Money Aside: M9 or M-X & Best Scanner

[sper]

What would you rather have: an M9 OR whatever M film body and which ever scanner you wouild like. This could be a Nikon 5000, 9000, or Hasselblad X5, whatever works with your workflow. Assume as if either were a gift to you. The cost is no object.

The question is basically would you opt to shoot digital if you could shoot film and still get the best possible digital files. Think within todays scanner limitations, in terms of possible image quality.

 

[filmfan]

Subjective.
Depends on the look you prefer and if you are willing to go through the "hassle" of developing or having film developed for you and also doing the scanning...
Personally I enjoy both developing my film and scanning. I also prefer the look of film. Others dislike all of the above...
It's not as easy as "which has the best image quality"

 

[Jager]

Me, it'd be the M9, no question. Simply because the scanning workflow is so tortuously slow, even with an Imacon.

But if money were no object, I can't imagine making the choice at all. Buy an M9, whichever film M floats your boat, and that Imacon.

Then you're truly set...

 

[sper]

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.

 

[filmfan]

...in terms of possible image quality.

I'm not asking which has better image quality...

I guess I misunderstood.

 

[BTMarcais]

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

 

[sper]

Okay nitpickers: The reality of scanning dictates a degridation of the quality of the original negative or positive, like making an internegative (or even a print). I know scans from an immacon are better than those from my V700. I'm not asking if a scan is better than an M9 file objectively. I'm asking if you could have the best posible scan you wanted, or an M9 file, which would you opt for.

 

[fbf]

If i only use 35mm film, then 5000ed (with roll adapter) for sure.
I would probably choose m9 if I shoot a lot but as for now, MP/M7 with the 5000ed gets my vote.

 

[sper]

I personally voted for a film body and an immacon scanner.

I would love an M7 and high res scans made from films like Tri-X and E-100G. The M9 is amazing but I would miss archiving film and darkroom printing, though a digital file is a must for me too now.

I plan to BUY a M4-P or M6 (depending on the price) to augment my Bessa R4a and Coolscan V. But I can dream big!

 

[photogdave]

I'm not sure if the Imacon is better than Nikon, but let's assume it is and I'll vote film body and Imacon scanner.
The M9 is fabulous but it still can't shoot color slide film! I don't mind scanning either. I find it less tedious than looking through hundreds of thumbnail images of digital files.

 

[Mcary]

What would you rather have: an M9 OR whatever M film body and which ever scanner you wouild like. This could be a Nikon 5000, 9000, or Hasselblad X5, whatever works with your workflow. Assume as if either were a gift to you. The cost is no object.

Since cost is no object I'd go with the M film body and the Hasselblad XS. That being said the M wouldn't get much use as I'd mostly use the XS to scan MF 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

Any film body (35mm or 120) and a good C41/E6 lab with a properly setup Noritsu QSS scanner. One such lab is ncps.

 

[Nikon Bob]

The M9 option for me. If your end result is a digital file from film via scanning then why bother with that part of the work flow, just go straight to digital with the M9.

Bob

 

[Andy Kibber]

Film! No, digital!

Digital! No, film!

🙂

 

[kxl]

Money aside, i would shoot Scala or another B&W supported by the Dr5 process and for color, strictly shoot slides, then have all of them scanned into large tif files by a pro shop like A&I.

 

[drew.saunders]

Since I already have a CS9000 for 35mm/MF, and a flatbed for 4x5, I'd take the free M9, and write a very nice thank-you note!

If the choice were to give up the CS9000 for an M9, or take an M7 and give up my M6TTL, I'd take the M7 and keep the scanner.

 

[imokruok]

Any film body (35mm or 120) and a good C41/E6 lab with a properly setup Noritsu QSS scanner. One such lab is ncps.

Ha...you beat me to it. My thoughts exactly.

 

[filmfan]

The M9 option for me. If your end result is a digital file from film via scanning then why bother with that part of the work flow, just go straight to digital with the M9.

Bob

I hope you don't really mean this, for the differences are dramatic.

 

[MaxElmar]

For me, the only reason to use film is aesthetic. I enjoy, and often prefer the aesthetic of film for a lot of my personal work so I still use it. However, my job requires digital files as an end product, so in that context I'm strictly digital.

As far as scanning is concerned, the cost of the scanner (even a good one) is negligible compared to the time and skill required to consistently produce professional quality (and quantity) scans.

 

[former member]

Get an M3 and an M9, get a slide duplicator for the M9 and use it as a scanner.