see a slight change in lighting there - there is a seam of lighter, brighter cloud (might be the back-lit edge of the cloud) between the low, dark cloud and the ridge in #2 which is only present on a few edges in #1.

 

[bobbyrab]

The first one is more film like to my eye, and closer to how that scene over those sort of distances looks when viewed for real, but it might simply be lowering the contrast slightly on the second shot would achieve a similar look, it was the contrast which to me shows the digital file, though it has to be said I think it's very close, you have to be impressed with the M9.

 

[Rob-F]

The first one is more film like to my eye, and closer to how that scene over those sort of distances looks when viewed for real, but it might simply be lowering the contrast slightly on the second shot would achieve a similar look, it was the contrast which to me shows the digital file, though it has to be said I think it's very close, you have to be impressed with the M9.

That was my impression also. #1 film, #2 digital.

 

[johannielscom]

Top one is the scan. The bottom one is a wee bit overexposed and that is a Leica dRF signature if ever there was one.

Impresseve though. I gotta go out and find me a Fuji! 😀

 

[StuartR]

This echoes well with my experience -- I shoot the M9 as well as lots of medium format film and the results mesh together well. I just printed an exhibition of landscapes that I shot with 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 and the M9. I could print the M9 files to about 17x22 before the digital-ness set in (mostly aliasing and moire in fine detail like grasses and water), but the color is the most film like out of the box than any other digital I have worked with. I have owned a lot of digital cams myself, and I own a custom printing lab, so I see a lot...
I did several shots on 4x5 EPN as well as the M9, and after some basic white balancing, the results looked startlingly similar. EPN was always regarded as the most color-accurate film, so to have the M9 match it so well was really interesting. This is not just me either, I had two other professional photographers who mentioned the same thing upon seeing the slide on the light table and the M9 version in lightroom.

I still can print larger from film since it decays more naturally -- it just gets gradually softer, whereas digital tends to start showing aliasing, moire, visible sharpening artifacts, rougher tonal transitions, color noise etc etc. These can all be greatly diminished in post, but at a certain point the files just start to look unnatural, where film just starts to look a bit soft and mushy, but still natural. And of course, 6x6 to 6x7 and larger still has a bit more fine detail than the M9, so consequently you can go quite large without a problem. The largest images in the exhibition I did were 1 meter square (40x40in), and they look superb.

What I take away from this, however, is not "film is still superior" or "digital is more practical", but that both are fantastic mediums to work in if you take the time and care to learn how to use them correctly. The M9 is the first camera for me that allows me to forget about the digitalness of the image and just focus on the photography -- the files mostly look like the color shots I used to make, and the shooting experience is just like the classic film rangefinders that I love using. It's great!

So thanks very much for the comparison, because it is good to see someone else having a similar experience...

 

[raid]

Guesses are all over the place. A posted image has been digitized, so in the end, we see two digital images anyways.

 

[C_R]

Stuart, thank you for your thoughts. This comparison was primarily because I wondered to keep my 6x9 or not. I have some Pan F plus shots, that let me keep shooting film. You are absolutely right that the M9 has the most film-like character. After viewing my first shots one year ago I sold my 5D 🙂