Money Aside: M9 or M-X & Best Scanner

Money Aside: M9 or M-X & Best Scanner

  • Total voters
    500
I didn't vote because "Leica film body and wet printing in the darkroom" is not an option in the poll. For me that's the only way. If I want digital files I use a digital camera but for me the darkroom process gives as much pleasure and satisfaction as the shooting and I get to spend less time looking at a screen and more time doing something hands on and real.
 
sper said:
Yeah the reality of working with film is part of my question. So is the reality of working with digital. I'm not asking which has better image quality, they're both different and I don't want to have that discussion.

I basically want to know how people would prefer to work.
Click to expand...

Well, I work both ways right now (Ms with film and good scanners) and an M9.

I'm not sure you're even saying "if I had to choose." If I had to choose I would limit myself to the M9. However, I enjoy working with film and still do that. I don't find the film workflow too onerous now that I do only digital printing. From black and white negatives I get very high-speed moderate res scans, one way or the other, for previews. Then I do a very good scan of a negative I want to print.

I thought when I got the M9 that my film shooting would drop off more precipitously, but that has not happened. I admit that part of it is just the cameras--I still enjoy my M6TTL, Hexar AF, and Nikon S.

Film is still important to me when I am not venturing far. When I travel I take digital equipment.
 
M9 is obviously a nice camera, but I just prefer the film. I would go with a film M and Nikon Coolscan 5000. It gives the same quality as Imacon, but is easier to use nad MUCH cheaper. I have got scans made with both Imacon X5 and Coolscan 5000/9000 and the results were VERY similar both in detail and dynamic range.

But if the camera chosen would be complemented by a MF film camera I would probably got with the M9 for the convenience.
 
Personally I would go for the M9 because as much as I love film, especially the black and white, I am fed up with processing and scanning and all that.
 
So far my vote would would have always been 100% film M (I already have M7 + M4-P) + scanner (I have the Coolscan 4000ED + V700) but a recent short trip where I used 5 rolls of Provia400X (135-36), one of my favorite color-slide films, made me thinking.... ~ US$ 90 for the five rolls + developing... 😱

The M9 is tempting for color work but for BW I will stick with film for sure (given the choices).
 
Cost isn't an option and I use two M7's, mostly K64 and Nikon 5000.
Files are sent to Mpix which does a nice job.
I spent far too many hours in a darkroom to go back but am not yet ready to give up film because the next decision to go Digital involves whether to go FX or MX format and in any event it will be costly, so its film for now.-Dick
 
I have over few hundred rolls of K14, E6 and BW films, only small portion of them I scanned it few years ago. So a M9 would be nice but I dread there will be a M10 when I save just enough for a M9.
 
I voted - Leica film body and flatbed scanner.
Because I do have access to a darkroom. My workflow is this:-
Shoot Film.
Procees film.
Make wet proofsheets - file and archive (I have negs going back to 1970's)
Do a quick scan on the Epson V700 for internet useage. (35mm & MF)
Make wet darkroom prints as needed.
I don't have a digital printer.
I don't trust digital backups and although I do that it's an insurance policy if I ever lose my negs.
Just my opinion - it depends on your desired output, ie, whether you print digital or analogue that determines my decision. I am hooked on film and believe you cannot replicate that on digital.
 
Last edited:
So far 72% of you would take a film-to-digital workflow over a purely digital one. I find that very interesting.
 
Shooting film and scanning are in many ways the best of both worlds. Even using low-res Wal-Mart scans, I still get negs that I can scan at home with my Nikon Coolscan 5000 or print in a wet darkroom. Saying money is no object is kind of silly because money is always a factor. However, I still believe that shooting film with the Leica M system is great value, balancing quality with cost/time.



Taken with Leica M6 and 50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0 on Ektar 100, scanned at Superstore post-processed at home.
 
Last edited:
BTMarcais said:
I'm probably not the only one who's going to bring this up... but I shoot mainly B/W, and prefer to do my printing in the darkroom. Scanning is something I really do only for web use at this point.
So my vote would be: Film body and a wet darkroom setup.

-Brian
Click to expand...

Ditto. Since I scan only for the web and do not print digitally, there is nothing to be gained by spending a lot of extra dough on am imacon. My benefactor can pass on the dough he would've spent on me to a charity in Haiti etc.. 😉
 
If it's for black and white, then M film body and wet prints for me.

OK, I do scan negs on my Minolta 5400 and print mono on my Epson 3800, but it just ain't the same - in fact nowhere near. My wife (who is not a photographer) says that the dry prints from the 3800 look 'flat' compared to the same negative wet printed. That's a telling comment from someone who doesn't take much interest in what I do, but someone appreciates art.

So, I'm voting M film plus Imacon (fab scanner by the way; I use one at my hospital).
 
I'm satisfied with M7 + 5000 ed. As amatuer I like processing myself B&W , having slides processed by a lab. Scanning takes time, but I learn that if meantime listen to some good music it can even be relaxing...I do not need to have everything done in a short time ! But sometimes I would like to be able to see some of my pictures without having to finish a 36 exposure film, maybe if I try an m9 I could change idea...maybe...
robert
 
If resolution is an issue, then the M9 is the best alternative. Compared the digital M9 with a MF camera & scanner and the competition would have been 'a draw'. Scanned MF produces a result comparable to M9. At 100/160ISO, that is. At higher ISO settings the M9 is far better than any 400ISO MF film. Scanned 135 film has been passed by quite simple digital cameras several years ago and is no longer competitive.

Then there is the issue of stripes and dust of film & post processing - and sensor dust & post processing of M9 files. Even here, I would prefer the M9.

I still have my Nikon 8000 ED with which I scan a MF film, but seldom a 135 film. It is not up to it anymore.
 
Wet prints are best but it is very expensive because its not one print but many ,just to get things as you want.Scanning with my minolta 5400 mk1 has been a revelation,pun intended.I can now print exactly as I always wanted to.To be honest ,at the moment that out weighs the satisfaction of a wetprint.So I vote for the imacon but with the idea of in the future a print size interneg to contact print wet prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom